THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE LI'BLE TO READ IN THE BIBLE

[KCKID]

Why are SO many Christians hung up on homosexuality? While the average Christian would be hard pressed to locate such a text in their Bibles if asked, they would undoubtedly say “Because it’s a sin according to the Bible.� I personally find such a response difficult to accept and rather strongly suspect that one’s ‘religious belief’ on this issue is NOT the driving force behind their aversion/condemnation of homosexuality. I mean, if Christians REALLY desire to condemn ‘sin’ as they perceive it they could give homosexuals a break and instead have a field day targeting the many other human behaviors going on within society that God appears to hate. But …they don’t . . .well certainly not with the same zeal they do toward homosexuality.

So, what is going on here? Does the Bible really condemn sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender? Or, does the Bible not address the matter of homosexuality at all …or, at least, not as we today recognize homosexuality? Would the Bible authors have even been aware of one’s innate sexuality as well as the complexities surrounding sexuality in general? Or, in simple terms, would they, as with many males of today, have regarded some males as 'effeminate' (or ‘sissies’) based on both ignorance and their own perceived cultural image of the ‘alpha male’? Or, if these authors were considered to be writing by divine authority, might we then say that God is the instigator of such ignorance and has allowed this ignorance to persist from generation to generation?

My main question in this thread is: of the ‘thimble-full’ of scriptures that are commonly used by Christians to condemn homosexuality (sexual attraction/desire directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex), how many of these texts might be considered to be far too ambiguous (open to several possible meanings or interpretations) to have caused such a furor within Christendom in general and specifically resulted in the division of a number of present-day Christian denominations? Can these few scriptures be analyzed so accurately that they can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to condemn homosexuality as we refer to the term today? I say no …they cannot. I’ve given my reasons in the past and will do so again if challenged.

Please discuss the below scriptures, as best you can, exegetically, i.e.
observation: what do the passages say?
interpretation: what do the passages mean?
correlation: how do the passages relate to the topic of homosexuality as we define it today?
application: how should these passages affect your/my life?

Note: I've purposely used the NIV for the following texts.

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV)

1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for[a] Jesus Christ:
2 Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.
3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.
4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.
6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire . . .etc. (NIV)

Should there be other related Bible texts to the topic feel free to present them based on the above criteria for analysis. I purposely omitted the Sodom and Gomorrah saga since it's been done to death and quite clearly has nothing to do with homosexuality per se. However, likewise feel free to present that strange tale for discussion should you find it to be relevant.

[Heretic Gal]

I also wanted to add that when an angry mob is screaming at a respected citizen to send out his houseguests so they can rape them - there's more going on here than just "gay sex". That mob was thirsting for blood. Not only should Lot NOT have offered his "virgin daughters" to them, but the angels themselves should have spoken up in their defense.

After all, even though Lot didn't know they were angels, they did! And I'm presuming angels know how to defend themselves against a motley crue.

Anyway, sorry if I derailed the thread; I just had to get my anti-Lot prejudices out there.

[dianaiad]

All that said, I don't like Lot much. He was a wuss...and a drunk, and an idiot. (shrug) But he wasn't endangering his daughters by offering them to a mob of gay men wanting to have sex with his male guests, now, was he?

Empty offer that he knew would be refused.

As a Mormon you shouldn't even believe that Lot offered his daughters to the mob. Did you forget about the JST?

As a Mormon I use the JST as a study guide, not as source scripture.
As a Mormon, I am quite aware that the bible is not without error, and
As a Mormon (and as myself) I think I made it quite clear that I'm dealing with this story as a story; the factual accuracy of it is not at issue here.

What IS at issue is whether using this story as it sits can be used, one way or the other, to support (or condemn) homosexuality, or the actions of Lot as they were portrayed.

[dianaiad]

I also wanted to add that when an angry mob is screaming at a respected citizen to send out his houseguests so they can rape them - there's more going on here than just "gay sex". That mob was thirsting for blood. Not only should Lot NOT have offered his "virgin daughters" to them, but the angels themselves should have spoken up in their defense.

