There's no such thing as 'gay marriage,' says John Piper: 'It's dishonorable and shameful'
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The sexual union of two men or women is not “gay marriage” — it’s no marriage, biblically — and when they come to Christ, that former relationship has no binding authority, John Piper has said.
In a recent podcast , Piper, chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary in Minneapolis, Minnesota, weighed in on a question from “Cameron,” who asked whether same-sex couples living together and practicing homosexuality should remain in that relationship once they come to Christ.
“No, I would not recommend that two men or two women living together, practicing homosexuality, remain in that relationship,” Piper responded. “The reasons are several.”
He explained that while it’s possible for men and women to enter into a marriage wrongly, a prohibited heterosexual relationship can become a consecrated and holy one.
“I conclude that while it was an adulterous act to marry under the conditions that Jesus disapproves of in Luke 16, nevertheless, it’s called a marriage,” he explained. “A marriage is a matter of covenant faithfulness between a man and a woman. Therefore, I would encourage that couple to repent of what they did wrong and to ask for forgiveness and to consecrate their union, which, though it should not have happened, may nevertheless be holy before the Lord.”
But the same principles don’t apply to same-sex relationships, Piper contended, because two men or two women entering a relationship of sexual union with promises is not a marriage.
“You can’t consecrate a marriage that should not have taken place if it is not a marriage at all,” he said. “The union of two men and two women is not gay marriage — it’s no marriage. I don’t like the idea that so many people are willing to use the term gay marriage instead of calling it so-called gay marriage , because there is no such thing in the universe as so-called gay marriage.”
“That’s the main reason one relationship can be consecrated as a holy marriage and the other one can’t,” he said. “One is a marriage and the other is not a marriage — no matter how many thousands of times legislators and laws and judges and news commentators say that it is. It isn’t. That’s the first difference.”
It’s impossible, Piper continued, to make honorable what God has said by nature is dishonorable.
“In other words, homosexual behavior is not wrong just because it’s commanded that we don’t do it. It’s wrong because, by nature, it is dishonorable and shameful,” he said. “In other words, sexual relations between a man and a woman are not, by nature, dishonorable and shameful.
No amount of repenting, faith, or consecration can turn that which is by nature dishonorable and shameful into an act that is holy or pure or honorable, the pastor explained.
“That’s why I would encourage two men or two women involved in such acts to renounce the sin, repent, ask for forgiveness in the name of Jesus, and no longer make any provision for the flesh, as Paul says in Romans 13:14 ,” he concluded.
According to a comprehensive new religious freedom and pluralism report released by the Barna Group this year, nine in 10 pastors (90%) believe it is a major part of their role to help Christians have biblical beliefs about specific social issues.
However, half of Christian pastors say they frequently (11%) or occasionally (39%) feel limited in their ability to speak out on moral and social issues because people will take offense.
“The stakes are high in the public square,” the researchers wrote. “The issues pastors feel most pressured to speak out on are the same ones they feel limited to speak on,” with LGBT issues and same-sex marriage at the top.
Bruce Miller, pastor of Christ Fellowship Church in McKinney, Texas, and author of Leading a Church in a Time of Sexual Questioning: Grace-Filled Wisdom for Day-to-Day Ministry , previously told The Christian Post that while the Church needs to hold fast to the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, it must nevertheless “go overboard” in communicating their welcome to homosexual persons, considering the history.
“What’s really hard to convince someone of is that we really love you, that we really want you to come and hear about the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said.
“We’ve got to bend over backward to show the unconditional love of Christ and the amazing love and grace of the Father to hurting people.”
It’s important to be clear about one’s theological convictions but at the same time, “it’s important that we don’t throw stones at each other and give each other the grace to sort this issue out,” he noted.
“People get really nervous that love is going to compromise truth and it doesn’t,” he said. “Hugs don’t compromise theology. We can love people unconditionally without diminishing truth. It’s not that we want to push truth down to have more grace … Jesus came full of grace and truth. We need to have 100 percent of both.”
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
89 visitors
“It’s impossible, Piper continued, to make honorable what God has said by nature is dishonorable.
