The Same Sex Maze PCJB

THE SAME SEX MAZE
A Traditionalist Apologetic
Lets get clued-up!

Roving Seminar / Road-show

Sample Agenda
with
Hand-out Resources

Compiler:
Rev. Paul C J Burgess, MA (Cantab)
Prof. Emeritus, Gujranwala Theological Seminary

THE SAME SEX MAZE Lets get clued-up!

Roving Seminar / Road-show
Sample Agenda

10.00 am Register & Coffee
10.30 am Welcome and Worship
Part 1:
Understanding What The Problem Involves

10.45 am Introduction to the Same-Sex MAZE

The Sexual Conundrum Embracing truth while practicing grace
Give us a fresh understanding of brotherly love that is real.
The homosexual search for love (compare some hymn themes)
Balancing truth with grace: Empathy with the homosexual condition
without compromise of truth
Can we be civil? Skyline Churchs Conversation on Marriage
(Bp. Jean Robinson v. Robert Gagnan, July 2012)
That book! the question of biblical authority

Analysis * Raising issues and asking questions
Discussion (in groups) of experiences, questions & concerns, followed
by plenary sharing, plotting issues under headings as follows:
Issues raised:
! justice
! tolerance
! interpretation
! nature / role of marriage
Law and conscience
Issues for: The individual - society - the church
Divisions in: society - the church
Issues raised in recent debate
Questions requiring an answer

11. 25 Coffee

11. 45 Noon Same-Sex MARRIAGE

The History of the Homosexual Agenda *
Gay lobby goals and strategy
Marriage as the seed-bed of society
Christian heritage and history of resistance to SSM
Natural? the verdict of history
Rights? fair & phony comparisons
Redefining Marriage: does it remodel the family?

Whats wrong with S-S Marriage? * a philosophical apologetic
The Issues \ for traditional marriage
o Discrimination? about eligibility, not equality
Equality of right v. equivalence of rite!
Inevitable consequences
o Where to focus
o Complementarity why it matters
o SSM some unforeseen consequences
How democratic?
o The gay campaign for societal change
o Does the tail wag the dog?
o The politics
o The social good of conjugal marriage

Thirty follies of S-S Marriage legislation
Political & institutional
e.g. Totalitarian imposition
Philosophical and moral
e.g. Simplistic dilution of the meaning of marriage
Scientific and social
e.g. Focus on adult wants instead of childs needs
Follies of the promotion of S-S Marriage
e.g. Undemocratic railroading thro Parliament

12.30 EXERCISE Responding to Alex Salmonds I dont feel that my marriage
will be diminished in any way if same-sex marriage is introduced.

1.00 pm LUNCH

Part 2

Understanding The Biblical Evidence

2.15 pm What do the OT Scriptures say? The key texts

Genesis 1 & 2 * What did God create? (Creation Story)
Important because
They record the story of the origins of marriage
Jesus refers to these texts as authoritative regarding what
should be deduced regarding the subsequent issue of
divorce (See Mat 19:4ff)
!"#$!"##$%&'!()!(*&+!"'!'$,'("-(."(.-/!*.'!0#".+!(*"(!1God
created humankind male and female; God instituted
marriage as a heterosexual union

Leviticus 18 & 20 * What is the moral law on sexual practice? (Law)
Important because
They record moral laws (as opposed to cultic ordinances or
civil legislation) regarding sexual relationships between
people of the same sex.
As part of the Torah (teaching with binding authority,
referred to generally in the NT as the Law), this would have
been accepted by Jesus unless he specifically had reason
to revoke it.

What do the NT Scriptures say? The key texts

Romans 1:24-27 * Why did Paul condemn SS acts? (Apologetic)
Important because
It provides us with Pauls clear and authoritative
denunciation of all same-sex behaviour as a particularly
strong example of mankinds idolatrous determination to
ignore God and do his own thing.
It shows how idolatry leads to impurity including
homosexual activity, its sinfulness so severe that those who
indulge in it risk exclusion from Gods Kingdom (1 Cor 6:9)

Matthew 19:3-8 * What would Jesus say? (Gospel Narrative: Teaching)
Important because
it answers the question regarding divorce: What would
Jesus say? From this it is possible to extrapolate what
would be Jesus attitude to same-sex behaviour had he
been asked.

