Open Phones and Gay Marriage

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three three-three-four-one. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Barack Obama’s Support for Same-Sex Marriage and the Cultural Turning Point

I've been going through an evolution on this issue and I had hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought civil unions would be sufficient, but I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I talked to Friends and family and neighbors when I think about Members of my own staff who are Incredibly committed monogamous relationships same-sex relationships who are raising kids together at a certain point.

I've just concluded that. For me personally It is important for me to go ahead and affirm That I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is going to be worked out at the local level because historically this has Not been a federal issue.

Those of course are the words of President Barack Obama yesterday. I I had to chuckle Later on in the interview The reporter asked the president about the timing of this and was he sort of forced to come out and say this due to what Vice President Joe Biden had said on Sunday on meet the press and With a rather bemused look on his face the the president said use some some line along the lines of Yeah, Joe got a little bit out over his skis there.

Which just Actually, I thought was about the only thing that I found humorous in the entirety of of the interview. Dr. Albert Muller has said that May 9th 2012 is a historical date For the United States of America.

I don't think he said this but he could have said this and Maybe this is a difference between he and I. I will say this. It is a day which will live in infamy. It is the day when a sitting president of the United States of America in very post modern language sat in front of the flag of the United States and the seal of the president of the United States and Enunciated a revolutionary moral and ethical Rejection of the foundations upon which the entire moral structure of the United States relayed.

There is not any serious person who can suggest that any one of the founding fathers of the United States of America in Crafting the Constitution the Bill of Rights ever ever ever had in their mind This kind of fundamental overthrow of public decency ethics and morality it never crossed their mind and What we really have seen here.

Well, first of all, it's nothing surprising as far as Barack Obama's personal views. It's Documented beyond all question that as early as 1996 he said he was for gay marriage. That changed before the presidential election for some odd reason, but we will leave that off to the side.

That wasn't that wasn't surprising to I think anyone who is familiar with how the current administration Has dealt with this particular issue. But what is I think? Monumental and what is worth talking about during the dividing line today is what we see going on in our culture.

It just so happens, I mean no one knew that this was going to be the weekend this this this took place but certainly What we experienced over the over the past few weeks in the Dan Savage material in dealing with Matthew Vines and the kinds of You know discussions that have been going on.

This is front and center and now it is going to be right on the table as far as the Entire conversation leading up to the election of 2012. I Didn't mention this morning this this morning on Twitter. Well, actually, I don't know that I did in Twitter.

I may just been in channel, but I find it incredibly ironic. That of the two candidates who have any reasonable chance of becoming president. One has now Stood in front of the American people or sat in front of the American people, I guess and said that he is personally for The profanation of marriage which is which is what this is.

It is a complete Redefinition in a not just a redefinition. Not just a well, we need to clarify the definition. It is a complete overthrow of the definition of marriage that has existed in this country the only meaningful definition of marriage.

And the other candidate has a religion that is soaked in polygamy. And in fact, if you talk to a Mormon to this day and question the issue of polygamy. You will be amazed at how quickly they come to the defense of section 132 in the Doctrine and Covenants and there is many a Mormon who believes that the true proper means of marriage and form of marriage is actually a polygamous marriage and How else could they view it?

Their God's a polygamist. So that's the way it is. What an amazing thing that this is. Who could have who could have predicted this if 20 years ago someone had said that we would be facing a presidential election that would pit a an individual whose religion is associated with polygamy with a sitting president who had just Said that he agrees with with same-sex marriage 20 years ago.

Would anyone have believed that I wouldn't know. I Wouldn't have and I would have looked at you. Yeah, that's that's that's not gonna happen in my lifetime. That's That's just not possible. Well things change a whole lot faster than a lot of us expected that was going to be changed now, I think one of the things that we we must think about is This this was not an in-depth interview, okay, and unfortunately no one's gonna ask Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi or any of these people pressing for the the complete revolution of Morals and ethics in our society.

No one is going to be Really asking them the questions that need to be asked of them. We all understand that that's That's just not gonna happen. But I do think that we need to ask those questions. We need to be thinking about those questions.

Notice what was said well what I played at the beginning. Then a little bit later on we we have President Obama saying I think it's important for me to say to them and he's talking about people who as he put it narrowly define marriage.

