Gay Christianity Refuted Part 2

And good afternoon welcome to the dividing line a mega edition of the program today two hours I want to get as far as I possibly can in concluding our review of Matthew Vines presentation on The subject of homosexuality and his defense of the concept of a gay Christian.

The Need for Continued Dialogue and the Nature of the Debate

We have gotten a tremendous number of Contacts about this particular subject there is a real need for continued Dialogue on this subject not dialogue in the sense of well We need to understand the other side better or well there needs to be a compromise anything like that no what we need to continue to do is to dialogue with people who are confused or deceived Or are involved in deceiving others into believing that the Bible is unclear on this and that homosexuality is just simply one aspect of The way that God made things and that simply is not the case it is a perversion of God's intention, and it is a destructive behavior and While we still have the freedom to do so because for some reason Homosexuals do not want us to have that freedom to say what we are saying.

They try to shout you down or legislate you down and that is happening all around us anyone who denies that's happening is just simply denying. There's a sun in the sky or that's blue or whatever else and so we will dive right back in we for those of you who have the Presentation we are 35 minutes and 18 seconds into the presentation.

It's only a little over an hour long so I Unfortunately doubt we are gonna get all the way through it as much as I would like to attempt to do so. We'll we'll give it a we'll give it a shot here. So let us let us press on for unnatural ones in.

The same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Well now it seems the case is finally closed. Even though the verses in Leviticus don't apply to Christians here. We have Paul in the New Testament Explicitly teaching the unacceptability the sinfulness of same-sex relationships.

Now. I just a pause for a moment.

We've already seen that. Mr. Vines isn't is of course an error. Concerning the application of the Levitical passages. We saw why and if you're just now tuning in haven't heard that before please look in the archives.

I think what we will be doing is taking all of these programs putting them into one Single whole and making that available from the front page of the of the website for people to be able to access that so that you can go through it point by point, but Certainly the same Apostle who has said we do not Do away with the law we establish the law by faith, etc. Etc.

This same Apostle is drawing from that very same Levitical law in his Understanding of God's revelation of what is and what is not appropriate human sexual behavior as well. That needs to again be emphasized even though the normal Homosexual attempt to deal with these texts atomizes it just this it disconnects them.

You're not gonna ever hear. Well, I hesitate to use term ever but you almost never hear a Homosexual apologist dealing with these texts as a whole unless they take the the position that the Bible's witness should just be rejected.

And Toto. Which I would think would be about the only consistent position that a homosexual can ever take on this particular subject.

And even though he only speaks of lustful behavior and not of loving relationships and.

Notice.

Reading into the text a category that Paul does not acknowledge as we saw and we looked at this before. This is talking about the the it is an illustration of Idolatry that is an abandonment of the truth that has been revealed by God and a twisting of the creator-creation Relationship and that's exactly what you have going on here in that you these individuals are those who God has given them.

Over to dishonorable passions. Now the homosexual will say well since God made me this way. Then and since I am NOT an idolatry the Christian the quote-unquote Christian homosexual, which again is an oxymoron.

But that's the terminology they use they want to hold on to a form of religiosity. The quote-unquote Christian Homosexual will say I am NOT engaged in idolatry. I haven't done all these things. I haven't suppressed the knowledge of God therefore I can't be described in these ways.

The problem is that the Apostle identifies this kind of sexual behavior as an illustration of the very twistedness of what idolatry brings and so you can go at this this backwards and establish your own position and then try to cram it into the text or you can actually listen to the text and See how it consistently flows from the Old Testament text that we've already seen.

Mr. Vines has inappropriately and improperly attempted to get around primarily utilizing the argumentation of countrymen and Scroggs and and Skenzonian Mullen Cod and and and especially Boswell. Some of whom are homosexual some of whom are not but all of whom have a particular agenda.

They are they're seeking to.

Attempt to promote. He labels same-sex unions Unnatural. They are outside of God's natural design Which was set forth in Genesis 1 and 2 and is exclusively heterosexual. So even if a same-sex relationship is loving and committed it is still sinful now.

I just want to emphasize something in regards to the actual language that Paul uses in verses 26 and 27 when we talk about the Natural function or the natural relations notice that it says for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural and then the Parallel in verse 27 is and the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman.