John 8:3-11 * What would Jesus do? (Gospel Narrative: Action)
Important because
It answers the question regarding adultery (punishable by
stoning in Jesus day): What would Jesus do? Again,
extrapolation is possible to discern Jesus view of same-sex
practitioners.

1 Thessalonians 4:3-10 How should we behave today? (Exhortation)
Important because
It reminds us of our Christian duty to avoid all immorality.

3.15 pm Prayer Time

3.45 pm What action can we take today? Recommendations
Video: Conversation on Marriage (Skyline Church, Ca. USA) to
hear both sides. http://vimeo.com/47223269
Books: (Emphasis on truth) Embracing Truth, D. Torrance & J.
Stein (Ed), Handsel Press, 2012, 6.95
(Emphasis on grace)Turning Controversy into Church
Ministry: A Christ-like Response to Homosexuality, W.P.
Campbell, Zondervan, 2010, $18.99
Organisation: The Christian Institute, http://www.christian.org.uk

4.00 pm Tea and depart
* Hand-outs already prepared and tested

Note:
Handsel Press, the publisher of Embracing Truth,
has a Digest and Study Guide written by Paul Burgess,
that can be downloaded for free by visiting Handselpress.org.uk.
Paul can be contacted by emailing paulandcathie@gmail.com

THE SAME SEX MAZE ROAD-SHOW
A Traditionalist Apologetic
Lets get clued-up!

Part 1
Understanding
What The Problem Involves

1. Introduction to the Same-Sex MAZE

The Sexual Conundrum Embracing truth while
practicing grace (with Qs for group discussion)
Analysis Raising issues and asking questions
(for later reflection)
The Same Sex Maze Plotting the issues (with Qs)

2. Same-Sex MARRIAGE

A History of the Campaign for Gay Rights (with Qs)
Whats wrong with S-S Marriage? a philosophical
apologetic for traditional marriage (with Qs)
Thirty Follies of S-S Marriage Legislation

For free download of this material visit:
www.scribd.com/pburgess_2/shelf
and look on his shelf for:
The Same-Sex Maze PCJB
Part 2
Understanding
The Biblical Evidence

What do the OT Scriptures say? The key texts

Genesis 1 & 2 What did God create? (Creation Story)
Leviticus 18 & 20 What is the moral law on sexual
practice? (Law)

What do the NT Scriptures say? The key texts

Romans 1:24-27 Why did Paul condemn SS acts?
(Apologetic)
Matthew 19:3-8 What would Jesus say? (Gospel
Narrative: Teaching)
John 8:3-11 What would Jesus do? (Gospel
Narrative: Action)
1 Thessalonians 4:3-10 How should we behave
today? (Exhortation)

!
Paul can be contacted at: paulandcathie@gmail.com
For information about Embracing Truth, ed. D. Torrance &
J. Stein, Digest & Study Guide, visit:
www.handselpress.org.uk

Part 1
Understanding
What The Problem Involves

1a The Same-Sex Conundrum Embracing truth while
practicing grace
Give us a fresh understanding of brotherly love that is real.

1. Start this study by considering love, rather than sex.
Revisionist emphasis on love: The Church is trying to answer
the question, how big is Gods love for all of Gods children.
(- Bp Jean Robinson)
o The issue for revisionists: the extension of Gods love, i.e.
inclusiveness (people)
o The issue for traditionalists: the purity of Gods love, i.e.
exclusiveness (sin)
The importance of empathy: the capacity to recognize human
feelings that are being experienced by another.
o The homosexual search for love cf. some hymn themes:
! O love that will not let me go
1
(Pain, angst)
! O Jesus, I have promised
2
(Commitment)
! Let there be love shared among us
3
(Reality)
2. Make careful distinctions regarding sexual issues
Distinguish homosexual orientation from homosexual practice
4

Distinguish different cases on the same-sex spectrum:
o Unwanted same-sex attraction goal: celibate
homosexuality struggles against temptations
o Celebrated same-sex attraction, but within a loving faithful
committed relationship goal: same-sex union
o Promiscuous same-sex practice consequences: AIDs,
drugs, violence and early death
o Vociferous campaigning of the gay activists agenda
3. Balance grace with truth: Empathy with the homosexual
condition without compromise of truth
c.f. Sadducees (grace without truth)
Pharisees (truth without grace)
(- W.P. Campbell, Presbyterian minister in California
5
)
Can we be civil? Skyline Churchs Conversation on Marriage
(Bp. Jean Robinson v. Robert Gagnan, July 2012)
6