That's like that's like I Narrowly define my bicycle. Oh you narrow person. No, I just think I need to make sure that I know which one's mine but anyway I think it is important for me to say to them that as much as I respect them as much as I understand where they're Coming from when I meet gay and lesbian couples when I meet same-sex couples.

And I see how caring they are and how much love they have in their hearts how they're taking care of their kids. When I hear from them the pain they feel that somehow they are still considered less than full citizens when it comes to their legal Rights then for me, I think it it just has tipped the scales in that direction now this is the quintessential postmodern feel-good morality it is basing morality and ethics upon experience.

It's basing morality and ethics upon feelings and emotion. It has no objective standard that can be referred to and of course what it results in is if Your experience is different than someone else's experience.

Then you can argue that your experience is equivalent to their experience. And therefore there should be no objective moral legal grounding in the law for the condemnation of any behavior whatsoever. And that's exactly why those promotion promoting intergenerational Love those who would like to have polygamy those who would like to be married to their dog their cat or their horse Will make the exact same argument that this is my experience.

You're making me feel like a second-class citizen. I was born this way. Aren't you just being bigoted who have ever thought about the fact that everybody has their own thing and etc, etc, etc and. So you observe people and you you say that those people are caring.

Well, I know a lot of caring people who hold to improper behaviors and improper beliefs. Clearly there has been a complete rejection a complete abandonment of any type of Ethical objective ethical and moral foundation this kind of thinking.

They take care of their kids they have love in their hearts and this is exactly we've been hearing from Matthew Vines. I want to be able to love someone. Now what he needs to be asked what the president needs to be asked is sir.

How do you define love? When you're a parent, but you do not allow your love for your children to allow them to Go running out in the middle of a busy street when their children. Your children especially have to have secret service agents around them and things like that.

They have to be cared for they they can't just go and do what they want to do and your love for them Means that you provide rules you provide boundaries and those boundaries are based upon what is right for them.

Christianity identifies love as first and foremost being for God and Then the love that were to have for others is to reflect our love for God. Well That means that there's definitions of what is truly love and what is not truly love and As I've said many many times you cannot love a mirror.

There is something about correspondence in the marriage relationship. That precludes the idea of homosexual love. You might have compassion for somebody you might have a strong Emotional feeling but see the problem is here and here's folks.

Here's where where theology matters and here's where we have been debilitated in really being able to address this consistently this comes back to reform theology and this comes back to something we've pointed out before and That is those people who turn love into the only divine attribute.

So that it is not connected to and not related to in any way shape or form God's justice and God's holiness. When they make omni benevolence the omni of all attributes. Then they no longer have a meaningful foundation upon which to really address this particular issue because their doctrine of love has become imbalanced and unbiblical and that's a problem and so When we talk about love.

The love that a man is supposed to have for his wife biblically involves what? It involves Self-sacrifice love your wife as Christ love the church. It doesn't say anything about your emotions, it doesn't say anything about your gratification.

It doesn't say anything about meeting your felt needs. It's self-sacrificial that's Christian love now this man claims to be a Christian. But doesn't seem to understand what Christian love is all about and unfortunately that would mean that he's like a large majority of The rest of people who likewise call themselves Christians, but we consider on we continue on.

They talk about the pain that they feel When they are somehow still considered less than full citizens when it comes their legal rights. So if you do not legally give rights based upon moral principles to people then you should feel bad about that.

So you should feel bad if you don't give legal rights To to people in prison because you're making them feel less than full citizens. Oh, wait a minute. They they did something that that that required them to give up those rights.

They they they went against the law. Oh, well That's not a big deal. Is it? And that's why there are people who are saying that inmates should get the vote and everything else and. You don't you don't want to make anybody feel bad.

That's the greatest offense. There is is to make someone feel bad. Well, don't you make a don't you make a thief feel bad when he's convicted of thievery? What was the name of that guy. Bernie Madoff didn't Bernie Madoff.

He looked so sad and. And all he did was take some money and. And we've made him feel like he he's not really a a citizen. He's less than the rest of us because he just took some money the great offense of Offending that's the the great dogma of our society now thou shalt not offend anyone.