So when we're talking here about nature, we're talking about the natural Function we're clearly talking about the sexual function. We're talking about the complementary nature of the female body in the male body that which produces life.

Etc. Etc. That is clearly what is in in view in what the Apostle is saying in these texts. It's not just simply what's natural for them as in these are heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activity. That is reading a category into it.

That is not being derived from the text. It's being enforced upon the text. That is the normal Attempt of most quote-unquote gay Christians and quote to get over this particular problem.

That is the traditional interpretation of Romans 1 26 to 27. How solid of an interpretation is that? Does this passage require us to reject the possibility of loving relationships for gay people?

We have already of course addressed the issue of what love is how the Bible Defines love and that true Christian love is defined on biblical parameters that that is defined on the basis of complementary relationship and All the things that have already become a part of at least three hours.

I think we've done so far. Yeah, I think three hours we've done so far just in response the first half hour of.

This presentation and if so, how does that make sense given the problems that I outlined earlier with that position? Was that Paul's intent here to teach that God desires gay people to be alone and notice the completely.

Esoterical decontextualization of the text. That I mean there's just this this is completely loading the conclusion this is not exegesis. This is not going to the text. This is not honestly dealing with the text.

This man has an agenda. He has a position that that he is seeking to force into the text. This is this is a comp. Well, it the man has perverted his own life. And now he's seeking to pervert the scriptures as well and is an unfortunate thing to observe.

It's a sad thing to see but that's exactly what is going on to. To even ask such a question of the context of the text is Just completely inappropriate on any meaningful basis for a Christian a person who claims to be a Christian at the very least and Shows a tremendous bias on.

On his part for their entire lives. Because their sexual orientation is broken and it's outside of his created.

Natural design. Their sexual orientation is rebellious. Not just broken. It is a rejection of God's intention and it is an acceptance of desires so much so and in so much of an abandonment of the fight against What would be considered the appropriate mechanism of of resisting temptation that it becomes definition of the person and very much a part of The entire worldview that is created around it and then brought to the text which resulting in the kind of Reading that we're seeing right now.

How we understand. This passage hinges in large part on how we understand the meaning of the terms natural and unnatural. It's commonly assumed by those who hold to the traditional interpretation but these terms refer back to Genesis 1 and 2 and are intended to define heterosexuality as God's natural design and Homosexuality as an unnatural distortion of that design now.

One of the problems with this is that the the term natural that is found in this text for example in verse 26 fussacane creasin. That is the natural use. It's it's the term natural here is used in a phrase and on a lexical basis.

You need to allow a phrase to be defined by its context you can't just take one element of that run off to some other text like oh, let me just guess first Corinthians 1114 and Take that particular reading and bring it back into this text.

And so you have a natural use that is being exchanged for that. Which is para fussing against nature. And then as I pointed out it's important to see verse 27 homoious likewise also the men. Abandoning the natural usage again in in parallel of.

The female then burned in their lust one for another and so clearly this is any and all. This this is this is any homosexual activity lesbianism male homosexuality. This is what's being described here by the Apostle.

This is in perfect harmony with how the Apostle interpreted God's law the Levitical law. How how Jesus? Interpreted the creation of man and woman Matthew 19 all of these things that we have already seen we see a perfectly Harmonious testimony so far in all of these texts.

But of course we're being told that well, I can't mean that because that means that I'd have to be alone. Well, if you choose in your rebellion against God To violate his ways then yeah, you will be alone in your violation.

But that's not a an argument against this interpretation of Scripture and the consistency of this interpretation of Scripture.

But once again Closer examination does not support that interpretation. In order to understand what Paul meant by the use of these terms we have to consider two things. First we have to look at the broader context of the passage in order to see how the concept of nature functions within it.

And secondly, we need to see how Paul himself uses these terms in his other letters and. And how they were commonly and widely applied to sexual behavior in particular in the ancient world. First the passages context.

In chapter 1 verses 18 through 32 Paul is making a larger argument about idolatry and. That argument has a very precise logic to it. The reason he says in verses 18 through 20, but the idolaters actions are blameworthy is because they knew God.

They started with the knowledge of God. But they chose to reject him. Paul writes. What may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen.