That book! the question of biblical authority: how crucial?
o Division in the Church: Gods Word abandoned!
Or: God still speaking through His Spirit
o The question of interpretation: how to handle context?
7

References and notes

1
O Love that will not let me go, I rest my weary soul in Thee;
I give Thee back the life I owe, that in Thine ocean depths its flow
May richer, fuller be.
O Joy that seekest me through pain, I cannot close my heart to Thee;
I trace the rainbow through the rain, and feel the promise is not vain
That morn shall tearless be. (- George Mattheson (1842-1906))
2
O Jesus, I have promised to serve Thee to the end;
Be Thou for ever near me, my master and my friend;
I shall not fear the battle if Thou art by my side,
Nor wander from the pathway if Thou wilt be my guide.
O let me feel Thee near me; the world is ever near;
I see the sights that dazzle, the tempting sounds I hear;
My foes are ever near me, around me and within;
But, Jesus, draw Thou nearer, and shield my soul from sin
O give me grace to follow my master and my friend. (- J.E Bode (1816-74))
3
Let there be love shared among us, let there be love in our eyes
Give us a fresh understanding of brotherly love that is real. (- D. Bilbrough)
4
Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings
and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in
their behaviors. (-American Psychological Association (1999)
5
W.P. Campbell, Turning Controversy into Church Ministry: A Christ-like
Response to Homosexuality, Zondervan, 2010 p 50f
6
As a response to the toxicity that has been created by this searing social issue
we wanted to create a civil dialogue where both sides could present their case
for and against same-sex marriage. We brought prominent advocates on both
sides emphasizing both religious and secular / philosophical arguments.
1,500 people witnessed a very civil and respectful yet ground-breaking
dialogue on a very heated social topic. See http://vimeo.com/47223269 for
video of the complete debate.
7
According to Robinson, context means everything, and when reading scripture,
one should ask: Is the context described there similar to our context and
therefore is eternally binding? The fallacy here lies in the fact that such
timeless bindings would only last until a new context arises when, according
to Robinsons logic, they would cease to be binding! Some other criteria is
needed to determine the abiding application of any text, such as the nature of
the original binding.

1a. The Same-Sex Conundrum

Questions for discussion

1. What experience do you have of working or
associating with members of the gay community
that you would be comfortable with sharing in this
group? Does it colour your understanding of the
rights and wrongs of the Same Sex controversy?
Should it? Or do you think following out whatever the
Bible says on the subject should be more important?
What about commonsense (reason), church
teaching and religious traditions?

2. How important is it to distinguish between the
various homosexual life-styles (from
promiscuous to celibate)? Or should all forms and
conditions of same-sex attraction be treated equally?

Thinking outside the box

3. How can we promote a willingness to empathise
appropriately with the gay condition and his or her
situation, and also encourage a determination to
conduct debate in a civil and courteous manner?

1b. Issues: relating to same-sex moral maze
[NB This section is for reference only, and does not represent a programme session]
Justice
Human rights (my rights: how invasive of the rights of others?)
Civil & religious liberties involved:
freedom of association (incl. choice of assoc ./ membership)
freedom of expression / to disagree
freedom of conscience
freedom of parental nurture v. State indoctrination (political
correctness)
freedom of access to info. v. privacy
safeguards (in conflicting values)
Inclusiveness (NB: not without limits)
Discrimination (NB: what grounds for?)
Tolerance
Diversity of belief and culture
pluralism
minorities
Respect for tradition
Christian heritage (incl. the Bible)
Traditional values
Interpretation
Definitions
Equivalence (distinct from equality, and
involving comparison of like with like)
Number of refs. v. consistency of stance
Frequency (lack of) v. degree of importance

Nature / Role of Marriage
Unitive v. procreative
Commitment
affectionate
faithful / life-long
monogamous
Prerequisites for marriage
Who has a right to marry? On what grounds?
Does any minority have a right to belong to any group?)
Sexual otherness & complementarity
Rite / Ceremony
Civil Partnership (legal) v Marriage (love).
Equality of Rights v. Equivalence of Rite!

Authority
Civil v. religious authority
crime v. sin
Standards
public opinion v. Bible
Law and Conscience

Values

Asking someone to adjust his/her values is like asking her/him to
alter their sense of reality. Thus values are usually:
Non-negotiable
Unresponsive to reasoned argument
Conflict may arise between
1. A public secular university enforcing anti-discriminatory rules
as part of its educational mission,
and
2. A student Christian organization within its campus maintaining its
freedom to choose its members and to promote its particular
Christian message about sexuality.