But what does this tell us? What does this tell us about President Obama's ethical and moral thinking and the ethical and moral thinking of many people in our society. Let me read again, it has just tipped the scales in that direction what his observation of people not not thinking through the nation nature of marriage not thinking through the government's role in Promoting marriage so as to produce citizens.

And to keep you know, first cousins from marrying or something like that. No that it had nothing to do with considering the historical ramifications of men. It had to do With looking at how caring people were and then it goes on later on.

That they're respectful of religious liberty that you know churches and other faith Institutions are still going to be able to make determinations about what their sacraments are what they recognize. But from the perspective of of the law and perspective of the state, by the way I'm just reading the transcript and it's a it's a literal transcript.

I think it's important to say that in this country. We've always been about fairness and about treating everybody as equals or at least that's been our aspiration. I think that applies here as well now.

Think for just a moment. What this means. Fairness. That is how this is now being laid out before us. You want us to be treated unfairly? Is that what it's about no clear-thinking person will ever say that but unfortunately the the reason that this is is Just expanding across our nation and our culture is that very few people have been taught to think clearly and think logically and think rationally and set emotion to a side and Examine what people are actually saying and the foundations and presuppositions their arguments and things like that.

Treating everyone is equal that would mean of course That there shouldn't be any limitations on Who becomes president United States? You have to be at least 35 as I recall to be president United States.

Well, that's that's unfair. That's treating that's treating my five-year-old in an improper way. He should my five-year-old I don't have a five-year-old but a five-year-old should be allowed to be president, right?

Because that's that's equality and You you have to have been born in the United States we all learned about that from Eric and Canada, right? But that but that's that's treating people unfairly and Shouldn't shouldn't inmates be allowed to be President United States as well.

I Mean we need to have equality, right? Everything needs to be equal. Well, that's what people say, but none of us actually live that way. I mean if you really believe in equality then communism would seem to be your only choice and everybody has the same amount which is normally poverty and No one has more power than anybody else.

And of course, it's never worked that way because everybody knows the people in the party actually do have that thing. It's it's it's communism is is so absurd because it does not have a Christian view of man and hence by necessity must be must be a Self knowledgeable lie and everybody knows that it is.

But fundamentally no one lives that way. Right now the NBA playoffs are going on right and I think the Lakers are still in aren't they? So shouldn't everybody be able to play for the Lakers? Shouldn't any of the fans be able to just jump up and and take the last shot because we want equality.

I Think you're for a Lakers fan. You want Kobe to do that? Because nobody has ever had as smooth and Amazing a jumper is Kobe Bryant. But that's not fair he has he has skills and abilities somebody else doesn't have.

That's not fair. It's absurd to complain about reality. There are certain skills and abilities that people certain people have that other people don't. I Cannot play for an NBA basketball team. If anyone saw me doing the wedding for Lane Chaplin and Susan Yenser, then, you know, I don't belong a basketball team.

The wedding pictures were hilarious. There. I am the Lilliputian in the land of the Giants. I mean the maid of honor in her in her shoes was seven feet tall. I'm looking I mean, you know the shading the Sun.

It's just incredible. I Can't play in the NBA. Is that unfair? No, it's not. It's the way things are. Fairness has to be grounded upon a meaningful recognition of reality. Okay, so when we decide That there are certain moral and ethical standards it is Not logical to say that it's unfair when we apply them.

When we say that you cannot rip people off By stealing their identities on the internet is That unfair to people who have the skill to do that. We make them feel bad when we arrest them. I've never found anyone who cared.

But let's get more specific. We make a lot of people we have been making a lot of people in southern Utah and northern Arizona feel very bad for a long time. Because We look down upon their polygamy. We've actually tried to stop it a couple times, but it didn't work.

We've let it go. But they have to live in their little communities and they're cut off from the rest of the world. How dare we make them feel bad if that's what they want to do. Why was the FBI chasing around after that fellow just a few years ago?

Just because just because he had a 14 year old bride. I mean, hey Isn't that bigoted what about equality, but I think probably the most. The most telling paragraph was this one here. You know Malia and Sasha.

They've got friends whose parents are same-sex couples and I you know. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table. We've been talking in about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha would.

It wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends parents would be treated differently. It doesn't make sense to them and and frankly, that's the kind of thing that prompts a change of perspective. You know not wanting to somehow explain to your child Why somebody should be treated differently when it comes to the eyes of the law that to me was the Saddest Element of This particular Discussion.