Being understood from what has been made so that people are without excuse. The idolaters are without excuse. Because they knew the truth they started with the truth, but they rejected it. Paul's subsequent statements about sexual behavior follow this same pattern.

The women he says exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones now immediately.

Once again, Matthew has demonstrated a real inability to engage in meaningful exegesis. Because in verse 24 you have already had The the summary statement made by the Apostle Paul that they knew God. They did not honor his God or give thanks to him, but they came futile in their thinking their foolish hearts were darkened so he's just jumped over skipped a transitionary section that begins to deal with the results of Idolatry and the result of idolatry is a futility of thinking a darkening of the heart a becoming foolish even though they claim to be wise an exchanging of the glory of the Immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things in other words.

There is an impact there there is a fundamental perversion of the created order that follows from the existence of idolatry and from the existence of the suppression of the knowledge of God. Catechon zone.

They are holding down the knowledge of God and when the creature suppresses the knowledge of the Creator the result is a deformation of the created order and part of that involves the mind the thinking Claiming to wise they become fools.

The exchange there is an exchange going on now in verse 23. The term that is found there a lasso is The same term that's going to be found in verse 25 they exchanged the truth of God and then in verse 26 Where likewise you have the same term?

It's meta there, but the same root the exchanging of natural relations and so if you're going to follow this if you're going to and at all Claim that you are even pretending to honestly deal with this text then you must note the context appropriately and so after the assertion of the exchanging of the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things in other words.

Man's mind and his worship is turned away from its proper object to that which is inappropriate. Then you have verse 24 starts off Diya Pareto Ken altoos hot they asked therefore God gave them over in the loss of their hearts to impurity and.

So whatever he's describing is Impurity it involves the dishonoring of their body among themselves their bodies amongst themselves. But it is a part of God's giving them over they want to suppress the knowledge of God.

They want to pervert the relationship of the Creator and the creation.

All right.

Here comes the result God gives them over in the loss of their heart to impurity because They exchange the truth about God for a lie and worship and serve the creature around the Creator who is blessed forever.

So what is Paul stating. Paul is stating that there is a absolutely necessary result of the perversion of the created order on the part of the created order. God gives them over to degrading passions.

He gives them up in the loss of their hearts to impurity to the dishonoring of their bodies amongst themselves. You can't skip that and pretend That you're dealing with verses 26 and 27. I mean, it's just it might work and sadly in a Methodist Church Where very few of the people sitting in front of you anymore even bother to read a Bible.

But it's not gonna work if you're actually Claiming to be dealing with the text itself. Remember and people say oh, you're just so mean to set hey remember. I'm the one that sat in the debate With Barry Lynn.

Yes, Barry Lynn who's on Fox News all the time and CNN all the time. Barry Lynn used to be head of the Americans. I was temporary church state. I'm not sure if he still is but I I think they might be.

I don't know. I haven't checked for a long time. Barry Lynn who does not like me. Let me assure you and we are in a debate on this very subject and I was asking about this very text and I had to let him borrow my Bible to read the text.

Because he came to a debate Where he was one of the debaters on the subject his homosexuality consistent with biblical Christianity, and he didn't bring a Bible and. So when I say something about people.

Not reading.

Not really looking at the text not really driving their beliefs from the text. I think I've got a basis for actually saying that. That's been my experience because you know what it has been and.

The men abandoned relations with women and committed shameful acts with other men. Both the men and the women started with heterosexuality.

Really?

What do you mean? They started with heterosexuality? Are you trying to you know? These folks didn't figure out Whether they are going to assert that the Bible knows nothing about Quote-unquote sexual orientation or whether it does know about it.

If you can say it doesn't then you can't be talking now about well these were heterosexuals. They're acting like homosexuals because now you're assuming that it knows something about you know make up your mind.

Which one is it? The whole idea actually is a is a reading in of something is not only not necessary But it misses the whole point, but which ones which ones are gonna be.

They were naturally disposed to it. Just as they were naturally disposed to the knowledge of God.

Just as they were naturally disposed to the knowledge of God. No, Paul's point is that all of the created order testimonies the testament testifies the existence of God and That all men and all women Until they bow the knee to Jesus Christ are involved in the suppression of that knowledge of God.

