This is big news but not surprising. It’s not surprising because the 9th Circuit court of appeals is the most liberal Court in the land. Everyone would expect this particular court to uphold a lower court’s decision to overturn California’s ban on same-sex marriage.
What is significant about today’s decision is that this means that the case will almost certainly go before the Supreme Court. If so, the Court’s ruling has the potential to be every bit as epoch-making and divisive as Roe v. Wade.
you delete this every time I say it, but that doesn’t make it any less true…
Regardless of the religious or philosophical stance against it, you are trying to place limits on contractual law based solely on who is entering into the contract. Which is bad enough.
But then, when you say that it must go up for a vote, evangelical Christians cannot do this on their own. Right leaning evangelicals that have a real philosophical dog in this fight make up 30% of the population at most. In order to get to 51%, you have to depend on bigots that don’t like gay people because (insert reason here).
The LGBT community will have enough to deal with when they stand in front of God on judgement day. Why are we so eager to make life terrible for them while they’re here too?
Talking about conservatism out of one side of your mouth while being clearly statist out of the other makes little sense.
Paul, are you for incestuous marriages or polygamy?
This canard again?
Right now, you can marry your first cousin in over 2/3 of the states in the country.
Insofar as polygamy goes, IF and only IF it is a consensual relationship between adults where all spouses can be treated equally, then I see no reason why we shouldn’t allow it, as opposed to the current situation where we know it exists and its abuses are legion. Heck, there’s biblical precedent for polygamy. Are you saying that you’re a better man of God than Abraham or Joseph or David?
Anything that is legal can be regulated. Anything that is illegal is bound to be mushroom into things we could not imagine while it is kept in the dark and fed manure.
so you are perfectly fine if a brother and sister can marry?
Excuse me, but Jesus had a comment on the OT polygamy chestnut. He said “It was not so in the beginning,” meaning God’s original plan for marriage was one man and one woman.
ok, so when we’re living in a theocracy, we’ll make sure to keep that in mind.
I apologize for that last comment. That was out of line, even so far as I am concerned. But again, we do not live in a perfect world, and laws, by their own nature reflect that. But if the goal is to believe all of that talk of liberty, then you can’t have liberty on your terms, but not on someone else’s.
No, but there’s actual scientific proof that such a thing is bad for society. That same proof would exist with cousins, too, but then there’d be no state of Alabama.
so then, you are perfectly OK placing “limits on contractual law based solely on who is entering into the contract” and being a “statist”, right?
you’re cute with your attempt at a gotcha.
Gay Marriage: show me one secular argument against it. No, Tony Perkins doesn’t get to come to the party.
Polygamy: in situations where it’s between consensual adults who all pay their taxes and aren’t a drain on the system, show me a decent argument against it.
Incest: shall we go through the reams and reams of scientific evidence that proves that it’s bad for society at large, in terms of mental stability and damage to the gene pool?
in regards to incest. If the couple was sterile and they were in a committed relationship, they you would have no problem. They would pass your criteria for mental stabilty and not damaging the gene pool. Give me a secular argument why this should not be allowed?
Also, as a Christian, you don’t see the acceptance and approval of homosexual relationships as bad for society?
Also, how did polygamy work out for Abraham and David? Abraham’s polygamous relationship brought about Ishmael, who is the father of the Arab nations. And David had lots of issues with sin and a contentious relationship with his sons because of his many wives.
As a Christian, I realize that it is my job to let people know about Christ when God leads me to do so. Nowhere in that charter is “take away peoples’ right to property and power of attorney contracts so that I feel better about myself” to be found. And please, let’s not talk about how 3% of the population having the right to wed is bad for society as Christians until we talk about the rich men who run the GOP who certainly have put other gods before God. The ones who would never sell all the have to follow Christ. When you sit in slackjawed judgement at them the same way you do at the cast of Will and Grace, please let me know, and I’ll reconsider my stance.