Yes, it's sad that this is the president of the United States and and all that. But That last line, you know not wanting to somehow explain your child why somebody should be treated differently when it comes to the eyes of the law President Obama.

Do you explain to your children? Why Pedophiles are treated differently in the eyes of the law. I sure hope you've told your children stay away from the strangers. Why do we do that? Isn't that an opportunity?

To explain the objective grounding and nature of the law unless of course you don't believe that there is an objective moral ethical Basis for law if it's just what we all happen to like at a particular point in time if it's just what our if our society Just decides these things and that's just how it is.

Then we're stuck with the same situation. That my atheist opponent was stuck in about a year and a half ago and we debate in New York and We talked about standing outside the gates of Dachau or Buchenwald and upon what basis?

Standing there. Would you be able to condemn? The men and the women who were involved in the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust because you see as Far as their culture was concerned as far as their nation was concerned.

They were doing what they had been told to do by the duly elected government To which they had sworn their oath of fealty and yet we executed many of those people. Because we recognized that there was a moral law that transcends Cultural law and remember what my opponent said.

My opponent said That the only thing he could say standing there at Buchenwald or Auschwitz would be that he thinks that that was inappropriate and When you have no objective moral foundation, that's all you're left with and so is that where the president of the United States is?

That he doesn't want to tell his daughters About the foundation of the law. It doesn't want to tell his daughters that our law should reflect. Must reflect if it is going to if it's even going to function as law.

The foundations upon which this nation was built that truly is an amazing thing because I have raised children and They will tell you That I would often take sometimes to their distraction Sometimes the rolling of their eyes if they will admit it I would take many opportunities When things were happening in the society to Use it as an example of applying a Christian worldview.

What is the worldview that the president the United States has just enunciated in these words? The worldview is I will not explain to my daughters the moral foundation of maintaining a meaningful logical definition of marriage.

We're in it is a man and a woman Committed for life that produces life and is the very foundation of a thriving society. It's too hard for me to explain to my daughters That there are sinners in our society who are doing things that are self-destructive destructive to themselves destructive to the other person and destructive to society.

I don't want to have to do that. That's too hard. I don't want to seem harsh my friends when a society lacks the commitment To morality and ethics reflected in that it is doomed. Look at history. No society that has ever looked with Favor upon this kind of behavior has lasted long upon the face of the earth and Western society is going that direction.

It's a shame. No one will ask those questions. It's a shame that no one will press those issues. What was also a shame was an article that I saw I believe Al Mohler linked to it Baptists split on North Carolina gay marriage ban and It will give you a very clear indication that the term Baptist like the term Christian Has to be defined in a meaningful fashion and that there are people who use both Would identify themselves both as Christians and as Baptists Who do not have the slightest? hesitation in rejecting the clear teachings of Jesus Christ himself on this issue.

There were Baptist organizations in North Carolina The Alliance of Baptists Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America an association of welcoming and affirming Baptists Who opposed the amendment and One of the speakers Robin Lund said nobody can take away love.

They can make it illegal, but they can't take it away. Well again, here's a person who evidently claims to be a Christian claims to be a Baptist But doesn't seem to have a clue about the fact that for a Baptist for a Christian It's the Bible and Jesus's teachings that define.

What is love and So it was sad to note that but then just before I came on the air My good friend and brother Michael Brown tweeted out a Article from his blog in the line of fire for today and the Subject line is does Billy Graham advocate Christian Sharia?

And of course I knew what it was about as soon as I saw that and And It talks about the ad the full-page ad in 14, North Carolina newspapers that Billy Graham had taken out and The ad featured a large picture of Graham with these words.

At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage. The Bible is clear God's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote for the marriage amendment on Tuesday, May 8th.

God bless you as you vote. Wow, that's radical. That's oh how dare he. I mean just Just in your face, huh? And of course. What has been the response to that? Well The let's let's just let's just say that a man by the name of Wade Besson or Beeson.

I don't know the pronunciation. My apologies. Gay activist Wayne will go with Beeson. How did Beeson respond to the ad. He called Graham a one-time anti-semite. Referred to him as this fraud grouped him with other Totalitarian preachers and claimed that Graham is now trying to jam his own church's rules and doctrine down my throat and That he thinks I should be forced against my will to live by its rules.