“In other words, homosexual behavior is not wrong just because it’s commanded that we don’t do it. It’s wrong because, by nature, it is dishonorable and shameful,” he said. “In other words, sexual relations between a man and a woman are not, by nature, dishonorable and shameful.
No amount of repenting, faith, or consecration can turn that which is by nature dishonorable and shameful into an act that is holy or pure or honorable, the pastor explained.
“That’s why I would encourage two men or two women involved in such acts to renounce the sin, repent, ask for forgiveness in the name of Jesus, and no longer make any provision for the flesh, as Paul says in Romans 13:14,” he concluded.
According to a comprehensive new religious freedom and pluralism report released by the Barna Group this year, nine in 10 pastors (90%) believe it is a major part of their role to help Christians have biblical beliefs about specific social issues.
However, half of Christian pastors say they frequently (11%) or occasionally (39%) feel limited in their ability to speak out on moral and social issues because people will take offense.
“The stakes are high in the public square,” the researchers wrote. “The issues pastors feel most pressured to speak out on are the same ones they feel limited to speak on,” with LGBT issues and same-sex marriage at the top.
Bruce Miller, pastor of Christ Fellowship Church in McKinney, Texas, and author of Leading a Church in a Time of Sexual Questioning: Grace-Filled Wisdom for Day-to-Day Ministry, previously told The Christian Post that while the Church needs to hold fast to the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, it must nevertheless “go overboard” in communicating their welcome to homosexual persons, considering the history.
“What’s really hard to convince someone of is that we really love you, that we really want you to come and hear about the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said.
“We’ve got to bend over backward to show the unconditional love of Christ and the amazing love and grace of the Father to hurting people.”
It’s important to be clear about one’s theological convictions but at the same time, “it’s important that we don’t throw stones at each other and give each other the grace to sort this issue out,” he noted.
“People get really nervous that love is going to compromise truth and it doesn’t,” he said. “Hugs don’t compromise theology. We can love people unconditionally without diminishing truth.”
1. ) Our laws are not religious and cannot be based on any religious belief as per the First Amendment.
We can no more base our laws on your conservative beliefs than we can on Buddhist, Muslim, Shinto or pagan.
2.) The Obergfell decision only applies to a secular civil marriage. The government cannot force any religion to condone the marriage of any couple be they LGBT or white heterosexual protestant Christians who are both members of the church in good standing.
3. ) The Bible was written by man and it has never been edited or fact-checked by any version of the Christian god. You only claim that your beliefs are those of your god to give them religious and social legitimacy. The fact that your god is both omnipotent and omniscient means that there is no such this as either sin or morality because your god made that decsion proir to you acting, so it was never your choice but only your illusion of choice. You are nothing but a biological marionette by his hands if you believe the bible to be the literal word of your god. God could have prevented the Obergfell decision if he is omnipotent, but he didn't so your god approves if it by his inaction.
That is your lesson in religious logic,(such as it is) for today.
Supreme Irony is fundies do not get The First Ammendment protects them.
They would gladly undo their legal advantages just to spite Gay Americans...
They would prefer that those First Amendment protections apply only to them and would give them the power to trample the religious and secular rights of everyone else, while they ironically claim to support equal religious rights, small government, and the US Constitution.
Well, the SCOTUS has said there is gay marriage. So Mr. Piper is wrong. And marriage in this country is a civil matter and function, where the religious aspect is merely ceremonial and neither required or necessary. Even some denominations of Christianity and other religions recognize, accept, and support gay marriage.
Often laws of man have have conflicted with Gods commands. Our loyalty remains with God in such conflicts. Sinful humans may well call an abomination before God marriage, but we will not. It is true that some politically progressive denominations have called that sin a so called marriage. It’s fine to accept and love gay individuals. Paul says in Corinthians that many were once gay, were saved and no longer were or had gone celibate.
In this country, the laws of man take precedence over the laws of god. That includes marriage laws.
I'm sure many don't care. Your approval is neither required or necessary.
Nothing "so-called" about it. It is marriage and just as legal and recognized as any other, whether you like it or not.
Except you demonstrate that you neither love or accept gays when you don't afford them the same rights and recognition as you enjoy.
