Changes

The interpretive conflict regarding [[homosexuality and the Bible]] is a relatively recent one, between two fundamentally different positions.<ref>A. J. Gagnon, The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"</ref> Those who hold most strongly to the traditional position see the issue of homosex (also referred to as homoeroticism)<ref> homosexual erotic activity; same gender sexual relations</ref> being dealt with as part of the laws and doctrines on sexual partners which are universally and directly applicable in all cultural contexts from the time they were given. And in which the Bible establishes and consistently confirms that only the women was made for man (1Cor. 11:9), as his uniquely compatible and complementary paracletal "helpmeet," which no other physical creation could fulfill, with purposefully created complementary physical and positional distinctions which preclude fulfillment by same gender marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:1-12). And which sexual union God explicitly sanctioned by establishing marriage for (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 6:31), which is never established for same gender unions. But that such are excluded by design and by decrees, with gender unions being only condemned in places where they are explicitly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 23:13; Rm. 1:26,27)<ref>[http://www.neednotfret.com/content/view/124/89/ THE OLD TESTAMENT AND HOMOSEXUALITY, by Kevin L. Howard]</ref>  In contrast, proponents of homosex and [[same-sex marriage]] render these laws and principals as being culturally or contextually bound, and perceive homoeroticism within close same gender relationships, such as between David and Jonathan. (1Sam. 18; 2Sam. 1) Many within the former camp see the revisionism of prohomosex polemicists as a manifestation of the attempts made from the beginning (Gn. 3:1-5) to both negate what God has commanded in the [[Bible]], as well as to otherwise drastically misconstrue it's meanings, often by  sophisticated forms of sophistry, while those within the latter camp often charge the former with ignorance, and being motivated by [[homophobia]].   

The interpretive conflict regarding [[homosexuality and the Bible]] is a relatively recent one, between two fundamentally different positions.<ref>A. J. Gagnon, The Authority of Scripture in the 'Homosex' Debate"</ref> Those who hold most strongly to the traditional position see the issue of homosex<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net, Why use the word "homosex"]</ref> (also referred to as homoeroticism as denoting same gender sexual relations</ref> being dealt with as part of the Biblical laws and doctrines on sexual partners which are universally and directly applicable in all cultural contexts from the time they were given. This position evidences that the Bible establishes and consistently confirms that only the women was made for man (1Cor. 11:9), as his uniquely compatible and complementary "helpmeet," which no other physical creation could fulfill, with purposefully created complementary physical as well as positional distinctions which preclude fulfillment by same gender marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:1-12). And that it is this which sexual union God explicitly sanctioned by establishing marriage for (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 6:31), which is never established for same gender unions. In contrast, it is seen that such are excluded by design and by decrees, with gender unions being only condemned in places wherever they are explicitly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 23:13; Rm. 1:26,27)<ref>[http://www.neednotfret.com/content/view/124/89/ THE OLD TESTAMENT AND HOMOSEXUALITY, by Kevin L. Howard]</ref>   

 

In contrast to the traditional position, proponents of homosex and [[same-sex marriage]] render these laws and principals as being culturally bound or contextually limited, and reject any universal aplication, while usually perceiving homoeroticism within close same gender relationships, such as between David and Jonathan.  

 

Many within the former camp see the revisionism of prohomosex proponents as a manifestation of the attempts made from the beginning (Gn. 3:1-5) to both negate what God has commanded in the [[Bible]], as well as to otherwise drastically misconstrue it's meanings, often by  sophisticated forms of sophistry, while those within the latter camp often charge the former with ignorance, and being motivated by [[homophobia]].   

== Foundational Issues ==

== Foundational Issues ==

The study of homosexual apologetics progressively evidences that its revisionist school overall operates out a radically different exegetical basis than which enduring historical Biblical scholarship has evidenced as a whole, and which sees such revisionism as foundationally destructive (Psa 11:2-3). Alex D. Montoya<ref>Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries at The Masters Seminary</ref> prefaces his essay on the subject at hand by stating,   

The study of homosexual [[apologetics]] progressively evidences that its revisionist school overall operates out a radically different exegetical basis than which enduring historical Biblical scholarship has evidenced as a whole, and which sees such revisionism as foundationally destructive (Psa 11:2-3). Alex D. Montoya<ref>Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries at The Masters Seminary</ref> prefaces his essay on the subject at hand by stating,   

“Developments in the secular society in its acceptance of the [[homosexual lifestyle]] have put pressure on the [[evangelical]] church to respond in  some way. [[Homosexual]] spokespersons have advocated varying principles of interpretation to prove from the Bible the legitimacy of their lifestyle.  They have resorted to either subjectivism, historic-scientific evolving of society, or cultural biases of the Biblical writers to find biblical backing for their position.  Scripture condemns homosexuality is such passages as Genesis 19; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; 2 Pet 2:7; and Jude 7.  The true biblical teaching on the subject requires the church to condemn the sin of homosexuality, convert the homosexual, confront erroneous teaching, and cleanse itself.  The church must be careful not to adopt the customs of the world.”<ref>The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000), Homosexuality and the church,</ref>  

“Developments in the secular society in its acceptance of the [[homosexual lifestyle]] have put pressure on the [[evangelical]] church to respond in  some way. [[Homosexual]] spokespersons have advocated varying principles of interpretation to prove from the Bible the legitimacy of their lifestyle.  They have resorted to either subjectivism, historic-scientific evolving of society, or cultural biases of the Biblical writers to find biblical backing for their position.  Scripture condemns homosexuality is such passages as Genesis 19; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; 2 Pet 2:7; and Jude 7.  The true biblical teaching on the subject requires the church to condemn the sin of homosexuality, convert the homosexual, confront erroneous teaching, and cleanse itself.  The church must be careful not to adopt the customs of the world.”<ref>The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000), Homosexuality and the church,</ref>  