Not that it's quote-unquote natural It is a part of the witness of all of the created order. But by skipping verses 24 and 25 he's now able to provide a completely different context and therefore not even follow the thought of the text and Explain why.

Why is there a diya tuta? Verse 26 diya tuta Pareto can now now he had already used Paradidomi in verse 24 therefore God gave them over in in verse 24. It was already there. But then he repeats it. But he uses diya tuta in verse 26 for this reason.

God gave them over To dishonorable passions. So are we being told here that the reason that these are dishonorable passions is simply because these are.

Heterosexuals.

Pretending to be homosexuals. You really think. That's Paul's point. You really think in in establishing this this grand theme of idolatry and the perversion of the created order. That Paul's point is to refer to that the Paul actually knows that there are people who are by nature Homosexual and he's excluding them.

No, no, they're fine. They can go do what they want to do that. That's fine but if you're actually a heterosexual But you engage in homosexual behavior. I'm gonna use you as the example, but they rejected their original.

Natural inclinations for those that were unnatural for them. Same-sex behavior. Paul's argument about idolatry requires that there be an exchange. The reason he says that the idolaters are at fault is because they first knew God but then turned away from him exchanged him for idols.

Paul's reference to same-sex behavior is intended to illustrate this larger sin of idolatry. But in order for this analogy to have any force in Order for it to make sense within this argument the people he is describing must naturally begin with heterosexual relations and.

Then abandon them. No that does not follow in any way shape or form because of the verses that Matthew either in Self-deception or deception led by others skipped over. Therefore God gave them over. God gave them up.

Those who suppress the knowledge of God and that's everybody God gives them over now in grace.

God.

Thankfully does not do this to everyone in the sense of giving them over to the same kinds of sinful behaviors but but notice that this whole text is going to continue on and It's going to after talking about homosexuality is going to continue to say and since they did not see fit to acknowledge God God gave them to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done and they were filled with all manner of and then you have one of them a couple found in Paul's writings of the vice lists the sin lists all manner of unrighteousness, so all manner of unrighteousness.

Evil covetousness malice full of envy murder strife deceit maliciousness. They are gossips slanderers haters of God which might be translated actually hated by God. Insolent haughty boastful inventors of evil disobedient to parents that disobedient the parents is in the middle of this.

It's identifying the source of all human sinfulness in The refusal to have the right relationship with God himself. It starts with God. Human sin cannot be defined separately from the fact that we are creatures and That therefore there is a law that we must Be held accountable to in regards to our creator and so To try to say well this this means that they were heterosexuals or the Analogy doesn't doesn't hold Misses the fact that this is something God gave them over to and That results in the perversion of the natural order.

The natural order is that men and women together engage in sexual behavior producing life but a man to have sex with a man does not produce life. A Woman with a woman does not produce life. There is no complementary element and by nature the bodily functions do not fit and so to go against nature is to see as Man sees in the universe around him.

I see the evidence of God, but I am going to go against that. We see the natural relationship of man and woman. I'm gonna go against that and I'm going to lust after men and notice something the text specifically says in verse 27.

It doesn't say this about the women, but the I think the Homo Eos would would allow this. Homo Eos means in the same way. Likewise the men gave up natural relations with women and Were consumed with passion for one another.

How much more obvious does it have to get. The description is of a man who lusts after men. Is that not homosexuality? Is that that the very description and definition of it?

Seems to be.

We might put another way it might ask Matthew another way. How could could would it be possible for the Apostle to have actually described Homosexual behavior as that desired by Matthew vines in this text and if so how.

What words could be used? That that's what I'd like to that's what I'd like to know. Because I'm starting to wonder that no matter Is there is there any way scripture could describe homosexuality that a homosexual could not find a way around.

It could not find a.

Some mechanism to say that it really doesn't refer to me and that is exactly how he describes it. But that is not what we are talking about. Gay people have a natural permanent orientation for those of the same sex.

It's not something that they choose and it's not something that they can change.

What has been my statement from the beginning. That is his assertion. That is his position and he will do whatever he needs to do with the biblical text to maintain that. He's not deriving this from the text.

He's derived this from this is his conclusion. His conclusion is this is how I have been made and It's good. And that's it. That's how it's supposed to be. That's the end of the discussion.

They aren't abandoning or rejecting heterosexuality. That's never an option for them to begin with.