After all, even though Lot didn't know they were angels, they did! And I'm presuming angels know how to defend themselves against a motley crue.

Anyway, sorry if I derailed the thread; I just had to get my anti-Lot prejudices out there.

The point is, they did. Please note that neither Lot's daughters nor the angels were raped. The angels did precisely what you are now criticizing them for not doing; protecting themselves and Lot's family.

[dianaiad]

All that said, I don't like Lot much. He was a wuss...and a drunk, and an idiot. (shrug) But he wasn't endangering his daughters by offering them to a mob of gay men wanting to have sex with his male guests, now, was he?

Empty offer that he knew would be refused.

How do you know they were gay? It appears that there's zero evidence in the text to support this.

Er...have you actually read the story?

Genesis 19: 4-5 where the men of the city demanded that lot send out the men Lot had as guests so that they (the men of the city) could have sex with the guests?

Unless you have a very different definition of 'gay' than I do, one in which the most obvious identifier is missing (desiring, sexually, one's own sex), they were homosexual, or at least acting on homosexual impulses.

But the thing is that we don't know that they were *exclusively* as in 100% gay. Lots and lots* of gay men are quite able to perform with women. In fact, quite a few of them have fathered children, before realizing they really preferred men. Remember that in this ancient world, "gay" was not really a lifestyle choice. And that sex, in the hands of an angry mob, is simply one more way to intimidate and punish their victims - whether male or female is irrelevant beyond a certain point.

(*and okay, I guess that's kind of a pun. "Lots" = "Lot" = "me needing some coffee". )

So...if a man who prefers homosexual sex is able to perform with a woman at all, he is not, then, gay? At all? That would cut the gay population down to almost nothing, actually, as you have yourself alluded to. Homosexuality, as homosexuals themselves will freely attest to, is a 'sliding scale,' and very, very few people are on the extreme end where they simply cannot think of the opposite sex in a sexual manner.

Very few.

As well, if your critiera for 'being gay' is 'unable to have sex with the opposite sex,' that leaves all women out; there are no lesbians.

Don't move the goalposts here; that group of men wanted to have sex with the angels, that they perceived as men. You can't decide that they were not, after all, homosexual because they MIGHT have been able to perform with women. The fact is, they wanted the men.

[Heretic Gal]

So...if a man who prefers homosexual sex is able to perform with a woman at all, he is not, then, gay? At all? That would cut the gay population down to almost nothing, actually, as you have yourself alluded to. Homosexuality, as homosexuals themselves will freely attest to, is a 'sliding scale,' and very, very few people are on the extreme end where they simply cannot think of the opposite sex in a sexual manner.

Very few.

I'm a little puzzled - are we in disagreement here? Because yes, that is actually what I'm saying, admittedly based on my own experience and knowledge: that there are only a very small number of men or women who are 100% gay/lesbian to the point of being completely unable to perform sexually with the opposite sex.

As well, if your critiera for 'being gay' is 'unable to have sex with the opposite sex,' that leaves all women out; there are no lesbians.

Of course a lesbian woman, like any other woman, can "have sex" with a man, if the only definition of "sex" is "having a penis put into a vagina". But I think lesbians have a different definition, which would probably not include any penises.

Also, I really was focusing on male gays for the purposes of discussion, since the
"Lot Mob" seemed to consist primarily of men.

Once again - yes, I think it's reasonable to say that there plenty of men who self-identify as "gay" yet are (or at least were, at some time in their lives) able to perform sexually with a woman, if they really wanted to for some reason.

Don't move the goalposts here; that group of men wanted to have sex with the angels, that they perceived as men. You can't decide that they were not, after all, homosexual because they MIGHT have been able to perform with women. The fact is, they wanted the men.

But would you not agree that there is a big difference between "having sex" and "rape"? Because my reading of the story is that this mob wanted to *rape* these masculine-looking angels, not just lie down with them and gently caress them.