Those who hold to the traditional position of unconditional prohibition of homoeroticism usually work from a strong adherence to the theological foundation of Biblical infallibility, in which God, as the author of [[Holy Scripture]], made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, especially as concerning basic doctrines and laws for attitude and behavior. This position holds that proper exegesis requires the use of proven rules of interpretation ([[hermeneutics]]), and that such confirms the transcendent relevancy of the Bible, and that it's [[moral]] laws are immutable. Rather than every man doing that which is right according to his judgment, (Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6) man is to be subject to the holy, just and good laws of God, (Rm. 7:12) which are to His benefit when obeyed, and to man's detriment when forsaken. (Dt. 28) In so seeking to live by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) it becomes evident that a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis is required, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives, in particular, are disallowed. In addition, historically Christian theologians have overall seen the laws of God manifested as within different categories, basically those of immutable transcendent laws, out of which cultural applications are made, and ceremonial laws, which were typological of Christ and His working under the New Covenant. (Colosians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:10)<ref>The Authority Of God's Law Today, Greg L. Bahnsen</ref>   

Those who hold to the traditional position of unconditional prohibition of homoeroticism usually work from a strong adherence to the theological foundation of Biblical infallibility, in which God, as the author of [[Holy Scripture]], made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, especially as concerning basic doctrines and laws for attitude and behavior. This position holds that proper exegesis requires the use of proven rules of interpretation ([[hermeneutics]]), and that such confirms the transcendent relevancy of the Bible, and that it's [[moral]] laws are immutable. Rather than every man doing that which is right according to his judgment, (Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6) man is to be subject to the holy, just and good laws of God, (Rm. 7:12) which are to His benefit when obeyed, and to man's detriment when forsaken. (Dt. 28) In so seeking to live by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) it becomes evident that a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis is required, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives, in particular, are disallowed. In addition, historically Christian theologians have overall seen the laws of God manifested as within different categories, basically those of immutable transcendent laws, out of which cultural applications are made, and ceremonial laws, which were typological of Christ and His working under the New Covenant. (Colosians 2:16,17; Hebrews 9:10)<ref>The Authority Of God's Law Today, Greg L. Bahnsen</ref>   

As relates to homosexuality, and in particular homoerotic relations, consistent with the [[conservative]] position that God  made basic doctrines and laws for human behavior evident and to be obeyed, the laws and principals concerning human sexual partners are seen as universal and transcendent. In examining such they are able to abundantly and consistently evidence that from the beginning all sexual relations outside marriage were and are categorized as fornication (1Cor. 7:2). And as regards homosexuality, that the explicit sanction of '''heterosexual''' relations by marriage stands in contrast to the lack of any establishment for such sanction between '''homosexuals'''. This conspicuous absence is not found to be constrained by cultural considerations, but rather is due to homosexual relations being foundationally contrary to God's design and decrees, in which only the women was created from man and for man, in order to make man sexually complete, being uniquely complementary and compatible to that end, and is alone sexually joined to him in marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6 1 Cor. 11:8-9). In addition, in the places where homoerotic relations are explicitly dealt with, it is only condemned, with these injunctions being universal in scope not simply applicable to certain cultural conditions or behavioral conditions.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon]</ref><ref>Straight or Narrow? Sexuality from the Beginning, Thomas E.Schmidt</ref>  As evangelical Bible scholar [[Greg Bahnsen]] stated, "God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion."<ref>Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.</ref> Calvin Smith objectively concludes, "the  weak revisionist exegetical arguments, together with far more convincing traditionalist rebuttals,  have  led me  to  affirm  the  traditional  view more firmly than ever.<ref>CONCLUDING REMARKS, Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate</ref>  

As relates to homosexuality, and in particular homoerotic relations, consistent with the [[conservative]] position, the laws and principals concerning human sexual partners are seen as universal and transcendent. In examining such they provide much evidence that from the beginning all sexual relations outside marriage were and are categorized as fornication (1Cor. 7:2). And as regards homosexuality, that the explicit sanction of '''heterosexual''' relations by marriage stands in contrast to the lack of any establishment for such sanction between '''homosexuals'''. This conspicuous absence is not found to be constrained by cultural considerations, but rather is due to homosexual relations being foundationally contrary to God's design and decrees, in which only the women was created from man and for man, in order to make man sexually complete, being uniquely complementary and compatible to that end, and is alone sexually joined to him in marriage (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6 1 Cor. 11:8-9). In addition, in the places where homoerotic relations are explicitly dealt with, it is only condemned, with these injunctions being universal in scope not simply applicable to certain cultural conditions or behavioral conditions.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon]</ref><ref>Straight or Narrow? Sexuality from the Beginning, Thomas E.Schmidt</ref>  As evangelical Bible scholar [[Greg Bahnsen]] stated, "God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion."<ref>Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.</ref> Calvin Smith objectively concludes, "the  weak revisionist exegetical arguments, together with far more convincing traditionalist rebuttals,  have  led me  to  affirm  the  traditional  view more firmly than ever.<ref>CONCLUDING REMARKS, Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate</ref>  