Now, I’ll tell you that I do see a bunch of people talking about the sanctity of marriage – while not caring one bit about the lack of prosecution of adultery laws. I see people like Newt Gingrich saying that marriage needs to be protected while not exactly fighting to end no fault divorces. And if religion is so completely a part of marriage in America, why do we allow people to be married by someone other than religious officials? Take these little tidbits together, and wonder why they only really get talked about in election years, and it makes me wonder if it’s just a grand ploy to get evangelicals to the polls who would likely vote for liberals if the social issues weren’t part of the discussion.
And see my comments above about liberty in regards to polygamy. AND, let’s not gloss over the facts here…Ishmael was necessary in order to meet God’s promise that Abraham’s children would cover the earth. What’s more important? God’s promises or your dislike of hummus?
Ishmael was not necessary to meet God’s promise. Ishmael was the work of the flesh. It was due to Abraham’s lack of faith in God’s promise that he attempted to bring about the promise in his own power.
The Apostle Paul makes this clear in Galatians 3-4. God’s promise was that he would be the father of many nations through his seed and this seed was Christ. That all who believe and have faith are children of Abraham (Gal 3:7). To say that Ishmael was necessary for that promise would be to say that works are necessary for salvation and that God cannot complete His promise without works of the flesh.
Could they pass the mental stability test if a brother and sister wanted to marry each other in the first place?
There’s no need for it contractually – with no heirs, a sister or brother would likely have automatic power of attorney, and estate issues would likely be fairly straightforward.
But, if you can cross all of those boundaries, then sure, go ahead and be the unnecessary scourge of your community.
Here’s a good article
It is Time for the American Christian Church to Surrender the Gay Marriage Fight, Apologize & Share Loveby Ian Ebright
Not sure what happened there. Had a tough time with copy and paste…
Here’s a good article:
It is Time for the American Christian Church to Surrender the Gay Marriage Fight, Apologize & Share Love by Ian Ebright
Well I guess it depends on what you mean by “good.” Good for putting some bona fide emergent church idiocy on full display for all to see and making it abundantly clear where they stand (as if we couldn’t have guessed already).
The premise of the article is that godliness can never be coerced and the attempt to enforce godliness within a secular society is counterproductive to the church’s mission…
“..Court’s ruling has the potential to be every bit as epoch-making and divisive as Roe v. Wade.”
Amazing, isn’t it. We have people making rules about killing babies. Now we have rules about a man marrying a man. It’s absurd; so absolutely absurd, that it proves the depravity of man, doesn’t it.
And concerning “LGBT community” having rpoblems with God’s wrath on Judgement Day, so we should do what now? How about preach the truth of sin, of fornication. Seems simple to me. Not eay, but simple, and crystal clear.
But they, the world will make a man having a man normal, and those who oppose will be abnormal. It’s on the way. just as killing babies is normal. You are spot on Denny.
Thanks for the post.
sure. preach the truth of sin. preach the sin of fornication. But don’t force someone into an ouroboros of a situation by telling them that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but we won’t let you get married, either. They have just as much of a right to dictate power of attorney and matters of estate as you do, and shouldn’t have to pay 100x as much for those individual documents to be tweaked by a lawyer simply because you don’t like their lifestyle.
sex outside of marriage is a sin, but so his sex between two men or two women. Getting “married” doesn’t make it sinless. Just like if a father and daughter got married doesnt make their incestuous relationship OK.
Marriage is more than just a legal framework, it is also approval from society of your relationship. The last thing a polygamists or incestuous couples or homosexual couples need is an endorsement and blessing of their relationships. They need help. They need to be shown that their relationships are unhealthy and sinful, not accepted and encouraged.
Many Christians are now on the side of gay marriage. Actively striving to approve and endorse a sinful relationship that is an affront to God. Sin is a serious issue. Christ died for sin. God sacrificed His Son for sin. The pain and suffering in this world are a result of sin and for Christians to actively fight for and endorse sin (sin that their Lord and Savior died the death of the Cross for) is a tragedy.
