“I like your point that Jesus mentions marriage is between a man and a woman. However, the author says, ‘Jesus refers to Genesis 1 and 2 in the context of criticizing the excessive practice of husbands divorcing wives (Matthew 19:3-9). The New Testament does not say the Old Testament gives a theory of sexuality which it affirms. The New Testament interprets the Hebrew scriptures as pointing forward to the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. To say Genesis provides a “framework for understanding what it means for us to be male and female before God” is already to offer interpretation well beyond what the text itself is able to authorize.’ Still, I think your point holds that Jesus defined marriage as male and female. If it was something else as well then I assume that Jesus — to be just — would have mentioned it.”
Thanks. Plus, I don’t see how the homosexualist argument works in light of God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”(Gen 1:28). Also, the original hearers in Jesus’ day would have assumed marriage is male/female. Same-sex “marriage” would have been unthinkable to a first century Jewish audience.
“As for any sexual activity that’s not in that relationship sanctioned by God, He would have called it fornication:
“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,” Mark 7:21
I’m wondering why fornication wouldn’t apply to adultery? He mentions both adultery and fornication, but why bother mentioning both if fornication already covers for adultery as an activity not sanctioned by God?”
I’m not sure. In the original Greek, the word for adulteries is moicheia which translates as adultery. The original Greek word for fornication is porneia which translates as illicit sexual intercourse, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc., sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18, sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12 according to this source:
http://bible.worthwhile.com/bible.php?b=mark&c=7&v=21&d=8&w=0
“Plus, I don’t see how the homosexualist argument works in light of God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”(Gen 1:28)”
The author I’m reading says that this view (”be fruitful and multiply”) was abandoned by the church even though it was asserted to be God’s holy will revealed in scripture. The view was made into an argument against the use of contraception, even within marriage but, according to the author, Protestant denominations now sanction intentionally childless marriages. In some ways the author seems unclear (at least to me) and I’m assuming that he is saying if the church can abandon this view (he considers them revisionist in this respect) they can abandon their views against homosexuality. Or they can bend their views about homosexuality in the sense that the procreative purpose is not thwarted if some people use sex for other reasons that procreation. Most heterosexuals do this almost all the time when they have sex. The existence of men and women who don’t fit this pattern should indicate that the traditional understanding requires exceptions. He says reproduction is something that species do but, to be successful at it, it is not necessary for every member of the species to be at it.