And we're supposed to simply accept his word, no questions asked, because why?
Amen.
My niece's lesbian two dress wedding was a beautiful thing. They are very happy together and much in love.
This whole concept of "sin" is ridiculous.
Holy smokes! I'm agreeing with Greg.
Way to bridge that divide, xx. Probably not your intention, but well done!
——Spoiler Alert——
( 'God's commands' were written by ancient men pretending to speak for the grandest possible entity. )
I'm what's called a recovering Christian.
Forced religious indoctrination from a very young age is nothing more than child abuse.
Been there and subjected to that. It takes a long time to get over.
The light finally went on watching the Joseph Campbell lectures on PBS several years ago.
Our loyalty remains with the law and since we are a secular society guess who's loyalty takes precedence.
Da fuq? I agree with Greg....(runs outside to make sure the sun is in fact....in the sky).
Most people 'settled in' on one side or the other have moments in time where of their own volition or compelling they must cross-over to see the truth or beauty in another person's life story/journey. Cut-outs in the fabric of life, I call it. And, these in themselves can be beautiful!
Loyalty to God always takes precedence whenever the laws of man and God collide.
Not in a free country like this one.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
......
Secular society. Deal with it.
Speak for yourself. our laws is not based on god or the bible!
Then why aren't fundamentalists already in charge of the country, why do gays, women, blacks etc have equal rights, why isn't abortion outlawed coast to coast? Why because other than the teeny tiny minority of religious fundamentalists you purport to represent the rest of the country supports the laws of man over the supposed dictates of god as reported by a bunch of middle eastern goat herders over two thousand years ago.
Historically, marriage has always been primarily an expression of property. "Marriage for love" is a very recent notion, from the late Middle Ages.
For most of human history, laws were not very permanent. Each new ruler could do... whatever. The best way to give a law permanence was to cloak it in religion.
Today, any link between marriage and religion is obsolete.
Indeed. In fact, religion was not widely involved in marriage until the Middle Ages.
Sure it was.
The Church rose quickly to supreme power under Constantine (ruled in the first third of the Fourth Century).
The Church was the guarantor (fires of Hell for breakers of marriage vows!) of the commercial transaction that was the essential of marriage.
Time to get over it.
But do not worry, nobody is going to go back and update the Bible. The Bible will continue to be, as always, a reflection of mores & values of ancient men.
And therein lies the problem with it.
Gods morals and values are unchanging. His wisdom and judgement are correct even if secular progressive humans now place themselves in His place substituting their sinful evil judgement for His perfect and divine one.
Trouble with your assertion is that you equate God with the words of the Bible. The words of the Bible are demonstrably errant in many ways. If there is a supreme entity (a god) the Bible is an offensive portrayal.
The Bible is almost certainly the result of purely human efforts (not divine) from the minds of ancient men (and no more).
So She thinks trump is an amoral POS too? Good to know.
1) We live in a secular society, sorry.
2) If you hate progressives, get off the internet.
Then that makes god one of the most immoral ogres ever imagined.
I highly doubt many people imagine God that way.
Perhaps because they can't look at god objectively.
Perhaps.
Perhaps it is just that they know better.
Perhaps they only think they do.
Well, I would certainly take their word over the word of a non-believer.
That is your prerogative.
Why, yes, yes it is.
So glad you recognize that which I already knew.
So glad we're on the same page then.
Exactly.
No, we know we know better.
Such arrogant self delusion.
Take a look 👀 in the mirror and you will see that which you describe
Wow, is that the best you can do: a version of "I know you are but what am I?"
If your God's moral are such that he has given the immoral and dishonest POS sitting in the oval office at this point to the Republicans, I am so glad that your God is not the one I believe in.
Unfortunately for Mr. Piper and his fellow bigots, his religion does not decide such questions for non-adherents, and his pronouncement is therefore untrue. His hypocrisy is also apparent, declaring adulterous second marriages to be "consecrated and holy" when according to his Messiah, they are not.
What a nosyparker.
Love is love, Mr. Piper. Get over it.
““One is a marriage and the other is not a marriage — no matter how many thousands of times legislators and laws and judges and news commentators say that it is. It isn’t. That’s the first difference.”
