(Link) writes:

>I see the homosexual debate is underway in this forum.

>

>The apostle Paul warned against accepting falsely-so-called knowledge.

[]

>In the '50's, homosexuals were considered to be mentally ill. Now

>they aren't. Is there any reason to think that the current

>psychologists are any more on track?

Current psychologists have had a much broader population of homosexuals to study giving a better picture.

>These are just fads that come and go.

And where did you get this bit of "knowledge"?

>The current homosexual agenda says that 'sexuality' or 'orientation'

>is in-born.

I'm not terribly interested in what anybody's agenda says. I am rather interested in what reasonably well done research suggests. What that research suggests is that orientation is typically determined very early on in life.

>That is supposedly supposed to make it okay to engage in

>same-sex relationships.

I have not made that statement. I have seen a number of others who believe that homosexuality is compatable with being Christian disavow such a position.

What it does do is raise questions about the applicability of Romans 1 to all homosexuals.

[]

>Sex is for marriage.

Agreed.

>Marriage is between male and female human beings.

>Not between men and men.

Why?

>Not between a man and a tree. Not between a goat and a human being.

Neither a tree nor a goat can give informed consent to be married.

>Marriage is between people of opposite sexes, according to what we see

>in the Bible.

1 Timothy 3:2 (English-KJV)

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12 (English-KJV)

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

The presumption here seems to be that there are Christians with more than one wife.

Certainly these verses and others in the N.T. hold up monogamy as the ideal. Further, it appears to me that most of the polygamous marraiges in the O.T. had problems due to their polygamous nature.

None-the-less I have to note that I have found very little criticism in the Bible of polygamy, or even of having concubines.

There is another interpretation of these passages, that this refers to requiring that the bishops and deacons not have remarried after a divorce. But since nobody was supposed to be remarried after divorce it doesn't make sense to me to make this a special requirement of Bishops and Deacons.

Are we allowed to wear zippers? Now that the Bridegroom is no longer with us should we be singing in church? Is it legitimate to serve grape juice for communion? Or coconut milk in areas where grape wine is not easily available?

Robert Morphis