An earlier blog post here discussed the 14th Amendment as it relates to the matter of person-hood for the unborn. The 14th Amendment states that no “State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In essence, all citizens are afforded the same lawful rights as every other citizen. How can evangelicals envoke the 14th amendment in defense of constitutionally guaranteed rights for the unborn, but not see that same amendment as guaranteeing equal marriage rights?
1) Marriage does not discriminate against homosexuals. Marriage a man and a woman. The reasons homosexuals cannot marry is not because they are gay, but because they are not a man and a woman. Two straight men cannot get married either.
2) Based on your reading of the highlighted phrase, are we not also violating equal protection by not allowing fathers to marry their daughters or men to have multiple wives.
it should read marriage IS a man and a woman.
Um, read the bold clause again. It says equal PROTECTION. I repeat, equal PROTECTION. When will you liberals get it through your heads that this is about basic stuff like not getting cheated in court, not getting beat up with no consequences for your attacker, and the like? It’s not the same thing as getting to do whatever you feel like doing. Nobody has a right to do that.
In 1968 it was against the law for blacks to marry whites. Protection of the law enforced the rights of black citizens and white citizens to marry should they choose to do so. This is not a “liberal” issue. It’s a constitutional issue. The lead attorney fighting for the rights of homosexuals to marry is a political conservative (GWB’s Solicitor General and an Asst Attorney General in the Reagan administration).
There is no legitimate reason – constitutionally – that one class of people be excluded from participating in an already guaranteed right that exists for other classes of people.
A quote from the court’s ruling (bolded portion mine):
“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted,”
“..we won’t let you get married, either.”-Paul
What? Can a man marry a man? Can a woman marry a woman? No more than a man can marry an animal or his pet. It’s absurd my friend.
In our society and nation homosexuals have their freedom for sure. But they can not marry; that is impossible. Surely you understand this.
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.”
(Leviticus 18:19-23 ESV)
It’s amazing how we pick and choose with Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We want a theocracy in situations where it can be divisive. But is anyone calling for the return of the sabbath year and the year of jubilee? Nope. Because then, Republican big money donors would be mad at you. Can’t forgive debts every seven years…what is this, a theocracy? But, hey, if you can keep 3% of the population from having easy access to power of attorney, then that’s the way God wants our country to be.
See also: women don’t have to cover heads in church anymore, but one verse later, they can’t teach a man anything about religion. Either live it or don’t.
“What? Can a man marry a man? Can a woman marry a woman?”
In terms of a religious ceremony, no. But what is marriage to the state? Is it a religious institution, clearly forbidden in the first amendment? Or is it a quick and easy way to lump a fistful of contracts into one binding agreement between partners inexpensively? Because marriage, as a state sanctioned institution, is just a contract, that contract should be available to any people that fit the parameters of that contract.
if you think that property and power of attorney contracts shouldn’t be allowed to people based on who they sleep with, then you are a horrible person. End of story.
“But what is marriage to the state?”
It’s a word that is in the dictionary, and it means a man, or male, joins with a woman, or female.
If you want to make up your own view, which you seem to like to do, then join the world. If you want to be part of the Church, then you have to take the Word of God serious, and truth serious, which seems you don’t care to do.
Pick and choose in the Bible? Really/ Okay, I’ll take out Thou shall not murder, and thou shall not steal then.
The Word of God is God’s Word my friend.
You need to get serious.
Donsands is right. It’s not good for us to pick and choose from the Word of God. We need to follow it to the letter. So when it says homosexuality is an abomination, then we need to obey . . . and stone them. (You forgot the second part, Don). And while we’re at it, we need to remember the other things that God has commanded. We need to start excluding deformed and crippled people from church, because apparently God doesn’t like them either (Leviticus 21:18-21).