While laws may not interfere with the religious beliefs and
opinions of individuals, they can with their practices and their
expressions of their beliefs!
Can a man excuse his practices that contradict the law by
reference his religious beliefs? No! To permit this would be to
allow every citizen to become a law unto himself!
Professed doctrines of religious beliefs cant trump the law of the land!

Issues raised by the same-sex debate:
For the individual:
Orientation
Chaste homosexual relationships
In society:
Consensual same-sex activity
Faithful monogamous homosexual relationships
Homosexual promiscuity
Homosexual rape / pederasty
In the Church:
Ordination of homosexuals
Homosexual churches

Divisions:

In society:
Grandparents v. Their Children (Generation differences)
Social Conservatives v. Social Liberals (Exclusive v. Inclusive)
Rich Societies v. Poorer Societies (The West v. Africa / Asia)
In the Church:
Prophets v. Pastors (Law v. Grace)
Theologians v. Psychologists / Doctors (Truth v. Experience)
Conservatives v. Liberals (Because the Bible says so! v. We
know better than the Bible now!)

Issues raised in the 2011 General Assembly debate
Charges of Inconsistency:
Scripture texts
Why single out texts prohibiting homosexuality when other
things are prohibited which we allow today?
Climate of Opinion
If we changed our minds about slavery and womens ministry,
why cant we change our minds on homosexuality?

Science and the Bible
Science has shown homosexual orientation is natural and the
Biblical authors mistaken. We dont need the Bible now!
Jesus as the Word
Jesus is the Word of God. So what would Jesus say?

Arguments for approval
natural instincts (psychological)
a so-called gay gene (more recently) (biological)
human rights (e.g. to pursue behaviour that does not harm
others) (humanist)
Arguments against homosexuality
unnatural behaviour (philosophical)
associated health risks (medical)
its sinfulness (theological)
Distinguish:
1. Homosexual behaviour (i.e. sexual activity involving same-sex
partners)
2. Homosexual orientation, whether
innate from birth (essentialist view)
or
acquired / learnt through experience (social constructionist
view).
Gay Marriage?
Obscures the difference between civil partnerships (legal rights)
and marriage (moral responsibilities).
Complementarity of man and woman lost
Marriage not just a monogamous coming together of two people
in love.
Human rights distinct from civil rights
Confuses homosexual unions with caring bonds of friendship
Procreative purpose of marriage missing

1b. QUESTIONS requiring an answer
The following questions are frequently heard being asked in the
public arena. What answers can be given concerning the issues they
raise?

Questions in society:

Why the fuss? Does it really matter?
Arent Christians anti-gay bigots?
Shouldnt the Church be as inclusive as other institutions in
society?
Ans: Jesus taught radical inclusiveness as a core KIngdom value
challenging his listeners to reach out to the poor, lame, crippled,
blind, disadvantaged & outcast NB: Not todays politically
correct inclusiveness, where every minority group that it is
fashionable to celebrate must be allowed unchallenged
expression however contrary their ideas may be to a past or even
current consensus of opinion!)
Dont some heterosexuals commit worse sexual misdemeanors
than their gay parallels?
Whats the problem with having gay marriage?
Doesnt singling out gay men and women as ineligible for
marriage:
deny their universal human rights?
deprive them of equality before law?
represent discrimination based on sexual orientation,
analogous to denying mixed race marriage status?
stigmatize them and invite public discrimination against
them
deprive them of financial, physical and psychological well-
being that marriage enhances?
Why should we disapprove when some homosexuals are such
nice people?

Questions in the Church / amongst Christians:

Arent we too judgemental and not loving enough?
What would Jesus do?
What does the Bible say?
Why take any notice of the OT?
Dont we know better than the Bible now? Hasnt science
taught us differently?
Arent we discriminating against gay people unjustly when we bar
them from church leadership?
Why do homosexuals find church such a dangerous place?
What should a heterosexual parent say to his/her homosexual
son/daughter?