In contrast, those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism in Scripture must view the Bible as a book that allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation, even within historical narratives, and allows a much broader range of interpretation of basic moral commands and their immutability, even to the point of such being determining by contemporary cultural morality. Pastor Joseph P. Gudel notes, "It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God...Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject - or even ridicule - the church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture."<ref>Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, The Authority of Scripture, Christian Research Institute Journal</ref>  While the issue of homosexuality and the Bible does involve certain texts which  necessitate some deep examination, in seeking to negate all injunctions contrary to homoeroticism and to wrest sanction for the same, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists would also effectively work to negate most any moral command, and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Much effort is expended seeking to relegate the universally enjoined Biblical injunctions against homosex to only a formal cultic context, or pederasty, or to heterosexuals acting contrary to the orientation, while forcing homosexuality into most any close heterosexual relationship. Writers of holy writ are sometimes essentially deemed to be too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid, thus impugning the Divine inspiration of Scripture, as well as demonstrable sound exegesis.<ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref>  This effect may be seen as a desired one, and part of the [[homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[homosexual historical revisionism.]]

In contrast, those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism in Scripture view the Bible as a book that allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation, even within historical narratives, and allows a much broader range of interpretation of basic moral commands and their immutability, even to the point of such being determining by contemporary cultural morality. Pastor Joseph P. Gudel notes, "It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God...Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject - or even ridicule - the church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture."<ref>Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, The Authority of Scripture, Christian Research Institute Journal</ref>  While the issue of homosexuality and the Bible does involve certain texts which  necessitate some deep examination, in seeking to negate all injunctions contrary to homoeroticism and to wrest sanction for the same, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists would also effectively work to negate most any moral command, and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Much effort is expended by prohomosex proponents seeking to relegate the universally enjoined Biblical injunctions against homosex to only a formal cultic context, or pederasty, or to heterosexuals acting contrary to the orientation, while forcing homosexuality into most any close heterosexual relationship. Writers of holy writ are sometimes essentially deemed to be too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid, thus impugning the Divine inspiration of Scripture, as well as demonstrable sound exegesis.<ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref>  This effect may be seen as a desired one, and part of the [[homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[homosexual historical revisionism.]]

Primary homosexual apologists, such as Professor Walter Wink, view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic, especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”.  Instead, he and others hold that people possess a right to sex that supercedes Biblical structural requirements for sexual unions, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (contra. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt.4:4)) This requires that the objective immutable moral laws of the Bible must yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (contra. 1Cor. 13:6)<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE Bible (WALTER WINK REFUTED)]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm "No Universally Valid Sex Standards? A Rejoinder to Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexual Practice", Gagnon]</ref> Likewise, pro homosexual author Robin Scroggs concludes, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”<ref>Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) p. 127.</ref> William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality, explicitly denied the inspiration of any anti-homosex passages in the Bible, and their application today. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, advocated removing them from the canon as "dangerous".<ref>http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=7</ref> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman concludes, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . . bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.”<ref>Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988)</ref> This inversion of Biblical morality is evidenced as being contrary to how the Bible was written and reads, and is commanded to be obeyed, with homosex being revealed to be a manifestation of idolatry, that of spiritually making the God of the Bible into an image more to one's own liking. (cf. Rm. 1:23)

Primary homosexual apologists, such as Professor Walter Wink, view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic, especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”.  Instead, he and others hold that people possess a right to sex that supercedes Biblical structural requirements for sexual unions, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (contra. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Mt.4:4)) This requires that the objective immutable moral laws of the Bible must yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (contra. 1Cor. 13:6)<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE Bible (WALTER WINK REFUTED)]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm "No Universally Valid Sex Standards? A Rejoinder to Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexual Practice", Gagnon]</ref> Likewise, pro homosexual author Robin Scroggs concludes, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”<ref>Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) p. 127.</ref> William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality, explicitly denied the inspiration of any anti-homosex passages in the Bible, and their application today. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, advocated removing them from the canon as "dangerous".<ref>http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=7</ref> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman concludes, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . . bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.”<ref>Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988)</ref> This inversion of Biblical morality is held by conservative as being contrary to how the Bible was written and reads, and is commanded to be obeyed, with homosex being revealed to be a manifestation of idolatry, that of spiritually making the God of the Bible into an image more to one's own liking.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/theology/paulandsexuality.html Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Apostle Paul on Sexuality: A Response]</ref><ref>Gagnon, The Bible  and Homosexual Practice, pp. 256-67</ref>  (cf. Rm. 1:23)

== Principal Sources ==

== Principal Sources ==

== Terms Defined ==

== Terms Defined ==

The term "homosexual" is a relatively recent one, with it's first know occurrence apparently being in an 1869 pamphlet in the German language, and attributed to native Austrian Karl-Maria Kertbeny. Over time, this term, which was used within the field of personality taxonomy, and which could be used to denote any same gender environment, is now used almost exclusively in regards to sexual attraction and it's activity. This is as yet unsatisfactory, as it use lacks the distinction between nonsexual homosexual social activity, denoted by the term "homosociality," versus same gender love, "homophilia," and which may be romantic, and that of homoeroticism (clinically MSM), denoting homosexual erotic activity, that of same gender sexual relations. As most of this article deals with the sexual practice of homosexuals, the terms homosex or homoeroticism are usually used. Sodomy might normally have been, but this originally defined a temple prostitute. ("Sodom" itself is derived from the word "scorch," or "burnt".)