Don, everyone picks and chooses what parts of the bible to ignore or follow. What you emphasize and dismiss is based on experience and history. I do it, you do it, Denny does it. The bible is a difficult book to work through, we need to be honest about it.
And as to the “definition” of marriage, it changes culture to culture. It’s not always one man and one woman. Sometimes it’s religious, and sometimes it’s a tribal thing, and sometimes it’s a government contract. Yes, sometimes it involves family members (See the royal family of England or Abraham in the bible). Legally our country has to decide if it will now include like sexes. Again, the way our country currently defines marriage has not been the definition of marriage throughout history, even biblical history.
So I have to ask, what does it hurt to have homosexuals marrying? I get why people think that God disapproves, but why can’t we allow it legally? We allow other people to practice religious beliefs we don’t agree with/think is harmful. So why not homosexuals? Where does it say in the bible that we are to be the ones to set the moral standards for non-christians? Instead of setting the moral standard, shouldn’t we be more worried about how to love and serve others, like Jesus explicitly commanded? Is homosexuality really going to be the downfall of our country? Seems the straights have done a pretty good job to this point of pushing us to the brink, and I’m guessing it’ll be the economy (not gay marriage) that’ll nudge us off the cliff.
(and seriously, the stoning thing was sarcasm in case anyone missed that)
Agreed. Marriage is a word in the dictionary. However, your definition, wouldn’t hold legal water in any of the 50 states, any of the territories or even someplace weird, like Canada. If you’re going for what I think you’re going for (Jesus’ definition of adultery, which also defines marriage), then Don Sands’ definition of marriage basically just legalized polygamy in all 50 states. In other words, you’re going to need a stronger, more resolute definition. Like maybe a legal commitment that automatically gives the two parties of the contract about 1000 rights, privileges and tax breaks that single people don’t have.
Secondly, drop the condescending tone. I do take the word of God seriously. I also take the constitution seriously, and there are plenty of points where the two don’t see eye to eye. Like that whole first amendment thing. Now, either we’re a theocracy, or we aren’t. If we are a theocracy, then call your congressman right now, because I want my sabbath year. I want my year of jubilee, and I want to be able to legally get dark on the Ayn Rand geeks. But since the economic conservatives won’t like that too much, then we’re going to have to scale back on the Tony Perkins talk a bit.
Third, your picks for Bible verses that you’ll pick and choose reveal a lot about you. I’d go with “Love the Lord with your mind, body and spirit, and love your neighbor as yourself.”
“..and stone them. (You forgot the second part, Don).”
No I didn’t.
In Israel, with God as their God, they did need to stone the one guilty. Do you think God was right to have them stone the guilty person back then Justin? You probably don’t. Be honest, and tell me, do you think God was righteous to kill the people He said to kill, when He chose the people of Israel, and gave them this law to keep?
For you said: “(and seriously, the stoning thing was sarcasm in case anyone missed that)”
With God the stoning “thing” is very serious. And hell is even more serious for us. And most serious is God’s glory and honor.
Have a good day.
Don, you prove my point AGAIN. You want religious laws all over the place, but you don’t want a theocracy. PICK ONE and stick with it. I say we do alright with the constitution, and that the ability of 3% of the population to have legal commitments with one another isn’t going to affect you much.
I thought we could agree that we shouldn’t stone homosexuals. It makes me very nervous that you did not affirm that point. Personally, I really hope that God didn’t endorse all the stonings, genocide, and misogyny in the OT. Not to mention the rejection of cripples that I cited. And fortunately, that’s not the God revealed in Jesus. But I digress. Back to the main point of the post, and following discussion.
Paul’s point needs to be emphasized, we need to be clear about if we are talking about homosexuals in religious community or secular community. It’s up to religious groups to determine their stance on accepting homosexuals, but since we are discussing the US legal system I don’t think that issue should be part of this discussion (is gay a sin or not?). When we talk about public policy we allow other people to do things we don’t always agree with. The hope is that a group of diverse people can agree and compromise on enough common issues that society is able to function. So if you think that gay marriage should not be legal, you need to provide evidence of why it harms the greater society. Not just God says it’s a sin.