No.

Once again, it is an option. It has become an option for many who were consumed by homosexual lust. But they are able. By the grace of God because they are human beings who can be influenced by the Spirit of God and changed by the Spirit of God.

To not only resist those things but to change those things as well.

And if applied to gay people Paul's argument here should actually work in the other direction. If the point of this passage is to rebuke those who have spurned their true nature Be it religious when it comes to idolatry or sexual Then just as those who are naturally heterosexual Should not be with those of the same sex.

So to those who have a natural orientation toward the same sex should not be with those of the opposite sex.

Well, there you go folks if you can take a text like this and actually turn it into its opposite.

Then.

You have Demonstrated that you are doing the exact thing that Paul described. You are twisting The creator creation relationship and you are twisting the very words of Scripture themselves. It's it's right there in front of you and it is amazing.

For them that would be exchanging the natural for the unnatural in just the same way. We have different natures. There is.

Absolutely, no evidence. I mean if he's actually saying this then what he's saying here is that Paul did understand most of these writers. Will say oh this was this was beyond Paul's understanding but now it sounds like he's saying Paul did understand the concept of sexual orientation and that he would have had a Positive view of it as a Jewish man, and I would challenge him or anyone else to prove that From history show me anybody in The Jewish milieu of Tanniatic Judaism Second Temple Judaism.

That was promoting What this man is promoting and that's the big thing today, isn't it? The big thing today you want to be in the cutting edge. Let's talk about Second Temple Judaism and let's talk about Paul as a as a Jew from the Second Temple period and and okay, let's do that.

Show me a context that would substantiate this. I've never seen anyone even try. There's anyone even try. Because it just doesn't exist.

Just it just wasn't there when it comes to sexual orientation. But is this just a clever argument, yes, it has no grounding in the historical context of Paul's world. Yes, and therefore yields an interpretation that could not be what he originally intended.

Yes. After all the concept of sexual orientation is very recent. Uh-huh. It was only developed in the past century.

Except he just used it and asserted that Paul would have understood it.

Didn't he. And it's only come to be widely understood within the past few decades. So, how can we take our modern categories and understandings? And use them to interpret a text that is so far removed from them.

But that level of removal is precisely the point in. The ancient world homosexuality was widely considered not to be a different sexual orientation or something inherent in a small minority of people.

But to be an excess of lust or passion.

Some people did have that view. Not Jewish people. Uh not in the context from which Paul would be speaking. But but but watch the mixture of stuff here. When it's when it when it's convenient to try to interpret Paul as a Second temple Jew they'll do that.

When it's then convenient to completely ignore that and Say well, we need to look at how the Greeks viewed it or how Philo viewed it or how the Romans viewed it or whatever. Then they'll do that.

The.

Don't even bother trying to find consistency in pro-homosexual readings of scripture because the only thing you're going to find find consistent in that is inconsistency that.

Anyone could be prone to if they let themselves go too much just a couple of quotes. To illustrate this a well-known first century Greek philosopher named Diocritus them wrote the following. The man whose appetite is insatiate in such things referring to heterosexual relations will have contempt for the easy conquest and scorn for a woman's love as a thing too readily given and Will turn his assault against the male quarters believing that in them he will find a kind of pleasure difficult and hard to procure.

A fourth century Christian writer said of same-sex behavior. You will see that all such desire stems from a greed which will not remain within its usual bounds. The abandonment of heterosexual relations.

I'd be really interested in knowing why he didn't identify that particular person so we could look at the context for same-sex lust.

Was frequently compared to gluttony and eating or drinking? Sexuality was seen as a spectrum with opposite sex relations being the product of a moderate level of desire and Same-sex relations the product of an excessive amount of desire.

Now that is incredibly simplistic.

Incredibly simplistic and none of this has anything to do with the Jewish perspective which again would be what he would have to establish To come up with any meaningful Foundation for interpreting the Apostle Paul within this context.

Personal orientation had nothing to do with it. But within this framework as I said same-sex relations were associated with the height of excess and lust and That is why Paul invokes them in Romans 1.

His purpose is to show that the idolaters were given over to unbridled passion.

That would not be a part of his argument at all. It wasn't a matter of excess. He wasn't he wasn't saying well There are some idolaters that are less idolatrous than other idolaters and being a really big idolaters a really big bad idea.