I guess the only point I was trying to make was that just because this mob asked for the men to be thrown out doesn't mean that they were "gay" in the sense that we use the word today. They didn't just want to have sex with them, they wanted to humiliate them.

I didn't intend to move any goalposts and I apologize if that's what seemed to happen. But I just don't think an ancient story about a vicious mob out to rape, terrorize and humiliate a couple of male angels has any relation whatsoever to the political rights of gay men and lesbians today.

[dianaiad]

But would you not agree that there is a big difference between "having sex" and "rape"? Because my reading of the story is that this mob wanted to *rape* these masculine-looking angels, not just lie down with them and gently caress them.

Well, if we are being picky...and using exegesis rather than eisegesis, there is no mention of rape. Every translation, including Young's Literal Translation, uses the words 'know' (carnally) and 'have sex with."

What there is mention of is that whether it is rape or attempted consensual intercourse, they wanted the men, not the girls. Homosexuality is, as far as I am aware, simply a matter of which sex one finds attractive; with which sex one wishes intercourse. It's the only thing all homosexuals have in common, actually; there is no 'gay' way to cook, or dress, or teach, or anything else......it's all about who you find attractive, sexually.

These guys wanted the men, not the girls, for sex. That makes them homosexual, at least somewhere on the 'gay scale.' If it was to be rape, it was to be homosexual rape, and there isn't any way around that one. There is no way that this may be used in support of biblical support of homosexuality. No way to spin it to be anything but a problem, if the goal is to justify homosexual behavior biblically. There simply isn't any way to do this.

I guess the only point I was trying to make was that just because this mob asked for the men to be thrown out doesn't mean that they were "gay" in the sense that we use the word today. They didn't just want to have sex with them, they wanted to humiliate them.

Where does it SAY that? And if humiliating rape was the goal, why didn't they take the girls?

Not that rape wasn't honestly in the deal; it probably was. The point is, it doesn't SAY that.

I didn't intend to move any goalposts and I apologize if that's what seemed to happen. But I just don't think an ancient story about a vicious mob out to rape, terrorize and humiliate a couple of male angels has any relation whatsoever to the political rights of gay men and lesbians today.

No.

It doesn't.

Except when gay people try to rewrite the bible to justify their life style and choices, because there's no support there.

There's also NO support for keeping gays from having civil rights, either. you haven't been here long enough to be treated to my platform on this (and yeah, I can hear the groans all the way from the left coast, but rest easy, I'm not going into it now), but suffice it to say that I see a tug of war about this stuff today that simply does not need to happen. Both sides want what they want and to hell with the other. It IS possible for gays to have the civil rights, and for the theists to have their freedom of religion. The problem is, nobody really wants that. The gays want the opposing theists to admit they are right and approve of them, and those opposing theists what gays to go back into the closet.

Now me, I'm one of those opposing theists, though I'm all for y'all having the civil rights. I just don't want you dictating to me about what I have to approve of, theologically, any more than you want me to keep you from having civil rights with your partner.

[Heretic Gal]

But would you not agree that there is a big difference between "having sex" and "rape"? Because my reading of the story is that this mob wanted to *rape* these masculine-looking angels, not just lie down with them and gently caress them.

Well, if we are being picky...and using exegesis rather than eisegesis, there is no mention of rape. Every translation, including Young's Literal Translation, uses the words 'know' (carnally) and 'have sex with."

What there is mention of is that whether it is rape or attempted consensual intercourse, they wanted the men, not the girls. Homosexuality is, as far as I am aware, simply a matter of which sex one finds attractive; with which sex one wishes intercourse. It's the only thing all homosexuals have in common, actually; there is no 'gay' way to cook, or dress, or teach, or anything else......it's all about who you find attractive, sexually.

OK ... now I am really confused. You really don't see homosexual rape being threatened in this story? You really think that mob was just looking for someone to have a good time with? What am I missing here?