Example: other cultures and countries accept the stoning of law breakers, but that would drive vigilantism and civil unrest if that culture practiced that in America.
“You want religious laws all over the place,”
No I don’t. I never said that. Show we where I did?
“legal commitments”? What happened to two men getting “married”? I’m okay with “legal commitments, or whatever else you want to call two men being together in fornication. We should simply call it what it is, wrong. Our Creator didn’t make man to have sex with man; nor woman with woman.
Pretty simple truth. But, some don’t like to hear the truth, do they? No.
You’re doing it in this thread. There is no secular argument against gay marriage. The only argument you have is that God says it’s wrong. To which I will remind you, we could just about wallpaper the halls of the internet with things which God deems bad that even Christian Americans applaud loudly.
But to ask you some questions, if you don’t mind…
Why is this wrong but adultery isn’t?
Why is this wrong, but no-fault divorces are ok?
Unless and until you are willing to call your legislator and demand that these two items be considered, then your whole argument is a sham.
There’s no sanctity to a marriage that can be ended without acknowledging fault.
There’s no sanctity to a marriage where adultery isn’t reprimanded.
So why should marriage all of the sudden be the this beacon on a hill of sanctity when it comes to people that you don’t like?
Is it sinful? Possibly. Isn’t it just as sinful to follow mammon instead of God? (only possible answer is yes) Yet you’re all for candidates whose policies practically encourage people to follow mammon instead of God.
In other words, you’re picking and choosing. And you can stomp and kick and scream and question others’ motives all you want, but at the end of the day, you’re just as guilty as I might be when it comes to how we pick and choose what looks good on us in the Bible. The only difference is, when you do it, you have the gall to deny people the right to call whomever they want family.
and another flaw in your theory. If marriage is a religious institution that should stand on religious grounds, why in the world are you willing to let non-Christians get married? You should be getting your Fred Phelps on at every non Christian wedding you come across. They’re clearly muddying the waters, are they not?
Of course, no one would make an argument that stupid. For the same reason, there is absolutely no reason to oppose gay marriage in a secular nation.
“I thought we could agree that we shouldn’t stone homosexuals. It makes me very nervous that you did not affirm that point.”
I agree with God, and His Word Justin. You don’t seem to agree with God’s Word.
God is holy, and He has a wrath my friend. We need to fear Him. Now, that fear is two-fold. As Peter the Apostle feared Jesus in the boat, and so he came to be a true believer in Christ, and disciple, and even friend; and so this fear, which was really a gift from God, is a good and holy fear.
Now Peter loves Jesus. He still has a fear, which is more toward His Father in heaven, much like we as children fear our own Dad:-a fear with love.
God is scary for unrepentant sinners. There’s a condemnation coming for all who reject the truth of God, and do not rrust in Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sin.
I guess we are going way down a rabbit path, and I need to end it here. Unless Denny wants us to continue to discuss these truths?
God’s Word trumps your word Justin; and mine as well. But we need to take His “whole” Word, not just the portions we like. We need to always remember that.
There’s no such thing as homosexual marriage. No such thing. Two men having sex and saying they are married is a lie. Truth doesn’t bend to our way of liking.
And those who declared the Independance and Constitution belive in God. God is real, and He manifested Himself in Christ.
Jesus Christ is the truth, and so we need to look to Him, don’t we. You may not, but I do, and this nation did.
Now, you will take this somewhere else of course. But before you do answer me one question.
What is your definition for being “married”? Define it as you would fornication, or your definition of Man; or woman; or so many other words that you may even use as you write.
Can I take any word you write and change its meaning?
Sorry. Just your definition of “Married”, if you please. Thanks.
