seems to be the scriptural model. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church (sacrificially and selflessly). Wives submit to your husbands as the church submits to Christ.

Certainly not all homosexuals would claim to follow this model. But I bet some would. And I bet some do a better job of it than my wife and I do.

Of course, I am aware that Christ spoke of husbands and wives, not husbands and husbands or wives and wives. The question is whether this is prescriptive or descriptive. Much like Jesus would talk about Pharisees and Sadducees. Did he intend to say that these two groups SHOULD exist, or merely that they did? Is he talking about husbands-wife relationships because they SHOULD BE the only kind, or because they generally WERE the only kind.

I think the main issue here is your point 1-1. There are some here that feel that scripture is less than clear on the issue of monogamous, committed homosexual relationships. If those people are right, then 1-2 is not the issue. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that we should disregard the portions of the Bible that condemn homosexuality. I think people are trying to figure out what Paul, Moses, etc. had in mind when they spoke about homosexuality, and whether it applies to the aforementioned MCH relationships.

Maybe it’s just a little bit like the Bible condoning (or at least not condemning) slavery. Most people who believe in the authority of scripture usually say that the Israelite form of slavery was not the same kind of institution as the American form of slavery. Whereas Paul might affirm that there is a kind of slavery that can be just and uphold the dignity of the slave, the American slave trade did not, and thus could not be defended by passages in the Bible that upheld slavery.

Or here’s a better one. Are tax collectors really sinful? Should everyone who works for the IRS repent? Or was it something more specific in Jesus’ day that he was condemning? I think we all agree that there is an unspoken qualifier — "greedy, thieving, traitorous" tax collectors. Perhaps there is an unspoken qualifier on the Bible’s use of "homosexual," such as "promiscuous, lustful, or violent" homosexual. Perhaps that was the only kind of homosexual known to that culture, or that was the implication inextricably linked to the term.

As I have said before, I believe the burden of proof lies with those who would justify homosexuality as a valid Christian lifestyle. They are attempting to overturn centuries of accepted doctrine and the plainest reading of the text. However, I think we all have a responsibility to consider their scriptural arguments and not dismiss them as scripture-twisters and sin-rationalizers. And even if some, at the end of the day, disagree with their interpretation, someone needs to convince me that I should treat them any differently than I treat people who disagree with me over immersion vs. sprinkling, pre vs. post-millennialism, pre-conversion vs. post-conversion Paul in Romans 7, poetic vs. scientific reading of Genesis 1, etc.