How could anyone really know that? Besides, does anyone really think the subject of same-sex marriage was even talked about then?
Highly doubtful. Heck...would anyone have thought about it in 1950?
The argument is a ruse. The ENTIRE Bible is the Word of God. You cannot separate parts of it from the whole and use it to argue in favor or against anything. The Bible is clear on what is sin and what is righteous and it is not silent on this issue.
1) Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death
2) I will set my face against anyone who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute themselves by following them, and I will cut them off from their people.
3) Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.
4) If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife —with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
5) ‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death;
6) If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads;
7) ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads;
8) If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you;
9) ‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal;
10) If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads; (not sure why it’s the animal’s fault)
I think what we are talking about is covered under #7, and remember, Jesus came not to change the law, not one jot, not one tittle. He might forgive you, but you’d have to admit what you had done was wrong first.
Read Matthew 19:3-9 again. (Same event in Mark 10: 3-12)did Jesus of Nazareth not direct His audience to Genesis 1:27— and 2:24? Read those and compare them to Mark 10: and Matthew 19:? Then read Genesis 13:13— and 18:1—19:29 -read carefully Genesis 19:1-13 what did the men of Sodom do? What did they
demand of Lot? what did they threaten to do? Now I am told the sin of Sodom,as given given in the prophets— was something other than homosexual sex.(Ezekiel 16:48 ) My question is was Ezekiel speaking of a condition of their heart(wickedness?) that included or led to immoral sexual behavior especially with strangers?(Genesis 19:) did not Peter-and Jude say that the Judgement of Sodom was given to us as example of How a righteous God deals with unrighteousness? How He provides a way out for the righteous? Just asking. And I don’t think any can show how same sex marriage would have been acceptable given the strict definition of “marriage” /betrothal then.
In an environment where homosexual activity was punishable by death, it was completely unnecessary for Jesus to mention it explicitly. Indeed, it would be necessary for Jesus to explicitly PROMOTE homosexuality in order to conclude that He approved. And he did not.
Now, an entire generation has agreed that it is a liberty to kill ones children. After professing themselves to be wise, they become fools and 'evolve' to kill the helpless and by euthanasia and infanticide. Whereas it was once thought the helpless had the greatest claim on our protection, right has become inverted and now they have the least protection. The Germans, who learned their trade largely from Sanger and her ilk, developed another tool of their trade that beinglebensunwerten Leben - "life unworthy of life". It is a eupemism to adjust their guilt so they will, but they know it is wrong. Natural Law, that which the cannot not know causes this response. And so it is with the issue at hand. We all know marriage is between a man and a woman. But those who chose to violate that law put up barriers to evade guilt. They change the name to 'same-sex' marriage, but it is not marriage. In fact it is homosexuality attempting to go mainstream. Jesus did say this was wrong and unseamly. Being wrong is a result of a moral obligation. To whom is that obligation owed. It is owed to the author of that Moral Law. And so it will be. The assumption that we make up our moral foundations as we go along has become a malalligned assumption. If we do not like them,....we can change them. To these people who have turned away they think the moral code can be abandoned or re-created. This is what we are watching happen with this cultural question put before us. But they know it is wrong...it is the law. Disbelief in Moral Law is becoming a pillar of middle-class prejudice. They are essentially claiming tolerence by claiming "My morality says you shall not impose your morality on anyone else." They go further and declare that there never was Moral Law - that it is an illusion, and an illusion from which we can escape. They say that the emblem of Moral Law has become immorality itself. They say being "judgemental" and "tolerent" is their way of judging interance has been judged and will not be tolerated.