The term "homosexual" is a relatively recent one, with it's first know occurrence apparently being in an 1869 pamphlet in the German language, and attributed to native Austrian Karl-Maria Kertbeny. Over time, this term, which was used within the field of personality taxonomy, and which could be used to denote any same gender environment, is now used almost exclusively in regards to sexual attraction and it's activity. This is as yet unsatisfactory, as it use lacks the distinction between nonsexual homosexual social activity, and that of homoeroticism, denoting homosexual erotic activity, that of same gender sexual relations. When this article deals most precisely with the sexual practice of homosexuals, the term homosex is usually used. Historically, sodomy was often a term used for such, though this is seen to originally denote a temple prostitute. ("Sodom" itself is derived from the word "scorch," or "burnt".)

== Genesis: the Unique Union of Man and Women ==

== Genesis: the Unique Union of Man and Women ==

Otherwise knows as the ''complementarian position'', for which the traditional position lists at least seven reasons why "from the very beginning of the Bible we see that there is only one proper type of marriage: The union of a man and a woman."<ref>http://www.layhands.com/IsHomosexualityASin.htm</ref> (See also [[Complementarity]].)

Otherwise knows as the ''complementarian position'', for which the traditional position lists reasons why "from the very beginning of the Bible we see that there is only one proper type of marriage: The union of a man and a woman",<ref>http://www.layhands.com/IsHomosexualityASin.htm</ref> and which the following serves to describe.  (See also [[Complementarity]].)  

(Gen 2:18-24)  "And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that '''the man''' should be '''alone'''; I will make him an '''help meet''' for him. {19} And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. {20} And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but '''for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.''' {21} And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; {22} '''And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.''' {23} And Adam said, This is now '''bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman''', because '''she was taken out of Man'''. {24} '''Therefore''' shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall '''cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."'

(Gen 2:18-24)  "And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that '''the man''' should be '''alone'''; I will make him an '''help meet''' for him. {19} And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. {20} And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but '''for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.''' {21} And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; {22} '''And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.''' {23} And Adam said, This is now '''bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman''', because '''she was taken out of Man'''. {24} '''Therefore''' shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall '''cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."'

The Biblical texts primarily subjected to prohomosexual revisionism fall into two categories, that of those which prohibit or condemn homosex, in principal or by precept, and those into which sanction for it is alleged, and aptly enough, (Gn. 3:1-5) this begins in Genesis. Beginning in Gn. 2, attempts are made by pro homosexual apologists to negate God's choice to uniquely join man and women together, in order to read into Scripture an allowance for marriage between same genders (and which, by implication, would also include animals). However, it is evident that the specific cause for creating opposite genders was to join them sexually in marriage. It was only after other created beings were found unsuitable for Adam that the women was created. "The lonely Adam is provided not with a second Adam, but with Eve. She is the helper who corresponds to him. She is the one with whom he can relate in total intimacy and become one flesh.<ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html Gordon J Wenham, The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality; Expository Times 1991]</ref>  

The Biblical texts primarily subjected to prohomosexual revisionism fall into two categories, that of those which prohibit or condemn homosex, in principal or by precept, and those into which sanction for it is alleged, and this begins in Genesis. Beginning in Gn. 2, attempts are made by pro homosexual apologists to negate God's choice to uniquely join man and women together, in order to read into Scripture an allowance for marriage between same genders (and which, by implication, would also include animals). However, it is evident that the specific cause for creating opposite genders was to join them sexually in marriage. It was only after other created beings were found unsuitable for Adam that the women was created. "The lonely Adam is provided not with a second Adam, but with Eve. She is the helper who corresponds to him. She is the one with whom he can relate in total intimacy and become one flesh."<ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html Gordon J Wenham, The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality; Expository Times 1991]</ref>  

The Lord Jesus affirmed this opposite gender union in Matthew 19:  

The Lord Jesus affirmed this opposite gender union in Matthew 19:  

The “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 is specified only as the union of the male with his female counterpart, and it is only this union which is consistently stated and exampled in Scripture as having been sexually joined together by God, being based upon the creational foundation of Genesis.  It was the women, not another man, that was created out of Adam's side to be at his side, being created from part of man to be uniquely joined together with man sexually, in marriage. “The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage." <ref>Keil and Delitzsch</ref>   

The “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 is specified only as the union of the male with his female counterpart, and it is only this union which is consistently stated and exampled in Scripture as having been sexually joined together by God, being based upon the creational foundation of Genesis.  It was the women, not another man, that was created out of Adam's side to be at his side, being created from part of man to be uniquely joined together with man sexually, in marriage. “The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage." <ref>Keil and Delitzsch</ref>   

In contrast to the explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage,  proponents of homosexs contend that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. In attempting to negate Gn. 2:24, the assertion is made by some homosexual apologists that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and that this does not exclude same gender unions, as procreation is longer a primary need for the human race.<ref>The Bible and Same-Gender Marriage, Mary A. Tolbert</ref><ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, Procreation and the family</ref>  Countryman supposes that the Genesis 2:24 passage "can equally well be read simply as an etiological story, telling how the institution of marriage came into being."  To which Donald D. Binder responds, "Absent entirely from his discussion, is the point that Jesus himself did not interpret the passage etiologically, but normatively (Mark 10:5-9, Matt 19:4-6), providing an ethical basis for the institution of monogamous, heterosexual marriage in the subsequent teachings of the Church<ref>[http://www.pohick.org/gc2000letter.html A Letter to the Bishops and Deputies of the