Married has to have two definitions, Don.
There needs to be a definition by the state. Otherwise, there could be no tax breaks. There could be no government incentives. There could be no ability to define power of attorney, execute estates, etc. So there must be a GOVERNMENTAL definition. That definition shouldn’t be what some want it to be, it should be what it is at its core: A LEGAL AND BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO PARTIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF FAMILY LAW.
Then, of course, there is also the religious definition: A man and a woman coming together as one flesh, under the eyes of God. We agree on this definition.
“Jesus Christ is the truth, and so we need to look to Him, don’t we. You may not, but I do, and this nation did.”
First off, you don’t know me, and you certainly haven’t tried to get to know me, so you can cut that out right now.
Secondly, our founding fathers were masons and deists. Not necessarily Christians. And certainly, Jefferson came much closer to being a Universalist than any sort of Christian.
On the stoning thing, I am now moved from nervous to highly disturbed. Go read John’s account of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. That view of God and condemnation doesn’t jive with what you just described.
And further, you’re all over the map on this thread. Are we talking about biblical authority, heaven and hell, or gay marriage? And are we discussing gay marriage as sin/not sin or are we discussing whether it should be legal in US law? I can’t have a dialogue if you throw 20 topics my way, and then instead of giving arguments you throw out a vague “the bible says it’s true so that’s it.” And by “true” you appear to mean your “truth.”
As to a definition of marriage, there isn’t one. Marriage is a societal creation that varies from culture to culture and even within a culture across time. Look at the bible, marriage changed even over the course of the biblical narrative. It can be religious, informal, secular, government sponsored, etc. Same thing with the word “family”, our nuclear families look nothing like biblical families.
“Married has to have two definitions, Don.”
“As to a definition of marriage, there isn’t one.”
Oh. Never realized that. This is about as far as we can go I’m afraid, becuase you make up your own meanings.
Talk about disturbing. That’s down right scary.
And BTW, I wrote that you, and I, and everyone must not pick and choose, (as you have accused me BTW), but must look at the fullness, the WHOLE Word of God, the WHOLE of the Holy Scripture.
You seem not to want to do this. Sad. God’s truth is wonderful when you see His holiness and not just what you want to see.
I’m not sure what to do with your comments. You aren’t interested in discussion and dialogue; you seem more interested in rendering moral judgments. I agree on one thing, we are done with this discussion. Have a good evening.
Justin, I can’t talk with you I’m afraid.
There’s an Umpire behind the plate. The pitcher pitches the ball over the plate. The Ump cries,”Strike.” Classically it is a strike, it is what it is.
Modernism says, “Well, from my point of view, that is from where I see it, it isn’t a Strike.”
Post-modernism says, “Well, it all depends how I think it went over the plate whether it’s a Strike or not.”
So, I’m classic, truth is what it is. Marriage is marriage. And you are whatever you want marriage to be.
So, we can’t go any further.
Maybe some day we will see the truth the same.
Nowadays, it is going on conversations about homosexuality; some are against it and some on behalf of it. The right answer we can find from the word of God (the Bible).
The Lord Jesus is the Messiah, Redeemer from sins and the Saviour. Jesus’ must fulfilled the whole law of God and believed all what the Old Testament taught, that He could be the Saviour. He did fulfill and believe all the law. In the Old Testament were commandments, which teach that homosexuality is a sin. Because the Lord Jesus had to believe all commandments of the Old Testament, so He also believed that homosexuality is a sin. The Bible teaches that homosexuality was a sin in the order of the Old Covenant and is valid in the order of the New Covenant. Like this way Jesus also believed that homosexuality is a sin, and He also condemned homosexuality by this way.