Wasn't his point? His point was the exchange. It was the twisting of the creator-creation relationship and the result that God gives them over to dishonor themselves. You see it's it's it is something that is honorable for the creature to recognize and honor the Creator.

If You choose to suppress the knowledge of the Creator Thereby seeking to dishonor him The Creator will actually bring about your own dishonor and that this dishonoring takes place in the mind their foolish hearts are darkened and also in the body in that they engage in behaviors that bring about the destruction of their own flesh and.

That has been going on for a long long time and it should end to depict a scene of sexual chaos and excess that illustrates that and That is completely consistent with how same-sex relations were most commonly described at the time.

But the only reason that he referenced the same-sex behavior helps Paul illustrate general sexual chaos Is because the people he is describing first began with opposite sex relations and then in a burst of lust Abandoned them exchanged them for something else.

None of which do you find anywhere in Romans 1. We have not found any foundation to accept what Matthew has said to this point. This is a gross twisting of the scripture rather than an exegesis of the scripture and.

Surely, it is significant that Paul here speaks only of lustful casual behavior. There's nothing about the people in question falling in love Making a lifelong commitment to one another.

Which again falling in love and making a lifelong commitment to one another. Yeah, there's nothing about love here because From Paul's perspective there can't be in this context. Because love involves that complementary aspect which can't be there.

And what's this momentary thing? Where's this lifelong thing? Yeah, there was no one promoting the concept of Homosexual marriage or anything of the kind in this day in Paul's context. And so he doesn't say anything about it because it wouldn't even cross his mind.

That's true because it's even it's it's to take a Perversion and pervert it even more. It's one thing You know, you know I can understand the homosexuals. That I mentioned last time in the study from Macquarie State University.

Who 50 plus 50 plus year old male homosexuals? Where 50 if I recall correct, I'm going off top my head here if I recall is 80 had had 11 or more Sexual partners in their life 50 had 100 or more and 25 had 500 and more in their life.

That I can understand from a a human perspective. The vast majority of homosexuals do not want what Matthew is describing here. And In nations where homosexual marriage has been made legal 90 plus percent of homosexuals do not get married.

They're not interested. And those who do have divorce rates significantly higher Than the heterosexual population might want to mention that in passing.

But.

The point is.

That.

To address This as he is addressing it is to take a tiny minority and the president United States is the exact same thing a large portion of. It's of the the apologists for the homosexual perspective.

We'll do the same thing. They'll talk about committed monogamous relationships. Why? Because they know That if they were to represent homosexuality as it actually exists and as people know it exists No one would ever accept it.

They would never even begin to give consideration to it within the context of a moral discussion. But you're talking about maybe maybe The 1 in that ironic. You're talking about the 99 versus the 1 here so you're you're judging a movement of the 99 on an argument for the 1

Think about that. And so to say what will Paul doesn't mention is nobody was promoting this in that age. It was not it was not an issue. You you you cannot even begin to establish that there was anybody in his context.

They would even begin to make this argument so the honest way of dealing with Paul is to say well Paul you're just ignorant and Just abandon the scriptures. That's the only honest way to try to make this kind of argumentation.

Don't twist them. You don't like what they have to say, okay. We understand that we understand why because you're in rebellion against them. It's all there is to it starting a family together.

We would never dream of reading a passage in Scripture about heterosexual lust and promiscuity and then from that condemning all of the marriage relationships of straight Christians.

Especially because we have all these wonderful positive direct Teaching passages that talk about marriage as a symbol of Christ and the church and the in the intention of God. Where is that for? Homosexuality.

Where is that?

We noted the the glaring absence in Matthew's presentation of any discussion of Matthew chapter 19 and Jesus's own teaching. Why is there a glaring absence of that. Because it just can't be twisted far enough.

Well, I guess anything to be twisted, but you just you can't do it the straight face.

There is an enormous difference between lust and love when it comes to our sexuality between casual and committed relationships between promiscuity and monogamy. That difference has always been held to be central to Christian teaching on sexual ethics for straight Christians.

Why should that difference not be held to be as central for gay Christians? How can we take a passage about same-sex lust and promiscuity and then condemn any loving relationships? That gay people might come to form.