In contrast to the explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage,  proponents of homosex contend that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. In attempting to negate Gn. 2:24, the assertion is made by some homosexual apologists that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and that this does not exclude same gender unions, as procreation is longer a primary need for the human race.<ref>The Bible and Same-Gender Marriage, Mary A. Tolbert</ref><ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, Procreation and the family</ref>  Countryman supposes that the Genesis 2:24 passage "can equally well be read simply as an etiological story, telling how the institution of marriage came into being."  To which Donald D. Binder responds, "Absent entirely from his discussion, is the point that Jesus himself did not interpret the passage etiologically, but normatively (Mark 10:5-9, Matt 19:4-6), providing an ethical basis for the institution of monogamous, heterosexual marriage in the subsequent teachings of the Church<ref>[http://www.pohick.org/gc2000letter.html A Letter to the Bishops and Deputies of the

73rd General Convention] Chaplain Donald D. Binder, PhD Adjunct Professor of New Testament, Southern Methodist University</ref>

73rd General Convention] Chaplain Donald D. Binder, PhD Adjunct Professor of New Testament, Southern Methodist University</ref>

The physical compatibility of the male/female union, with her unique procreational ability, itself stands in clear contrast to same gender unions,<ref>God, Marriage, and Family, p. 48, by Andreas J. Kostenberger, David W. Jones</ref> and the procreational aspect is what Judaism's traditional opposition to homosexuality is primarily based upon.<ref>Norman Lamm, Judaism and the Modern Attitude Towards Homosexuality, p. 197-98</ref>  To suppose that the Designer created man to be sexually joined with one of his own, and with the life giving seed being deposited into the orifice of man designed only for waste to come out is itself a supreme insult to God and His power, and His precepts.<ref> Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, pp. 117-118, Thomas E. Schmidt https://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45768</ref> However, to relegate the purpose of opposite gender marriage to being simply for procreation is found to be untenable, as what Scripture reveals is that God also uniquely created the women in order to fill the need of man being alone, "that in addition to procreation, there is a unitive function of sexuality that has to do with fulfilling our need for companionship".<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, Genesis 1-2, by Joseph P. Gudel, Christian Research Institute Journal]</ref> This joining is God's declared means of creating sanctioned sexual “oneness,” which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20), to the glory of God.

The physical compatibility of the male/female union, with her unique procreational ability, itself is seen by traditionalist to stand in clear contrast to same gender unions,<ref>God, Marriage, and Family, p. 48, by Andreas J. Kostenberger, David W. Jones</ref> with the procreational aspect being what Judaism's traditional opposition to homosexuality is primarily based upon.<ref>Norman Lamm, Judaism and the Modern Attitude Towards Homosexuality, p. 197-98</ref>  To suppose that the Designer created man to be sexually joined with one of his own, and with the life giving seed being deposited into the orifice of man designed only for waste to come out is itself seen by traditionalist to be a supreme insult to God and His power, and His precepts.<ref> Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, pp. 117-118, Thomas E. Schmidt https://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45768</ref> In addition, relegating the purpose of opposite gender marriage to being simply for procreation is found to be untenable by them, with Scripture instead revealing that God also uniquely created the women in order to fill the need of man being alone, "that in addition to procreation, there is a unitive function of sexuality that has to do with fulfilling our need for companionship".<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, Genesis 1-2, by Joseph P. Gudel, Christian Research Institute Journal]</ref> This joining is understood to be God's declared means of creating sanctioned sexual “oneness,” which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20), to the glory of God.

That the women is not only supremely and uniquely designed to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, is perhaps most supremely revealed in the Song of Solomon.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Song_of_Solomon.html</ref> This sanctity of sex within marriage without emphasis upon procreation is also indicated in the New Testament, where celibate singleness is esteemed (1Cor. 7:7,8,24-43), but marriage between man and women is presented as the alternative to fornication, and conjugal relations are enjoined due to what their marriage union entails (1Cor. 7:1-5), with the marriage bed being undefiled (Heb. 13:4). Jewish tradition also recognizes the importance of marital love and companionship. <ref>Ketubot, 61b-62b; Feldman, 168</ref>   

The Song of Solomon is sometimes invoked by traditionalists as illustrating that the women is supremely and uniquely designed to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Song_of_Solomon.html</ref> This sanctity of sex within marriage without emphasis upon procreation is also seen to be indicated in the New Testament, where celibate singleness is esteemed (1Cor. 7:7,8,24-43), but marriage between man and women is presented as the alternative to fornication, and conjugal relations are enjoined due to what their marriage union entails (1Cor. 7:1-5), with the marriage bed being undefiled (Heb. 13:4). Jewish tradition also recognizes the importance of marital love and companionship. <ref>Ketubot, 61b-62b; Feldman, 168</ref>   

The transcendent exclusivity of marriage being between male and female is seen from beginning of the Bible and throughout, in which whenever God gives instructions for sexual bonding it is always between opposite genders - even between animals, as seen in Noah's pairing (Gn. 7:9). The only marriages in the Bible are between man and women, with the Hebrew and Greek words for wife never denoting a male. In contrast to the abundant confirmation of God's sanction for heterosexual relations, in all of the Bible there exists no evidence of any homosexual marriage by God's people. “Indeed, every narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, metaphor, and piece of poetry in the Hebrew Bible having anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite.”<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref>

By means of traditional exegesis it is shown that the transcendent exclusivity of marriage is only between male and female from beginning of the Bible and throughout, in which whenever God gives instructions for sexual bonding it is always between opposite genders - even between animals, as seen in Noah's pairing (Gn. 7:9). The only marriages in the Bible are between man and women, with the Hebrew and Greek words for wife never denoting a male. In contrast to the abundant confirmation of God's sanction for heterosexual relations, in all of the Bible there exists no evidence of any homosexual marriage by God's people. “Indeed, every narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, metaphor, and piece of poetry in the Hebrew Bible having anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite.”<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref>