These guys wanted the men, not the girls, for sex. That makes them homosexual, at least somewhere on the 'gay scale.' If it was to be rape, it was to be homosexual rape, and there isn't any way around that one.

There is no way that this may be used in support of biblical support of homosexuality. No way to spin it to be anything but a problem, if the goal is to justify homosexual behavior biblically. There simply isn't any way to do this.

Right. And I never said it should be used that way. In fact, I specifically said it *shouldn't* be used that way. I wonder if you're confusing me with someone else here?

I guess the only point I was trying to make was that just because this mob asked for the men to be thrown out doesn't mean that they were "gay" in the sense that we use the word today. They didn't just want to have sex with them, they wanted to humiliate them.

Just wanted to point out that somehow that quote of mine got attributed to Ooberman. It was me.

I didn't intend to move any goalposts and I apologize if that's what seemed to happen. But I just don't think an ancient story about a vicious mob out to rape, terrorize and humiliate a couple of male angels has any relation whatsoever to the political rights of gay men and lesbians today.

This one was me too, not Ooberman.

No.

It doesn't.

Except when gay people try to rewrite the bible to justify their life style and choices, because there's no support there.

But do you think it's fair to use that particular story to "prove" anything about homosexuality one way or the other, any more than it's fair to use the story in Judges 19 to prove anything about heterosexuality?

There's also NO support for keeping gays from having civil rights, either. you haven't been here long enough to be treated to my platform on this (and yeah, I can hear the groans all the way from the left coast, but rest easy, I'm not going into it now), but suffice it to say that I see a tug of war about this stuff today that simply does not need to happen. Both sides want what they want and to hell with the other. It IS possible for gays to have the civil rights, and for the theists to have their freedom of religion. The problem is, nobody really wants that. The gays want the opposing theists to admit they are right and approve of them, and those opposing theists what gays to go back into the closet.

Now me, I'm one of those opposing theists, though I'm all for y'all having the civil rights. I just don't want you dictating to me about what I have to approve of, theologically, any more than you want me to keep you from having civil rights with your partner.

Okay, I am just going to cry uncle here because I really do feel like you are arguing with someone else, and not me, because I totally agree that (a) gays and lesbians should have all the same rights as straight people and that (b) theists should have complete freedom of religion. And I also agree that neither side should use the Bible to justify their views.

I'm not sure what I said to make you think otherwise. Whatever it was, I apologize and will stay out of the discussion to avoid further confusion.

[KCKID]

*sigh*
Just as I was about to withdraw from both this thread and this forum before the mods make the decision for me (I hate having to walk on eggshells as much as I hate being banned and therefore I’ll foul up again for sure if I stay) I see that the Sodom and Gomorrah story (fable) has raised its ugly head yet again. I’m rather surprised, dianaiad, that you express such ignorance with regard to why the men of Sodom wanted to ‘know’ Lot’s visitors. These men were not gay and you’re being rather naïve in believing that they were. Well, at least, there is no need to ASSUME that they were gay because ‘sexuality’ has NOTHING to do with the theme behind this portion of the S&G tale. It’s only Christians that have taken this story and made it a ‘gay issue’. And most (since most Christians would have no idea WHAT the Bible actually says about anything) have done so by believing the homophobic interpretations of others. While Heretic Gal is doing a fine job debating dianaiad, the portion of the story that we all know and love (the men wanting to ‘know’ the angels) is being dealt with rather vaguely.

I’ve made this analogy before but I think it’s a good one and is easily understood …so I make it again. Has anyone here seen the 1972 movie, Deliverance? Anyway, four Atlanta city slickers decide to take a multi-day canoe trip down the Cahulawassee River valley in Northern Georgia. (I can hear the melody "Dueling Banjos" as I write!) This is one of the last natural pristine areas of the state, which will soon change with the imminent building of a dam on the river, which in turn will flood much of the surrounding land. The main characters of the story know that the area is ethno-culturally homogeneous (close-knit) and isolated, but don't understand the full extent of such until they arrive and see what they believe is the result of generations of inbreeding.