It’s impossible, Piper continued, to make honorable what God has said by nature is dishonorable.
“In other words, homosexual behavior is not wrong just because it’s commanded that we don’t do it. It’s wrong because, by nature, it is dishonorable and shameful,” he said. “In other words, sexual relations between a man and a woman are not, by nature, dishonorable and shameful.
No amount of repenting, faith, or consecration can turn that which is by nature dishonorable and shameful into an act that is holy or pure or honorable, the pastor explained.
“That’s why I would encourage two men or two women involved in such acts to renounce the sin, repent, ask for forgiveness in the name of Jesus, and no longer make any provision for the flesh”
Your copy and paste does not refute my comment.
K-A-G, it is disgraceful and shameful that members, any members of the church would step outside of the purview of the Church to issue edicts to non-adherents. The Church has not been granted authority over the realm of the state. Politics is a corrupting influence on the body of Christ. It is true: Power corrupts absolutely!
Apostle Paul was clear we are to judge the body of Christ, not go out into the world as busybodies projecting self-righteous indignation on others who have made no commitment to live spiritual lives. Indeed, we are highly content to let church folks operate under liberty to say and do many things while we call it, "oneness in Spirit" —it is not.
I am appalled! That you would quote a pastor who would step outside his spiritual authority to imply,
“You can’t consecrate a marriage that should not have taken place if it is not a marriage at all,” he said. “The union of two men and two women is not gay marriage — it’s no marriage."
no respect for a fellow human beings lawfully established standard. Basically, this statement is a call to end same-sex marriage at the state and national level because evangelicals will fight to repress those following through with such relationships.
That is self-righteous confusion and I am insulted that a believer can not see the mental damage such thinking does to otherwise peaceful people.
It's just the typical parroting of words.
Can you show us, in the bible, where it says two people of the same sex cannot get legally married?
Pastor Piper is the one who is correct in this discussion...
Only to you and other "christians".....not to all in this country....all don't believe in your god or any god.....
Not all Christians agree with him on what marriage is, so he is arguing a No True Scotsman fallacy.
The fact is, marriage existed long before Judaism or Christianity.
"The best available evidence suggests that it's about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children." "marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion."
" Marriage's primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man's children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man's property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: 'I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring. Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else."
The attempt by religious conservatives to misappropriate marriage has failed. They did not invent it, they do not determine who can and can't marry, they have no authority over what is or isn't a 'valid' marriage. They have their pointless, tired, bigoted opinion which they can shout from the rooftops if they wish, that's their first amendment right, and it's the rest of our right to shake our heads and ignore them.
There's no such thing as 'gay marriage,' says John Piper: 'It's dishonorable and shameful'
Oh my goodness, call a special session of Congress we must correct this horror. I am sure had they known Mr. Piper would not approve, they never would have such a LAW.
Regardless of what this Pie Eyed Piper may think it is the law of the land.
Marriage was ordained by God in Eden as the union of his creation, one man and one woman. After sin happened other ideas emerged that were deviations from what God established perpetrated by the evil one and God called it out as an abomination in His sight. Marriage can only be an event between one man and one woman. Other so called relations can occur and people do engage in such sin but it is not and never ever will be marriage as the institution ordained by God.
They have Justices of the Peace and the Law on their side, they do not require God.
Not according to your scripture.
Hell, you can't even keep your own myths straight, and you want to force the rest of us to live by them.
The wheat and the chaff grow side by side until the harvest at the second coming and then the Lord will sort us all out, separating the goats from the sheep. Until then we will cling each of us to our own beliefs trying to persuade the other.
I think those that have used the name of, "The Lord" to spread hatred and division, (like this article), are going to be really disappointed when they find out that condoning the exact opposite of what Jesus preached really pissed him off.
Okay, prove it!
Riddle Me This: How many wives did David, the 'man-king after God's own heart' have, KAG?
It's in the books of Samuel. Indeed, had King David only stayed with his first marriage 'event' to Micah (King Saul's daughter) there would be no line of David for the Messiah to issue forth from seeing that King David despised her and left her barren (without child)!
