The debate over same sex marriage - response to liberal revisionist claims

The biblical material seems clear that the homosexual act is wrong, however, there has been a challenge to the traditional interpretations by some called the Revisionists.(T.E. Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Downers Grove: IVP, 1995.) Many Christians are unprepared for their arguments which reject all the major biblical texts as either irrelevant or misunderstood. The Revisionists argue that the passages that supposedly condemn homosexuality are actually describing activities that modern homosexuals would condemn. Here we shall see why revisionist claims have no biblical credibility.

Below is a table responding to liberal revisinist assertions that the bible never condemns homosexuality.

Bible Passage	Traditional	Revisionists	Weakness in Revisionist claims
Gen 18:17-:19:29	homosexual act on view is seen as wicked	gang rape	·         Offense is not limited to gang rape in this passage ·         Not just sexual immorality, but “unnatural desires” are condemned (Jude 6-7; cf 2 Peter 2:4-10)
		inhospitality	·         Yada in Gen. 19:5 must mean “sexual relations” (not “getting acquainted with”) as it does in Gen. 19:8 ·         Though Lot supposedly broke the local hospitality code, it was the citizens who were killed.
Judg 19:16-30	homosexual act on view is seen as wicked	inhospitality, male rape	·          Same as above
Lev 18:22 & 20:13	homosexual act an abomination	cult prostitution	·          “Abomination” frequently does not have this connotation; it points to activities morally offensive to God ·          Activities such as incest (lev. 18:6-18), adultery (18:20), and bestiality (18:23) are also labelled as “abomination” ·          Child sacrifice was also part of the ritual worship, yet it is always wrong.
Rom 1:26-27	homosexual act condemned	pederasty, prostitution, homosexual acts committed by heterosexuals	·          Homosexuality is universally condemned in the OT; unlikely that it would be condoned in the NT ·          The Term is likely adapted from Leviticus, where it refers to every kind of male-male intercourse ·          Reference to pederasty unlikely since there was a differen Greek word for this; mutual desire as expressed in these passages is not characteristic of pederasty; lesbian sex did not involve pederasty; Paul as a Jew would not have approved of homosexuality ·          “Celivate” homosexual relationships are not acceptable because they are “contrary to nature” (Rom. 1:26); Greco-Roman culture did not approve of homosexuality but held that it was ”contrary to nature” ·          Scripture sees no dichotomy between homosexual acts and orientation in Rom. 1:18-32
1 Cor 6:9-10 1 Tim 1:10	same as Ge 19	rape child abuse male prostitution
2 Pet 2:6-7 Jude 7	same as Ge 19	rape child abuse male prostitution

The revisionists argument from slavery

Some argue that The bible cannot be trusted with respect to homosexuality because it speaks to groups of people who are in slave-master relationships. This is a poor argument for the following reasons:

• There is no scriptural mandate to enslave others, nor does one incur a penalty for releasing slaves.
• Slavery is not grounded in pre-Fall structures.
• Israelite law put various restrictions on enslaving fellow Israelites (mandatory release dates, the right of near-kin redemption, treating as hired laborers rather than as slaves, no returning runaway slaves), while Paul in 1 Cor 7:21 and Philemon 16 regarded liberation from slavery as at least a penultimate good. The highest good, of course, is having your moral purpose in place, and nobody can take that away from you, whatever condition in life you happen to be in. It is all the better if you can be released from slavery, because then you have more free choices in your use of time—not to do whatever you want, but to be enslaved all the more to Christ. 
• In relation to the cultures of their day, the biblical stance on slavery pushed in the direction of its curtailment and eradication; as regards the biblical stance on same-sex intercourse a reverse situation was in effect, pushing in the direction of expanding and deepening the ban on same-sex intercourse.

It is time to recognize that slavery is really quite a silly analogue to choose, one that reflects poorly on the methodology of interpretation of those who apply it to the issue of same-sex intercourse. Simply put, Scripture nowhere expresses a vested interest in preserving slavery, whereas Scripture does express a clear vested interest in the male-female model of sexuality. The homosexuality issue is put on an entirely different footing by Scripture, where there is not the slightest indication anywhere in the canon that same-sex intercourse is anything other than a detested practice, a practice to be utterly eschewed by the people of God, Jew and Gentile believer alike, at all times and in all circumstances.