An attempt is made to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage, though that word is never used for marriage between humans, and there is nothing in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex. The attempt to argue that same gender marriage must be allowed since there is no explicit command prohibiting it is readily seen as possessing the same amount of legitimacy as saying that marriage between man and certain animals, or between man and rocks must be allowed, as these also are not explicitly forbidden. The reality is that they need not be explicitly forbidden, as God clearly, and consistently specifies who is joined together in marriage, and designed them that way, and abundantly confirms only the union between the male and female as sanctified, and unconditionally prohibits men laying with men as with women (Lv. 18:22), which “cleaving” is intractably part of God's description of marriage.  

In response, prohomosex proponents attempt to make one the covenants between [[David and Jonathan]] a marriage, with a countering argument being that word for covenant is not the word normally used for marriage between humans, and there is nothing in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex. Another argument contends that same gender marriage must be allowed since there is no explicit command prohibiting, and which is answered by showing that sex with men is unconditionally forbidden, and thus marriage would be (as “cleaving” is part of God's description of marriage), thereby leaving the argument for homosexual marriage possessing the same amount of legitimacy as marriage between man and animals. It is additionally contended that homosexual marriage need not be explicitly forbidden, as God clearly, and consistently specifies who is joined together in marriage, and confirms only the union between the male and female as being sanctified.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexuality_and_the_bible.html#Eunuchs Homosexuality and the Bible, Eunuchs]</ref>  

Jame B. De Young,<ref>Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon,</ref> in “Homosexuality,” writes, “ The creation of humans as male and female (Gn. 1) and the heterosexual union that constitutes marriage (Gn. 2) lie at the at the basis of the rest of Scripture and its comments about sexuality and marriage. A proper understanding of, and submission to, the record of Creation will guide the inquirer to the truth about homosexuality and heterosexuality. Genesis 1 — 3 clearly is foundational to other Bible texts.”

Jame B. De Young,<ref>Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon,</ref> in “Homosexuality,” writes, “ The creation of humans as male and female (Gn. 1) and the heterosexual union that constitutes marriage (Gn. 2) lie at the at the basis of the rest of Scripture and its comments about sexuality and marriage. A proper understanding of, and submission to, the record of Creation will guide the inquirer to the truth about homosexuality and heterosexuality. Genesis 1 — 3 clearly is foundational to other Bible texts.”

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1Cor 11:3)  

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1Cor 11:3)  

While some attempt to make this positional distinction culturally caused, the context reveals that this is based upon a creational, ontological distinction between man and the women, in which the man is the head of the women, like as the Father is the head of the Son, and Christ is the head of the church. While positional distinctions themselves do not require opposite genders (and sexual unions do not exist in the spiritual realm, nor can any absence of sexual distinctions therein negate those established by God in the physical realm), the reason for the male headship over the women is directly due to her being created from the man:   

The positional distinction here and in this section is one which some churches today portray as being culturally caused, while the traditional exegesis of shows the context revealing that this distinction is based upon a creational, ontological distinction between man and the women, in which the man is the head of the women, like as the Father is the head of the Son, and Christ is the head of the church. Based upon this it is seen that although positional distinctions themselves do not require opposite genders, the reason for the male headship over the women is directly due to her being created from the man:   

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man." (1Cor 11:8)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man." (1Cor 11:8)

Same gender unions are foundationally contrary to this, while it is next explicitly stated that it was the women who was created for the man:

Same gender unions are therefore rendered as being foundationally contrary to this, while it is further explicitly stated that it was the women who was created for the man:

"Neither was the man created for the woman; but '''the woman for the man.'''" (v.9)

"Neither was the man created for the woman; but '''the woman for the man.'''" (v.9)

    

    

This statement of purpose hearkens back to Gn. 2:18-24, in which, after making it apparent that no other earthly creation was fitting, the women was created out of to be man's “helpmeet”, that as is uniquely abundantly manifest throughout the Bible, by design and decree she is his uniquely compatible and complementary mate in marriage, in more ways than only the procreative aspect. "It is only in the heterosexual union of marriage that we find the fulfillment of God's intended order, both procreative and unitive."<ref>Gudel,"That Which is Unnatural"</ref> The mutual interdependence of the women and the man is next seen in vs. 11-12

This statement of purpose is seen to hearken back to Gn. 2:18-24, in which, after making it apparent that no other earthly creation was fitting, the women was created out of to be man's “helpmeet”, that, as is uniquely abundantly manifest throughout the Bible, by design and decree she is his uniquely compatible and complementary mate in marriage, in more ways than only the procreative aspect. "It is only in the heterosexual union of marriage that we find the fulfillment of God's intended order, both procreative and unitive."<ref>Gudel,"That Which is Unnatural"</ref> The mutual interdependence of the women and the man is next seen in vs. 11-12

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.  For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."   

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.  For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."   

To join man with man in contrary to this unique union in marriage between opposite genders, in which both genders hold distinctive roles due to their creation differences, both in position, overall paracletal purpose and procreation.  

By such traditional exegesis, to join man with man is evidenced as being contrary to the unique union in marriage between opposite genders, in which both genders hold distinctive roles due to their creation differences, both in position, overall paracletal purpose and procreation.  

