[boatbums]

They'd say their grasp of the "underlying truth" is better than yours. And they would say the way the churches have come, over the centuries, to accept women preaching, teaching, and holding leadership roles -- despite St. Paul's explicit and repeated opposition to this in Scripture --- is a very good parallel to the coming acceptance of gay married couples acting "in good faith" -- We'll be running into this more, I'm sure. And they've got their Scriptural-cultural arguments absolutely down pat.

Those who go against Paul's explicit teaching about women pastors are in no better shape than the homosexuals who ignore God's explicit teachings prohibiting their acts. Good faith or no good faith, when God sets down truth we had best be in obedience to Him or face the consequences. Nothing that He has said WRT women in authority over men in the church or homosexual acts were said to harm us but were for our good and the good of society. Those who imagine they have progressed past God are fools.

They don't have them "down pat" enough to fool those of us who DO know what God has ALWAYS said about homosexual acts. All the weasel words, rationalizations, justifications and excuses don't work when placed up against the absolute truth God has given us in His word. If, however, ALL we have is what has been handed down through traditions and customs and not the unchangeable word of God from the unchangeable God, then their arguments may have merit. But we are not dependent on such mere human rules, are we?

[Mrs. Don-o]

They say the "unchangeable Word of God" re the OT prohibition of relations between men or between women, has the same status as the "unchangeable Word of God" re the OT prohibition of fabrics mixing different kinds of fibers and the OT law that witchcraft was punishable by death (Exodus 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.")--- cultic and cultural rules considered null in the NT.

They would say further that the words which people mistakenly interpret as "homosexual" in the NT, "malakoi" and "arsnokoitai", in fact referred not to homosexuals in general, nor to gay married people (which did not exist at that time), but to pederasts, rent-boys and cult prostitutes. Link Here

Thus they would argue that it is we (you and I) who are holding to age-old human bigotry, traditions and customs and not the unchangeable word of God from the unchangeable God. They would urge us to stop basing our interpretations on mere human biases and rules, and instead search deeper in to the language of Scripture itself to determine whether Scripture condemns gay marriage.

In other words, they would say that it is the "traditional marriage" people who ware too dependent on "tradition." And as for themselves? Ah! They diligently search the Word of God alone to see that for ALL married couples (including themselves), may do what comes naturally (to them) by mutual consent in their marriage bed - which is "honorable in ALL and UNDEFILED" - and it is between themselves and God.

I know how I would refute this. But I'm interested in how you would. Your thoughts?