Their relatively peaceful trip takes a turn for the worse when two of the main characters encounter a couple of armed hillbilly moonshiners. For those that have seen this movie, they will know that what follows is very disturbing. One of the men is sexually assaulted by one of the moonshiners and made to squeal like a pig while the other ‘hillbilly ignoramus’ looks on and drools with fiendish delight. Are we to automatically assume that the one assaulting the other is gay? Not according to the meaning behind the assault. It has nothing to do with being gay or straight. Not only have the men discovered the (illegal) moonshine stash of the mountain men but they are also encroaching in an area where they are not welcome by its inhabitants. While just a movie, the entire storyline is quite feasible. The rape scene is one of humiliation and domination. “THIS is what happens when you and yours encroach on OUR territory� is the meaning behind the rape scene.

The raping of a male by another male is a sure-fire way to guarantee that they will not return. Throughout history there have been other examples of rape being used with which to ‘demasculinize’ another where, in wartime, a (heterosexual) victor will rape the vanquished male. Gang-rape was, and may still be, common in prisons.That one doesn’t know about the intimidation process and is unable to apply such without the need to introduce the ‘gay theme’ to the S&G saga is quite telling. And, to add even more credibility to this more than feasible explanation of humiliation, domination, and supremacy by the people of Sodom, we’re told that ALL the men of the city, both young and old, gathered outside Lot’s home. Where did ‘the young’ come from …a cabbage patch? The men of the city were clearly heterosexual enough to have 'known' their women! No, it’s more than clear once people start to actually think for themselves* that these people were heterosexual men (not that it matters because this is not, as said, about ‘sex’ per se anyway) who were culturally conditioned to be unwelcoming to strangers. Had the men - young and old - been gay they could have dealt with their homosexual lusts any place any time by having sex with one another. The word "strangers", as in Lot's guests, is the key word here. These men - young and old - were 'The Sodom Welcome Wagon! It really IS as simple - and as horrific - as that!

*Besides people needing to think for themselves there are also a number of scriptures that deal with this topic. Below are just some scriptures that mention Sodom and Gomorrah. Please note that homosexuality is not mentioned at all. Also please note that the word 'detestable' as found in a number of OT scriptures, including Ezekiel with reference to S&G, is equated to idolatry and idolatrous behavior. Check your Bible Concordance. As said, equating S&G with homosexuality comes from the minds of Christians and THAT is a fact! While this appalling type of preaching needs to stop I'm realistic enough and well versed enough with regard to human beings and their gullibility to know that this won't happen any time soon!

Isaiah 1; The entire first chapter is an utter condemnation of Judah. They are repeatedly compared with Sodom and Gomorrah in their evildoing and depravity. Throughout the chapter, the Prophet lists many sins of the people: rebelling against God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging in meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. There is no reference to homosexuality or to any other sexual activities at all.

Jeremiah 23:14:"...among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." Jeremiah compares the actions of the prophets with the adultery, lying and evil of the people of Sodom. Homosexual activity is not mentioned.

Ezekeiel 16:49-50:"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Ezekiel clearly states that God destroyed Sodom and its inhabitants because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered; sexual activity is not even mentioned.

Ezekiel 8:13: Then He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what the elders of the house of Israel are committing in the dark, each man in the room of his carved images? For they say, 'The LORD does not see us; the LORD has forsaken the land.'" 13And He said to me, "Yet you will see still greater abominations which they are committing." 14Then He brought me to the entrance of the gate of the LORD'S house which was toward the north; and behold, women were sitting there weeping for Tammuz.…

The word 'abomination' here is associated with the idol Tammuz . . . .is everyone catching on ...?

As I stated from the outset ...there is NO scripture that addresses one's sexuality per se - either heterosexual or homosexual - that does not involve idolatrous pagan worship practices. As far as the Bible is concerned, Adam and Steve are not even in its sights! I did my homework and learned a lot in the process ...how about the anti-gays do theirs ...?