Each marriage David has was with one woman. How many men did he or any other man in the Bible marry. Show me chapter and verse anywhere in the Bible a man married a man or a woman married another woman. Or where God sanctioned or condoned such an abomination before his sight? It wasn’t Gods original plan or will for Israel to have Kings like the other nations. As to Micah she was barren as a punishment by God through a prophet for questioning the manner of David’s joyful worship of God upon bringing the Ark of the covenant to the then and present capital of Israel.
JFC
What a copout.
Yeah and he had Bathsheba's husband murdered so he could hook up with her. Great role model there.
Yep, this is the "God" that wiped out 99% of all humans too. Like ya said, great roll model.
I like those little Parker House rolls myself!
Don't shuck and jive me, KAG. How many many wives and concubines did David, the 'man-king after God's own heart' have, KAG?
1.
I Samuel 25: 42 Then Abigail quickly arose, and rode on a donkey, with her five maidens who attended her, and she followed the messengers of David and became his wife. [Single] 43: David had also taken Ahinoam of Jezreel, and the both became his wives [Plural], 44. Now Saul had given Michal his daughter, David's wife [Trifecta] . . . .
2.
1 These were the sons of David born to him in Hebron: The firstborn was Amnon the son of Ahinoam of Jezreel;the second, Daniel the son of Abigail of Carmel;2 the third, Absalom the son of Maakah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur; the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith;3 the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital;and the sixth, Ithream, by his wife Eglah.
4 These six were born to David in Hebron, where he reigned seven years and six months. David reigned in Jerusalem thirty-three years, 5 and these were the children born to him there: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon. These four were by Bathsheba daughter of Ammiel. 6 There were also Ibhar, Elishua, Eliphelet, 7 Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, 8 Elishama, Eliada and Eliphelet—nine in all.[?] 9 All these were the sons of David, besides his sons by his concubines. And Tamar was their sister.
Which prophet is that, KAG? Let's be clear, please. Was it David, in his other role as prophet, you mean?
@7.3.6 #2 is from 1 Chronicles 3.
Sorry, it was late last night when I put that post up!
Your sarcasm is slipping out.
Search that on Google images for a hilarious meme/GIF.
That's nice. Prove it! Especially since it's demonstrably false!
Was it before or after that that God said you need a license to get married, issued by the state in which the marriage is taking place?
Since we are on the subject of God and you want to tell us what She wants....you should ALSO agree that life begins at first breath, not conception....as your bible says.
That "first breath" is important, because it gets the child beyond viability and still-birth.
Very true!
Hate to inform you but people DO get married in City Court....I did and my marriage lasted until he passed away 6 yrs ago
My husband's 3 siblings all got married in CHURCH and all are divorced...
So your God point in regards to marriage is MOOT
And yes, gay people are married whether this crack pot faux christian likes it or not LAW OF THE LAND
There's nothing about Adam and Eve getting married. They made no vows. There was no ceremony. Property rights were not involved. As far we can tell from the information available to us, and based on the current standard, they were "living in sin."
According to scripture Eve was a genetic clone of Adam so it was apparently closer to incest than anything. And she wasn't Adams first wife either according to some Jewish scholars.
"During the Middle Ages, Jewish sources began to claim her as Adam’s first—and terrifying—wife. How did Lilith evolve from being a wilderness demoness to Adam’s first wife? Interestingly enough, this story begins at the beginning—in Genesis 1.
The creation of humans is described in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2. The first account is fairly straightforward: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). The second account describes how God formed man out of the dust of the ground and then creates woman from the man: “Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. … So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man” (Genesis 2:7, 21–22).
In the post-Biblical period, some ancient Jewish scholars took the stance that Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:21–22 must describe two separate events, since it appears that woman is created differently in these accounts. In her Bible Review article “Lilith” in the October 2001 issue, Professor Janet Howe Gaines explains this reasoning: “Considering every word of the Bible to be accurate and sacred, commentators needed a midrash or story to explain the disparity in the creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2. God creates woman twice—once with man, once from man’s rib—so there must have been two women. The Bible names the second woman Eve; Lilith was identified as the first in order to complete the story.” Accordingly, Genesis 1:27 describes the creation of Adam and an unnamed woman "male and female he created them”.