=== Celibacy, Polygamy, and Procreation ===

=== Celibacy, Polygamy, and Procreation ===

While is it not a command that all men be sexually joined, the only other alternative is celibacy, as seen in the only alternative to fornication being marriage:   

In the Bible, while it is it not a command that all men be sexually joined, the only other alternative is celibacy, as seen in the only alternative to fornication being marriage:   

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1Cor 7:2)  

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1Cor 7:2)  

Note that here again only man and women are joined in marriage, with "husband" and "wife" denoting just that. The exhortation to celibacy in singleness (1Cor 7:7,8,25-35) is based upon the spiritual nature of the believers relationship with Christ and His kingdom and the attention it is worthy of, and (if only partly) due to "the present distress", (v. 26) and perhaps a sense of imminent trials,<ref> which surely did come, not only from opposition by Paul's own "kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rm. 9:3; cf. 1Ths. 2:16), and the turmoil following the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., but from often intense persecutions from a procession of emperors, from Domitian (195) to Diocletian (284-305)</ref> and in no way abrogates the restriction of sexual relations to being only between opposite genders in marriage.       

This again evidences for the traditional position that only man and women are joined in marriage, with "husband" and "wife" denoting just that. The exhortation to celibacy in singleness (1Cor 7:7,8,25-35) is based upon the spiritual nature of the believers relationship with Christ and His kingdom and the attention it is worthy of, and (if only partly) due to "the present distress", (v. 26) and perhaps a sense of imminent trials,<ref> which surely did come, not only from opposition by Paul's own "kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rm. 9:3; cf. 1Ths. 2:16), and the turmoil following the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., but from often intense persecutions from a procession of emperors, from Domitian (195) to Diocletian (284-305)</ref> and in no way abrogates the restriction of sexual relations to being only between opposite genders in marriage.       

Some seek to render the complementarian position to make single persons less human<ref>Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, p. 106</ref>, but such is not case. Rather, just as it is evident under the New Testament that marriage is not universally mandated, it is clear that what is joined together in marriage is opposite genders, which makes man sexually complete, while singleness is an holy an option in it's own right, but which requires celibacy.   

In response, some prohomosex proponents seek to render the complementarian position to make single persons less human<ref>Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, p. 106</ref>, which is countered by the argument that just as it is evident under the New Testament that marriage is not universally mandated, so it is clear that what is joined together in marriage is opposite genders, which makes man sexually complete, while singleness is an holy an option in it's own right, but which requires celibacy.   

Nor does the fact that [[polygamy|polygamous]] marriages were allowed in the Old Testament (even [[concubine]]s were wives: Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf.  2Sam. 20:3) in any way allow same sex marriages, as while union with more than one wife was allowed, and the New Testament restores that to the original of one wife,<ref>(Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5 Eph. 5:22-6:2. Unlike children (Eph. 6:1), which is plural, when a individual husband is addressed, it is not "husband love your wives," but "let every one of you in particular so love his wife" (5:33). Likewise "honor thy father and mother" are singular (6:20) and presumes only one of each. A prime requirement for pastors, who are examples to be followed (2Ths. 3:7,9; Heb. 13:7), is that they only have one wife (1Tim. 3:2; Tts. 1:6; cf. 1Cor. 9:5). Likewise deacons (1Tim. 3:12) See also God, Marriage, and Family, pp. 43-45</ref> yet even an excess of wives is in keeping with the creational design and directive in which the women was created for the man, and only violates it in the number of female wives, not their gender.  

A prohomosex polemic used by Wink and others is that as [[polygamy|polygamous]] marriages were allowed in the Old Testament, and that deviate from the Genesis model, so same sex marriages should be allowed. In response, it is argued that while union with more than one wife was allowed (even [[concubine]]s were wives: Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf.  2Sam. 20:3), yet even an excess of wives is in keeping with the creational design and directive in which the women was created for the man, and only violates it in the number of female wives, not their gender.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html#Polygamy A refutation of Dr. Walter Wink: Homosexuality and the Bible]</ref>  It is also evidenced that the New Testament restores marriage to the original of one wife,<ref>(Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5 Eph. 5:22-6:2. Unlike children (Eph. 6:1), which is plural, when a individual husband is addressed, it is not "husband love your wives," but "let every one of you in particular so love his wife" (5:33). Likewise "honor thy father and mother" are singular (6:20) and presumes only one of each. A prime requirement for pastors, who are examples to be followed (2Ths. 3:7,9; Heb. 13:7), is that they only have one wife (1Tim. 3:2; Tts. 1:6; cf. 1Cor. 9:5). Likewise deacons (1Tim. 3:12) See also God, Marriage, and Family, pp. 43-45</ref>   

McNeill<ref>ref. by Richard Hasbany, The Church and the Homosexual, Cp. 2</ref> and others attempt  to force marriage under the New Testament to include  homosexuals due to its lower priority upon procreation, and emphasis upon essential oneness of all races in Christ. (Gal. 3:28)  However, the Bible explicitly honors romantic and erotic love between a man and his female spouse in the Song of Solomon, and otherwise reveals the marriage bond as being far more than for procreation, as the women's uniqueness as the helpmeet of the man transcends that aspect (although again, this is by no means a minor one, and which itself excludes same sex unions). And while under the New Covenant, physical procreation is not seen as having the priority evidenced in the Old Testament, yet not only is the unique union of man and women in marriage affirmed, and that sexual union only, but rather than long term sexual abstinence in marriage being promoted (or sex only as part of procreation), regular benevolent conjugal relations are actually enjoined, which are based upon to the depth of the ordained marriage union (1Cor. 7:3-5; Heb. 13:4).  

