What is sufficient for deduction is the explicit formulation of premises concerning the morality of homosexuality or the morality of same-sex marriage, which are absent from the Bible. I'm not sure which moral issue we're talking about here, but I have a feeling you are talking about both because certainly the morality of same-sex marriage has some dependence on the morality of homosexuality. However, I am overwhelmingly concerned with civil marriage and very dissinterested in discussing the religious sacrament of marriage--an 'institution' which suggests a dogmatic hierarchy I am ill-equipped and ill-motivated to reinvent. The morality of civil marriage, of course, has nothing to do with the Bible.
As for inductive arguments from the Bible, it is just as likely that homosexual relationships are not discussed because they are so rare (by nature, due to the rare incidence of homosexuality) than that they are not discussed because the authors (and inspiration) of the Bible didn't want to endorse homosexuality. I personally believe that for how severely emotionally attached some Christian social conservatives are about this issue it is less likely that homosexual relationships were left out of the Bible due to a meek, historical fear of endorsing them. Assuming that the morality of homosexuality hasn't changed in 2,000 years, why has its significance? Either way, because the Bible does not state in any deliberate or meaningful way the proper Judeo-Christian ethical viewpoint on homosexuality, we have no trustworty moral opinion from God on the subject.
Your "plain" reading is perfectly valid. I offered an optimistic and historically consistent interpretation just in case you wanted to believe that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality in light of the overwhelming textural evidence I've provided in this thread; in case you wanted to believe in an omni-benevolent God that isn't on Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell's payroll. I can see now that there will be no meeting of the minds here and that my hopeful, though indeed contentious, interpretation of this Jesus narrative was in vain. I never claimed the narrative was evidence of anything. Though speculative, the interpretation is still more soundly developed than any so-called 'evidence' of moral condemnation towards homosexuality from the Bible.
It can hardly be debated in this sphere, but I think the silence of the Bible--and in this particular case of Jesus--on homosexual relationships speaks volumes more than the misinterpreted and sometimes irrelevant passages often cited to justify discrimination.
I am not at all confused about the alternatives to marriage. I am confused about the case you are making for marriage. I see no reason why the Ephesians passage or any other reference to marriage in the Bible in which God's purpose is allegedly revealed must include a man and a woman getting married. The message in Ephesians (worth keeping) could be conveyed even by a same-sex marriage or--even better--a marriage between two individuals whose sex is not made clear. That an opposite-sex marriage was used for this metaphor only demonstrates that ~2,000 years ago same-sex relationships, as well as homosexuals, were as rare as they are today. It'd be nice if ancient society was as blind to sex and sexuality as our modern society is to race (though we still have work to do against racism as well), but such pedantic political-correctness has no place in this argument. Truly, there is no functional relationship between opposite-sex partners and marriage.
Another beautiful passage on marriage in the Bible is the beginning of John 14, in which Jesus describes the Kingdom of Heaven and his Church as his "Father's house" which he will make ready for our coming. This is a direct allusion to the marital tradition of Jesus' time, in which a man would build an addition onto his father's house for his spouse. In addition, Jesus claims that it is his "light" which will let us know the way to his Father's house, and this references the traditional role of the man's wife, who would keep lit a lantern in her window to indicate which room of her father's house she lived in, so her husband could come and get her when he had finished building their new home. This passage is a clear example of Jesus generalizing marriage beyond a property arrangement, beyond gender roles, and beyond sex and sexuality. I think it is a model for how we could choose to view marriage for the purpose of glorifying God.
If you have read all of the authors I listed above and found them to be biased, that is truly unfortunate. I find them to be sufficiently objective and rational, however. I have seen no evidence refuting their conclusions, and when it comes to scriptural evidence I think the onus is on those would seek defame and disciminate against their fellow man. Dr. Helminiak makes all their research accessible in a very readable for in his book titled, simply, "What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality" [emphasis is Dr. Helminiak's]. I think that you don't have to be a Biblical scholar to conclude, after reading his detailed arguments, that the Bible contains no moral condemnation of homosexuality.
It is interesting to note the alleged bias of these authors, however. I will never understand why intelligent Christians, when confronted with the truth, insist on the darkest, most dehumanizing interpretation popularly available. It is unfortunate that a religion that began with a man transgressing every social taboo, raising up and embracing every outcast, and teaching that nothing is unclean or impure, should be rife with those too scared to stand up for social justice and admit the inadequacy of hate and false piety.
Submitted by Kevin Endsley on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 19:28.
what kind of world do you want to build?
As for inductive arguments from the Bible, it is just as likely that homosexual relationships are not discussed because they are so rare (by nature, due to the rare incidence of homosexuality) than that they are not discussed because the authors (and inspiration) of the Bible didn't want to endorse homosexuality. I personally believe that for how severely emotionally attached some Christian social conservatives are about this issue it is less likely that homosexual relationships were left out of the Bible due to a meek, historical fear of endorsing them. Assuming that the morality of homosexuality hasn't changed in 2,000 years, why has its significance? Either way, because the Bible does not state in any deliberate or meaningful way the proper Judeo-Christian ethical viewpoint on homosexuality, we have no trustworty moral opinion from God on the subject.
It can hardly be debated in this sphere, but I think the silence of the Bible--and in this particular case of Jesus--on homosexual relationships speaks volumes more than the misinterpreted and sometimes irrelevant passages often cited to justify discrimination.
Another beautiful passage on marriage in the Bible is the beginning of John 14, in which Jesus describes the Kingdom of Heaven and his Church as his "Father's house" which he will make ready for our coming. This is a direct allusion to the marital tradition of Jesus' time, in which a man would build an addition onto his father's house for his spouse. In addition, Jesus claims that it is his "light" which will let us know the way to his Father's house, and this references the traditional role of the man's wife, who would keep lit a lantern in her window to indicate which room of her father's house she lived in, so her husband could come and get her when he had finished building their new home. This passage is a clear example of Jesus generalizing marriage beyond a property arrangement, beyond gender roles, and beyond sex and sexuality. I think it is a model for how we could choose to view marriage for the purpose of glorifying God.
It is interesting to note the alleged bias of these authors, however. I will never understand why intelligent Christians, when confronted with the truth, insist on the darkest, most dehumanizing interpretation popularly available. It is unfortunate that a religion that began with a man transgressing every social taboo, raising up and embracing every outcast, and teaching that nothing is unclean or impure, should be rife with those too scared to stand up for social justice and admit the inadequacy of hate and false piety.