Lilith’s creation is recounted in The Tales of Ben Sira , an apocryphal work from the tenth century C.E. Dan Ben-Amos explains that although this is the first extant text that records the legend of Lilith, her story probably existed earlier:
"[Lilith’s] story seems to hover at the edges of literacy with sporadic references. … [I]n the post-Biblical period, the sages identify the lilith several times, not by name, but as “the First Eve,” indicating that her full story was well known in oral tradition, yet barred from the canonized Biblical text. Finally, in the tenth century C.E. in Babylon, an anonymous writer, who was not bound by normative traditional principles and who included in his book some other sexually explicit tales, spelled out the lilith’s adventures in paradise."
The Tales of Ben Sira relates that God created Lilith from the earth, just as he had created Adam. They immediately began fighting because neither would submit to the other. Recognizing that Adam would not listen to her, Lilith “pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the air” ( The Tales of Ben Sira ). The angels Snvi, Snsvi and Smnglof were sent to pursue Lilith, but when they reached her, she refused to return with them to the Garden of Eden. “‘Leave me!’ she said. ‘I was created only to cause sickness to infants. If the infant is male, I have dominion over him for eight days after his birth, and if female, for twenty days’” ( The Tales of Ben Sira ). As a compromise, she promised that whenever she saw the angels’ names or forms on amulets, she would leave the child alone. She also agreed that 100 of her children—demons—would die every day."
A transgendered clone actually.
You are correct; that never occurred to me.
If we follow bible "logic" (I use the term very, very loosely), Adam procreated with his transgendered clone, who subsequently birthed 3 male offspring. Putting aside that level of 'ick factor,' there were no other females around. So those 3 must have procreated with their transgendered mother, who is essentially a biological duplicate of their father (ick level rising, lol). Talk about a messed up family gene pool. And yet, biblical literalists SEE NO PROBLEM with this, or the logical biological outcome of this scenario? If that happened today (just swap Adam & Eve with fraternal twin siblings), people would be like WTF and such a thing would certainly be considered taboo. But since it's in the bible, then it's ok. It makes me wonder if some theists ever put any serious, rational thought into their mythology or belief systems.
The law and commonsense would disagree with this statement
As would any rational thinking individual too.
True. There is legal marriage and fake holy matrimony. One is a legally binding contract issued by the state you are getting married in. The other is....meaningless.
There's so much here that is laden with imagined gravitas but ultimately doesn't have any meaning. I know that's a mouthful, so I will elaborate.
It's not? Two people promise before God to love and be faithful to each other. Seems like a marriage. Seems biblical.
What is that supposed to mean? What authority is tied to marriage? I don't even want to contemplate what would go down if I tried to explain to my wife that I had some kind of authority over her.
What does it mean to "practice" homosexuality? It's not medicine. It's not darts. It's just something you are. Practicing homosexuality is like practicing being bipedal or practicing sanity. No one is trying to be gay or straight. "Congratulations mate! You're a homosexual. All that practice finally paid off."
So King David sends his best friend to die so he can get with his wife and that's ok, but two harmless gay men getting married? That's outrageous? WTF? Seriously?
What is "homosexual behavior?" Is it loving someone? Is it taking care of someone? Is it holding hands? Going for a walk together? Kissing? Buying property together? Is it just "doin it in da butt?" Cuz then the ladies might have a loophole.
What is natural about concepts like "honor" and "shame?" I'm pretty sure those are inventions of human culture. If you're in a heterosexual relationship with someone, how much of your commitment is about intentionally complying with concepts of honor? How much of it is to avoid shame? Quick, go break it down for your significant other and let us know how that goes for you.
I mean what a romance, huh? "I love you because if I loved someone else, I would be shamed." Who is in that relationship?
So you want to tell people they should never have sex? God doesn't require that of straight people. Sounds unhealthy.
Except for the part where you hate what they are. That might be why the convincing is going so badly.
A great example of that would be to stop setting conditions like no marriage, no sex, and no pastoring. Those are conditions.
Excellent post.