But aren't those the words of a rebellious 13 year old? It can you just see. Some 13 year old that didn't get spanked enough when he was a kid acting like that. I Am awfully glad awfully glad That I was given a disciplined upbringing That actually taught me to be an adult.

Beeson asked. Do we now make our civil laws based upon Christian Sharia? Do we all have to follow his version of the Bible to be punished by government? And if this is the case, are we really a free country?

It's hard not to laugh at this. I mean these people. It's just it's just so absurd. There isn't the slightest bit of honesty in any of this. Do they know anything about the history of this country anything at all?

Do they know anything about the beliefs of the founding fathers. I mean they can't. It's just so absurd. It's it's hard to even keep a straight face Responding to it. We continue up. Mm-hmm. Are we really much different than Iran?

Or is it only by a matter of degrees or a matter of time until these so-called Christian? Supremacists get their paws on all of our laws. I'm sorry, but it's just it's it's just so wide-eyed and and It's just it's just amazing.

He continued. I'm not sure who Billy Graham thinks he is but it seems like he believes he is Superior and his followers have a mandate to hijack civil law and decide for the rest of us how we live you know if this had been founded as a Purely secular nation by atheists Without a Christian around if there wasn't anything in the Declaration of Independence about God.

And and being endowed by our Creator and stuff like that. You know then okay, maybe I could understand some of this this wild-eyed lunacy.

But that's not the case. I Mean I.

Mentioned it in I think I mentioned it in a video. Maybe I didn't but I might have. But just a couple Wednesday nights ago my fellow elder brought in his father's New Testament his father had died recently and evidently he had he had received this and it was a New Testament that he carried with him during World War two and you open up the New Testament the very first page is an American flag and directly across from it is By order of the Supreme Commander the president of the United States.

Recommending to everyone in the armed forces the reading and carrying of the Christian scriptures and this was provided to everybody and Even though my fellow elder's father was not a Christian. He carried it with him in battle anyways.

This was this was 60 years ago. All right 70 years ago. Between 65 and 70 years. Anyway, this wasn't all that long ago and No one blinked an eye. No one had any problem about it during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln called for times of fasting and prayer and.

So just just from a simple historical perspective this kind of wild-eyed lunacy is Just really difficult to begin to understand. Billy Graham at 93 takes out a newspaper ad and says I hope you'll vote for defining marriage as between a man and a woman and This man loses his mind if that doesn't tell you something about the homosexual movement.

I don't know what does. Let's see. As for what the Bible says about marriage Beeson stated that Graham is dead wrong about the Bible being clear. Well, I would be happy to debate him on that. We already know how they get around with that get around that John Becker a colleague of Besson wrote.

It says a lot about the man's true character that he's selected for what may be his final public gesture an act of malice divisiveness and discrimination so if you encourage people to stand for Christian morality then you are Full of malice divisiveness and discrimination.

Now, that is just so stupid. It's hard to even know how to respond to it. There's not an iota of honesty or integrity in that kind of statement. It's illogical. It's irrational. It is itself. So soaked in bigotry That it's hard to even separate the words out and give up a meaningful response to it.

But that is the rhetoric of the homosexual lobby. It's just amazing according to actor Michael Verati. Implicit in the First Amendment is the separation of church and state a basic principle is championed by Thomas Jefferson to ensure that you could celebrate your faith peaceably without bleeping all over someone else's rights or beliefs as if that's even what Thomas Jefferson meant.

I mean talk about revisionist history talk about just ravaging history. That's what this is all about. It is truly truly amazing so I retweeted the blog here. If you just go to Line of fire blog blog spot comm you can find it there and and pray for Michael Brown I'm sure in light of his his excellent book a queer thing happened to America which The former Coral Ridge ministry, I forget what the name of it is now has put out a 64 page Condensation of that huge massive work and I haven't talked with rich about it yet, but I it would be interesting to see if we can get hold of that because I Especially during this time period it would be excellent to have something to hand out to people and to talk to people about.

Leviticus, 1 Corinthians, and the Meaning of Arsenokoitēs

I Did want to respond to an email? that I received. Because I. But I told the fellow that I would basically Basically My first response When this fellow contacted me was to say I don't get this argument at all and It's still difficult for me to to figure out what the argument is.

