Prostitution solution
Now imagine all those problems solved with one simple innovation. The answer: temple prostitution.
I know, I know. Outrageous and offensive. I can hear readers already dismissing the idea out of hand. And I admit that we may not be ready for it quite yet. But please hear me out on this.
First off, let’s address the common objections. Sure, there are a handful of Bible verses that might seem to condemn the practice. But all the condemnation of temple prostitution involves pagan practices or worship of false gods. The objectionable thing is the idolatry, not the physical act itself. Sanctified, faithful prostitution in service of the true God is a new thing. The Biblical writers never foresaw or contemplated sanctified, faithful, God-pleasing prostitution in the churches and thus never wrote about it. Attempts to find a Biblical injunction against the practice therefore fall short.
Interpretive nuance
Secondly, let’s not cherry-pick verses selectively. We don’t stone disobedient children to death. We don’t refrain from pork or sodomy merely because this or that verse says we should. We have to look at the whole Biblical witness in light of the freedom we have in Christ. For example, God ordered Hosea to marry a prostitute. Such Biblical precedent offers interpretive nuance to seemingly black-and-white prohibitions.
Thirdly, Jesus himself seemed to have a soft spot for prostitutes. Many reputable scholars today think he may have been married to one. And Jesus showed radical inclusivity, breaking taboos by hanging out with prostitutes. So he would want us to celebrate and affirm their prostitution and give them a venue for making it their true vocation, a way of serving God by serving man—selflessly and with their whole being.
Fourthly, some primarily Lutheran nations in Scandinavia have already legalized prostitution. Left-hand kingdom legalities need not stand in the way of the general idea of sanctified, faithful, God-pleasing, church-sponsored prostitution.
http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2009/12/temple-prostitution-a-modest-proposal/
and that they should also eat their kids
And temple gambling, as in the Church of the New Revelation (Fosterite) from Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.
For forget to enter /sarc/. The bible verses dealing with homosexuals have nothing to do with temple worship. That's a liberal interpretation created to justify sin. The physical act is condemned and clearly so.
I did my doctoral dissertation on the Bible and homosexuality,and worked for many years in public policy in Washington DC defending traditional marriage. I believe that Olson’s opinion piece makes just about the strongest case possible for the legal acceptance of gay marriage. I say “possible” because I believe that, contra Olson, that reason, history, human sexuality properly understood, and biblical faith argue convincingly against the societal acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage.
It is much too late to attempt to launch into a detailed response to Olson. I would, however, like to briefly mention what I believe are the most essential points arguing against Olson’s position.
First history: Olson fails to consider why no developed society has ever sanctioned homosexual marriage. A rare few, such as the Greeks and some remote pre-literate tribal cultures, tolerated homosexuality within certain well-defined limits, and primarily as a developmental stage for some young men between the onset of puberty and marriage. In no wise did the Greeks permit homosexuals to “marry”: for the Greeks, marriage was defined as between a man and a woman. Olson would do well to consider why is the collective wisdom of human history has limited marriage to between men and women (the existence of polygamy and polyandry does not negate this truth).
Second, it is incontrovertible that biblical faith is unalterably opposed to homosexual behavior, a fact admitted to by homosexual advocates, who are reduced to attempting to minimize the force of the biblical testimony. For Olson to treat the biblical teachings so dismissively reveals a not-so-subtle contempt for the moral underpinnings of our society. I suspect Olson would not dare apply the facile argument the “we can’t force our morality on others” to the rest of the 10 commandments (homosexual behavior is considered part of the prohibition of adultery), which as he well knows has formed the basis of the Western legal tradition for two millennia.
Third, while seemingly accepting every caricature of the conservative/biblical position, Olson turns around and embraces a wholly naive and superficial picture of the homosexual lifestyle. Repeatedly he refers to homosexual couples in the most glowing of terms regarding their mutual commitment to each other and their children. The reality, as he must know, is very different. I have written extensively on the degradation of the homosexual lifestyle, and the almost complete absence of the values that are assumed between married couples. Someone in this thread has rightly pointed out that, indeed, few wives would tolerate the demand for “Thursday nights off.” Yet the research indicates that “open” relationships is virtually the norm even with so-called “committed” homosexual couples. One study found that, among those homosexual couples who managed to endure five years (a monumental achievement for gay relationships), NONE were monogamous. Compare this to studies that show that between 75-80% or more of married couples are monogamous. If Olson does not realize that homosexuals conceive of their “commitments” in terms that would leave married people aghast, he has not done his homework, and willfully chooses to believe a lie.
Homosexual activists have admitted that their goal is not merely to be allowed to marry - only a small percentage choose to enter into such an “outmoded” and “restrictive” legal relationship (even with their redefinition of “monogamy”). Rather, their stated goal is none other than the overturning of marriage as understood in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and reflected in most other religions and cultures, to be replaced by a pan-sexuality that knows few if any restrictions upon sexual activity. Homosexual activism is best understood as dagger at the heart of Judeo-Christian morality. If they are successful, and our society embraces - yea “celebrates” - homosexuality and homosexual marriage, God help us all. This, for example, is the real danger behind “hate crimes” legislation, which many observers fear could lead to opposition to homosexuality becoming a federal crime punishable by imprisonment. Olson apparently has no idea of the beast he is determined to help unleash.