[99percentatheism]

I also wanted to add that when an angry mob is screaming at a respected citizen to send out his houseguests so they can rape them - there's more going on here than just "gay sex". That mob was thirsting for blood. Not only should Lot NOT have offered his "virgin daughters" to them, but the angels themselves should have spoken up in their defense.

After all, even though Lot didn't know they were angels, they did! And I'm presuming angels know how to defend themselves against a motley crue.

Anyway, sorry if I derailed the thread; I just had to get my anti-Lot prejudices out there.

Lot was the "father" of the Moabites. A very disrespected class of people to the Israelites.

Yet even from that bloodline of Lot and one of his incestuous daughters, came a great grandmother of Jesus.

The redemption factor of Christian truth reaching back in time to a very sweet Ruth and her life story.

[99percentatheism]

Comparing the Mob in Sodom to the two homosexuals in the Movie deliverance brings to mind the rape scene of the actor Ned Beatty's character "Bobby." I watched this movie once in a class I was in at UCLA many years ago. The "rapist" looked over his intended victim lasciviously for quite an extended period of time before having forced sex with him. The other man with the rapist was enjoying the sex between the two men and goes on to pointing out the attractive features of his intended victim. Clearly these two "hillbilly" characters in Deliverance were not heterosexuals that happened to want to get rid of people that stumbled on to their Moon Shine operations.

Looking at the "men of Sodom" ALL of them, and you see that homosexuality does indeed enter the scenario. How does a heterosexual get sexually aroused by the sight of a naked man?

While thread derail and the ad hominem attack on Bible believing Christians and Mormons seems quite popular, can anyone answer what I have written below with examples of clear pro homosexuality pronouncements from the Bible?

And for the record, while I am not "yoking myself" to Mormon theology in any way . . . if anything is not a hate crime, it is the act of the defense of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

While 2000-plus years of relegating "Sodomites" and "sodomy" to those that engage in same gender sex acts, to activists now that want to force pride of same gender sex acts into and onto Christianity, the following has yet to be a challenge that anyone with an LGBT mission can defeat:

The "clobber passages" in the Bible stretch from Genesis to Jude. There simply is no such thing as same gender marriage, or same gender sexuality anywhere supported, condoned, affirmed, approved, celebrated or even mentioned or referenced!!!!!

"LGBT" and "Q" activists are free to invent their own religion OR patronize any religious organization that they find willing to celebrate homosexuality. Like I have written, the overwhelming history of gay pride has come to the forefront through completely secular political power. And any Christian Church that wants to have the rainbow flag planted as far away from their Church property as that can possibly happen is not doing anything wrong.

Not one gay pride activist, liberal theologian or "affirming religious body" has yet to produce any supportive scriptures to base the homosexualization of Christianity as just the next step in the gay agenda. The only justification that has been offered is the two wrongs ploy. That The Church has accepted adulterers, the divorced and the remarried into congregations. Yet, not one adulterer, divorcee or remarried person in any Church anywhere has a movement and well funded organizations that demand to have their sins affirmed and ignored.

The response we hear is reminiscent of the threats from the men of Sodom towards Lot: You want to play the judge over us? We will treat you worse then them.

How incredibly ironic and a bit hypocritical that it was "minority rights" that were all important and all encompassing to validate the concerns of gay pride adherents and proponents, and yet now is the pronouncement from the very same gay pride proponents that there is a minority percentage of Christians that will not submit to gay authority over them and that this ends the debate for good.

My how the shoe is on the other foot.

When ANY scripture can be produced that clearly, unambiguously and directly affirms, celebrates and encourages same gender sexuality, within or without a "marriage" then the issue will be settled for The Church universal. The consistency of scripture supports the Christians that are not in concert with the "LGBT Community." No matter how small that number is or becomes.

With a turning away of the ad hominem attack:

If anyone that calls themselves a Christian, has scriptures that support a doing away with the preaching to repent of sins, or that thoughts in ones own mind can redefine sin and sinning in and for the sinner. . . produce them.