But this is relevant to some of the texts we looked at last time and then we have Someone on this same subject that I'll get to that's Tom and Enid. That's who I'll get to in just a moment after I respond to this particular question.

I'd like to at least try to stay on this topic as long as possible before we go to any other Topics if if you'd like to comment on this particular topic the subject of homosexuality gay marriage and President Obama.

We do have a couple callers online. One is on a different topic. And if no one else calls in we'll get to that but Otherwise, I'd like to try to stay as close to the to the topic as possible. But I had made the comment in discussing the Leviticus passages and and I I had I was basically giving us a heads-up when we get over to 1st Corinthians chapter 6 and Paul's use of the term arson a coitus the question is what does arson a coitus mean and I had mentioned that Matthew vines admits in hit from his perspective that The earliest use of arson a coitus is found in Paul and I raised the issue of Did Paul coin this phrase we know that he at times does do this and that when he does so It's normally by combining terms from the Greek septuagint, which of course is the default Version of the Old Testament used by the early church.

And of course when he's writing to Gentiles, he's not gonna be quoting Hebrew. He's going to be quoting something that they have access to and that would be coin a Greek and hence the Greek septuagint.

And I pointed out that in Luke 8 Leviticus 18 22. You have arson oz the specific term for male and You have coitin Which is the very term from which we get the Latin term coitus which refers to sexual intercourse and So you have in in one verse Arson oz and coitus hence arson a coitus and hence the possibility that either rabbinic sources before Paul had done this or Paul himself is the source of this compound term and Then we go back and we see what he's talking about in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20.

Well someone wrote to me and Said well, but I've had it thrown at me that those terms also appear in Numbers 31 verse 17 and Hence, we can't make that application and So I look at Numbers 31 17 and it says now therefore kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman Who has known man by lying with him?

Now this is about what the armies of Israel were to do in driving the people out of the land. This is one of those tough texts because it is talking about the cleansing of the land and it is talking about the destruction the wholesale destruction of the pagan nations that inhabited the land and Hence what it's saying is The men of the land are to be wiped out all of them and Every non-virgin is to be wiped out now.

We can talk all that we want about what the possible reasons for this were and yes I think it's appropriate to talk about the diseases amongst the people and the sexual immorality and the offering of children and mulloch and all the rest that stuff and That that's that's appropriate.

But the fact the matter is God was bringing absolute and full judgment upon these nations and That is what this text is about but This text has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has to do with The destruction of every male and every woman who has been known by man has had sexual relations with man.

That's what coitain means who has known a man sexually Has been penetrated by a man that's literally what it means and so you have The term arson oz which means man and It's talking about a woman who has known a man sexually.

That woman is to be killed. So what this does is it demonstrates that yeah arson oz means male as in the gender and coitain means sexual relations. But how's that relevant to live it? I guess I still can't figure it out How it'll be relevant unless you're assuming that all words have same the same meaning in every context, which of course is absurd.

None of us could even begin to speak if we didn't recognize the context is necessary. And so Here's the the question. Because I kept going back and saying I don't understand what this argument is unless you're assuming that because these words appear in one text they appear in another text that the two texts are the same or that all words always Have the same meaning or that context means nothing.

I mean, I just I Just I can't follow any of that. It just there's so many absurd Presuppositions and assumptions being brought in that it's it's hard to even respond to it. And so Fellow wrote back and said, okay In first Corinthians 6 When he uses arson a coitus, is that a Masculine noun, I guess that if it is then that would mean that the referent would have to be a male Men betters rather than any other possible workaround that a homosexual apologist might use again Arson a coitus, we know what arson a means and coitus means what men do with men in bed.

I don't understand And have not seen any foundation how numbers 31 is relevant outside of the fact That numbers 31 17 talks about the fact that men can have sex with women. But in Leviticus, it's men having sex with men.

So, where's where's the confusion what else could it refer to. This is Paul writing. He's certain not talking about men who have had sex with women because that would be every father in the world. So what else could it be referring to?

I? Don't understand unless someone is saying that we just we can't possibly know what arson a coitus means. Which again means you can you can go back to Leviticus you can go back to the law. You can go back to the repeated twice repeated references and still say no, that's that's not what Paul meant.