I have an obstinant follower of John Wesley who is trying to tell me that the Bible supports gay marriage.

Not only the bible but according to him "reality" supports it.

His reason is that, according to him, there is nothing that would befall a homosexual couple that wouldn't befall a heterosexual couple, as well as what he calls "murky references" in the bible, so therefore he asserts that gay marriage is morally acceptable.

He claims that no one can prove that there exists any physical or spiritual harm that befalls a homosexual couple that wouldn't befall a heterosexual couple therefore "reality" testifies to the acceptance of such acts.

I have given him biblical prooftexts and he dismisses them as "vague".

I know his is an exteme form of moral and ethical rationalistic thought but just when I seem to have him pinned down he squeezes out.

Please help?


How do I refute this?

How do you refute something that doesn't make a lot of sense and doesn't have specific Biblical references? I don't think that you do.... especially when your Biblical references are dismissed as "vague" (when, last I looked, the references to homosexuality in the Bible were anything but).

Is it a debate on the internet? or in a message? If it is, maybe you can post it and we can dissect it with you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

What's so vague about this: Leviticus 18:22
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

the problem with that (not that I think it's invalid) is that it could be seen as a law regarding ritual purity like the eating laws (it isn't of course).

I think the biggest way to do it is to show that marriage is ordered to a procreative end. That which society refers to as "gay marriage" has no procreative end.

ETA: Whatever John Wesley's theological problems were, I think he'd be rolling over in his grave so to speak at the current state of the Methodists ... what with ordination of women and their lapses in the issues related to homosexuality.

The ritual purity argument is weak because this scripture makes an absolute prohibition of sex with someone of the same gender. There is no allowance for sex like this being appropriate at some other time.

all their arguments are weak

I'm with RCJ on this part: This is not Wesley's fault, and this guy is not an ardent follower of his. Of current-day Methodism, quite possibly.

BTW, Romans 1 is a better text on this point than Leviticus.

Perhaps a composite argument would be even better. In the OT homosexual relations were an abomination, (Leviticus) and this was re-affirmed in the NT (Romans)

Yes, but Romans avoids the shellfish issue altogether.

Thou shalt not lie with a shellfish?

Actually, 1 Cor 6:9f is better than Romans 1.

Some other form of marine biology?

Maybe not. The word translated there as "homosexual" or "effeminate" also has other meanings. I think that's the right one, given the context, but you can stop a whole pointless discussion in its tracks by not relying on it.

The "problem" with Romans 1 is that "leaders" like Super-Liberal Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong actually wrote books not too long ago saying homosexuality is not a sin and that Romans 1 is not against homosexuality but rather how God lets straight people fall into that as a punishment. The part where Rom 1 says "God gave them over to" is what Spong argues is not against homosexuality per se, so that text cannot be used. He is obviously full of crud, but I don't think he can twist his way out of 1 Cor 6:9-10.

I agree ... I was going to say that in my post and it slipped my mind completely.

You haven't run into someone who argues that "malakos" really means "a lady's man" yet, have you? Run too far with that verse and you will.

If you are responding to me, I'm not sure what you are getting at.