>>668217
>countless
lol it's literally a handful
>>668217
>Is the Bible not clear enough for them?
Having this evening watched a couple of youtube videos which explains the way that prohomos approach those verses, their arguments put forward something along the lines of the following:
>first, due to the below readings of scripture, they start on the assumption that homosex isn't inherently evil/sinful because homosexual's are capable of living in committed, monogamous relationships w/people of the same sex
>by extension generally speaking, arguments do not obviously seek to speak for acceptance of other elements of sinful sexuality that is considered sexual immorality, lust, fornication, adultery, pornneia etc. etc. and so based on first point seek to clarify that their same sex relationships can be/should be considered licit in the eyes of God
How they justify this from/work within/around scripture is that they argue that everytime homosex is mentioned it's within a specific historical/cultural/situational context which simply doesn't apply today
>the times homosex is referred to w/sodom & Gomorra is in the context of rape, mob violence etc and doesn't speak to what we understand as the types of monogamous, commited loving homosex relationships we know can be had (and accepted) between two same sex individuals in this tolerant day and age
>other times it's prohibited in the law is, like with many of the laws, to distinguish Hebrews from their pagan neighbours, many of whom who practiced gay temple orgy prostitution fertility rites to their pagan Gods, so the prohibition is with a view to damning pagan idolatry, and not the types of same sex relationships homos are capable of having described above
>the other time it's mentioned is a couple of times in the epistles when Paul uses a word who's intending meaning they say is not crystal clear (arsenokoites or something, I can't remember if some say Paul actually made the word up himself literally as a portmanteau of sorts), which has typically been understood as referencing a male slut who whore's himself out to homos - but due to it not being 100% clear they might say it's specifically referring to prostiuting oneself, or that the only other contexts in which we have records of it being used elsewhere in ancient writing is not referring to rape and exploitation, and so is not referring to homosex itself
>the other references to homosex in NT is in terms of it being unatural, and the word used for unnatural is used elsewhere in the bible but say that what is being condemned as unatural are the motivations behind the homosex or anything else and not the homosex itself
They will probs also sling in something about bigotry, progress and that 'love is love, man' but yeah, That's it in a nutshell.
While I'm sympathetic to (maybe the wrong word, I pity, rather) those homos who've swallowed this pill and think they're in the right with this, and that if you don't think about it particularly hard you could convince yourself that any of the above holds sway, it's looks like a whole bunch of mental gymnastics to justify sin to me. I get that homos typically a more degenerate in their sexuality than straight people (although won't be far behind soon with the way things are going), and again I am sympathetic to those who hold fast to the idea that not literally every gay is a degenerate deviant hedonist and that one would in this day and age actually be capable of having a committed, loving, monogamous relationship due to what homosexuality has been provided with the opportunity to develop into in our society, but really, for my money it's simply obvious that it's wrong, is not how we were designed and is inherently disordered, is against the purpose and principle of marriage and that it should be treated as a mental disorder and not enabled.
With regard to women priests etc., by contrast I haven't just watched a vid on pro-egalitarian position so not aware of the various arguements they use off the top of my head, but am aware more generally they similarly put emphasis on the relevant passages referring to specific historical/cultural/situational contexts in which those parts of scripture were written in and were supposed to apply to and how, given the context has changed, we no longer need to heed to or apply what is written there. Also aware however generally unlike the homo debate their are varying degrees to the approach on this topic (full on old school patriarchy (and if subscribed to whether that should apply in church only, in church and family or church, family and the professional and political spheres etc), complementarianism, full blown egalitarianism borne of feminism, etc. etc.)