For the sake of sodomites’ abomination acts, God destroyed Sodom as Ezekiel 16:49,50 shows for us. Ezekiel uses 16:50 Hebrew word towebah, which is the same Hebrew word in Lev 18:22 (and Lev 20:13) that describes homosexuality as abomination. It is very clear that in Ezekiel 16:50, abomination means homosexuality acts as the reason for destroying of Sodom. Sodomites pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness and hardened hearts towards poor and needy were sins, but destruction came for the sake of homosexuality, and the New Testament confirms this:
Jude1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Apostle Paul wrote very clearly that homosexuality (men having sex with other men; women having sex with other women) is a sin. Ro 1:27 is word error, which is in Greek plane, which means error, to deceive, deceit, one led astray from the right way, error which shows itself in action, a wrong mode of acting. In this place, the Bible in the New Testament shows very clearly that same-gender sex is a sin and aberration from the right way. Apostle Paul taught very clearly that homosexuality is unnatural sin.
Many scientists believe that homosexuality is congenital, a matter and orientation that can’t be changed as heterosexual. Paradoxical is that many scientists don’t believe in God of the Bible, and they proclaim that God of the Bible is not existed. Nevertheless, God of the Bible is capable of change homosexuals individuals to be as heterosexuals.
Arsenos means male and koiten means bed. Lev 18:22 and 20:13 teach that a man cannot lie (sexual act) with another man as he lies with a woman. The origin of the word arsenokoites means homosexual activity and homosexual. Lev 18:22 and 20:13 prove very clearly that arsenos koitenmeans homosexuality sex, because the Jews scribes translated words’ arsenos koiten to describe men who have sex with another men (homosexuality), which is a sin and against the will of God. Apostle Paul didn’t make up the word arsenokoites, but it was already as the concept in the Old Testament, where it meant homosexuality.
It is very clear that the words’ arsenos koiten meant homosexuality (man who had sex with another man) to Jews of the Old Covenant era. In the same way arsenokoites meant homosexuality (man who had sex with another man) to Jesus’ disciples in the New Covenant era.
Jewish philosopher Philo lived in the same time as Jesus Christ and Philo has said that arsenokoites meant shrine prostitute (male temple prostitute), and not homosexual. Some people have made from this a conclusion that the word arsenokoites meant a male temple prostitute. Philo’s interpretation was totally wrong, because the Bible proves this undisputedly and shows that Philo erred.
Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13 doesn’t use temple prostitute word, but words in which is denied that a man can’t lie sexually with another man. Always when the Bible speaks for temple prostitutes, so the Bible uses words gedeshah and gadesh. If Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13 told for temple prostitutes, so verses would mention them, but there isn’t, because in those verses, the Bible forbids homosexuality. It is very clear and undisputable in the light of the testimony of the Bible, that arsenokoites means homosexuality.
According to words of the Lord Jesus, Jesus’ disciples can judge righteous judgement. If somebody is stealing, living in adultery or is lying, so we have the right to say sin as a sin. According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin and so Jesus’ disciples have the right to say what the Bible teaches. Jesus’ disciple has a right to say that living in sins lead people to eternal damnation. Jesus’ disciple doesn’t judge to damnation, but tells that God shall judge sin maker to hell.
God loves also gay-people, but not sinful act of homosexuality, and therefore, God calls gay-people repentance and receives salvation by believing in the Lord Jesus. In other words, God loves sinners, but not sins. The gospel and its changing power is meant also for gay-people, because the Lord Jesus can set you free you from your sins.
I don’t condemn homosexuals, but love them by the love of God. The love of God also holds on from the truth, and therefore, I must say that homosexuality is a sin, it is not condemning, but telling the truth. God has authority to judge, not a man. God judges in His word homosexuality as a sin. I can tell about judgements that what God does, and I don’t condemn, but tell who judge.
I don’t support discrimination of homosexuals, because they are valuable as my neighbors. However, homosexuality is a sin. It is possible to integrate from homosexuality and get rid of it. The Lord Jesus can save and give freedom to you. I recommend for you to read the Bible, because there God teaches for natural sexuality and salvation by believing in the Lord Jesus.