McNeill<ref>ref. by Richard Hasbany, The Church and the Homosexual, Cp. 2</ref> and others attempt  to force marriage under the New Testament to include  homosexuals due to its lower priority upon procreation, and emphasis upon essential oneness of all races in Christ. (Gal. 3:28)  In response, by means of the traditional it is seen that the Bible explicitly honors romantic and erotic love between a man and his female spouse in the Song of Solomon, and otherwise reveals the marriage bond as being far more than for procreation, as the women's uniqueness as the helpmeet of the man transcends that aspect (although again, this is by no means a minor one, and which itself excludes same sex unions). And while under the New Covenant, physical procreation is not seen as having the priority evidenced in the Old Testament, yet not only is the unique union of man and women in marriage affirmed, and that sexual union only, but rather than long term sexual abstinence in marriage being promoted (or sex only as part of procreation), regular benevolent conjugal relations are actually enjoined, which are based upon to the depth of the ordained marriage union (1Cor. 7:3-5; Heb. 13:4).  

As regards the principal behind Gal. 3:28, while all believers are one in Christ regardless of sexual and racial distinctions, and in the spiritual age to come even sexual unions will not exist between the elect, (Lk. 20:34-36) it is also evident that this spiritual oneness does not negate positional/functional differences, (Heb. 13:17) including those based upon creational distinctions (1Cor. 11:1-3; Eph. 5:22-25; 1Pt. 3:1-7) or the effects of the Fall (1Tim. 11-15)<ref>"saved in childbearing" does not imply salvation due to works, but by obedient faith in Christ, which was/is to be generally expressed by women in raising children and maintaining the home. In other places Paul commends those who helped Paul and others in the gospel work, (Rm. 16:1,2ff; Phil. 4:3) in addition to encouraging celibacy in singleness if so called.</ref>

As regards the principal behind Gal. 3:28, while all believers are one in Christ regardless of sexual and racial distinctions, and in the spiritual age to come even sexual unions will not exist between the elect, (Lk. 20:34-36) it evidenced that this spiritual oneness does not negate positional/functional differences, (Heb. 13:17) including those based upon creational distinctions (1Cor. 11:1-3; Eph. 5:22-25; 1Pt. 3:1-7) or the effects of the Fall (1Tim. 11-15)<ref>"saved in childbearing" does not imply salvation due to works, but by obedient faith in Christ, which was/is to be generally expressed by women in raising children and maintaining the home. In other places Paul commends those who helped Paul and others in the gospel work, (Rm. 16:1,2ff; Phil. 4:3) in addition to encouraging celibacy in singleness if so called.</ref>

=== Eunuchs and exegesis ===

=== Eunuchs and exegesis ===

As seen in Acts 8:26-40, eunuchs could be saved through repentance and faith in LORD Jesus, but this does not sanction homoeroticism, rather it requires repentance from all forms of fornication. Under the Old Testament one who was castrated was an outcast, and being made a eunuch was demeaning, while under the New Covenant nothing '''physical''' excludes one from being part of the kingdom. But practicing immoral '''behavior''' does (1Jn) as it denies the faith, and thus the redeemed included those were '''formerly''' “effeminate” (1Cor. 6:9-11).

As seen in Acts 8:26-40, eunuchs could be saved through repentance and faith in LORD Jesus, but this does not sanction homoeroticism, rather it requires repentance from all forms of fornication. Under the Old Testament one who was castrated was an outcast, and being made a eunuch was demeaning, while under the New Covenant nothing '''physical''' excludes one from being part of the kingdom. But practicing immoral '''behavior''' does (1Jn) as it denies the faith, and thus the redeemed included those were '''formerly''' “effeminate” (1Cor. 6:9-11).

=== Proclivity and permission polemic ===

=== Homosexual tendencies and permission argument===

The prior homosexual argument relates to one that posits that some men are born homosexual, and thus marriage must be allowed for them.<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref> The premise for this is both unproven,<ref>Homosexuality By Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse</ref> and it's logic is untenable. No sound evidence exists to prove that homosexuals were born that way, though this may be possible, and certainly one individual may be more prone to one type of sin that another. However, this is irrelevant as the Biblical fact is that all mankind is born with a proclivity to sin, but this in no way justifies acting it out. (Romans 6, 7; 1John 2:6). Every day men must resist sexual desire if it would be immoral as contrary the Creator's laws, which are good and necessary. (Rm. 7:12) The logical end of the homosexual argument is that all innate proclivity to sin justifies acting it out, but God told Cain that he could resist sin. (Gn. 4:7), and commands us to resist sin and overcome it, and shows us how. (Rm. 8; 12)

The prior homosexual argument relates to one that posits that some men are born homosexual, and thus marriage must be allowed for them.<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref> The premise for this is both unproven,<ref>Homosexuality By Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse</ref> and it's logic is untenable. No sound evidence exists to prove that homosexuals were born that way, though this may be possible, and certainly one individual may be more prone to one type of sin that another. However, this is irrelevant as the Biblical fact is that all mankind is born with a proclivity to sin, but this in no way justifies acting it out. (Romans 6, 7; 1John 2:6). Every day men must resist sexual desire if it would be immoral as contrary the Creator's laws, which are good and necessary. (Rm. 7:12) The logical end of the homosexual argument is that all innate proclivity to sin justifies acting it out, but God told Cain that he could resist sin. (Gn. 4:7), and commands us to resist sin and overcome it, and shows us how. (Rm. 8; 12)