!
1c. The Same-Sex Maze:
Mapping Definitions, Distinctions and Divisions

NB: Words (and terms) have literal meanings (denotations) and also
associated meanings (connotations), the latter often carrying much
emotional baggage!
When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,
It means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.
The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many
different things.
The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master thats all.
(-In The Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll, Ch 6)

A. Homosexuality: attitudes

1. Homosexual v. heterosexual orientation
a. Homophobia: a fear / hatred of queers/fags, etc
b. Moderate traditionalists take no issue with same sex-orientation
2. Attitudes to homosexual behaviour / practice / acts
a. Traditionalists see same-sex practice as immoral
b. Revisionists accept (without judgment) same-sex practice
c. Gay activists celebrate gay relationships as normal

B. Politics: how governments promote SS relationships

1. State debate on Same-Sex Marriage - arguable on non-religious basis
a. Politics of Anti-discrimination and Equality
b. Predicted Unwanted Societal Consequences
c. Political correctness and Totalitarianism leading to:
i. Gagging / curtailment of freedom of speech
ii. Persecution / loss of employment in the public square
(See Ann Widdecombe on Redefining Marriage - YouTube)
Secular assumptions about justice and equality v. Biblical concepts

2. Church debate on Homosexuality:
a. The Bible
i. Authority
ii. Biblical interpretation
b. Emphasis on Inclusiveness the driving force
c. Charge of Gagging of opposition to Revisionist agenda

C. Experience: facing the ground realities

1. Spectrum of scenarios of same-sex relationships
a. Celibate homosexuals, (Traditionalist values)
b. Best case committed faithful sexual partners(Revisionist values)
c. Worst case promiscuity / depravity (Amoral values)
2. Pastoral concerns
a. Homosexuals (their situation / struggles)
i. Negative Public attitudes (embarrassment, homophobia)
ii. Personal pain and battles (with unwanted desires)
iii. HIV / AIDS casualties (esp. amongst the promiscuous)
iv. Awareness of the needs of homosexual children in the church
b. Those they affect
i. Abandoned spouses
ii. Children brought up by same-sex parents
3. The Churchs supportive role: making church a safe place (NB:
1.6% population gay expect 1:60 in churches) Support + Outreach
Involving homosexual persons appropriately in church life

D. Debate: presuppositions and goals

1. Presuppositions
a. Experience (as above) &
b. Logical (non-religious) reason
c. Religious (e.g. Judeo-Christian) beliefs & traditions
2. Core argument
a. Personal Rights v. Common Good
b. Equality & Discrimination (Revisionist)
v. Equivalence & Distinctions (Traditionalist)
3. Same-sex Marriage
a. Romantic Marriage emphasis on personal rights
i. Intimacy, companionship & mutual support
b. Conjugal Marriage emphasis on family responsibilities
i. Intimacy, companionship and mutual support
ii. Bodily union (coitus)
iii. Bearing and rearing of children
iv. Marital norms: permanence, monogamy, fidelity

For more on a traditionalist / biblical view of same-sex issues see
Embracing Truth: Digest & Study Guide on www.handselpress.org.uk
1c .The Same-Sex Maze


1. Boris Johnson has said that marriage "has been
here since before the Stone Age, and now it needs
to move beyond the Stone Age". He also said:
"frankly I can't see what the fuss is about." How
would you respond?

2. Is it justifiable to label traditionalists as
homophobic? Why do some gay rights supporters
call traditionalists bigots? What is the point they
are trying to make? How might traditionalists
respond to such charges?


3. What would your church being welcoming, open
and understanding towards homosexual persons,
involve doing? How should it address the loneliness
they often feel? How should the church pray for such
people?

4. How could the needs of any homosexual children in
the church be addressed?

5. Does your church plan any outreach to homosexual
persons? Should it?
!
2a. The History of the Campaign for Gay Rights
Notes taken from: The Slippery Slide of Same-Sex Marriage
Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Center for Marriage and Family Studies at Family
Research Council 2004

Gay Goal: One of the last obstacles to the complete normalization of
homosexuality in our society is the understanding that marriage is the
union of a man and a woman.
1
Gay activists in America state
unabashedly, Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex,
sexuality, and family, and ... transforming the very fabric of society.
2
The gradual transition from gay marriage to state-sanctioned
polyamory, and the eventual abolition of marriage itself, is now the
most influential paradigm within academic family law in America. (Stanley
Kurtz)

Gay Strategy for change: In any campaign to win over the public,
gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so straights
will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector.
3
So what should be
discussed as a behavioural lifestyle issue has become a civil rights
issue!

Marriage as the seed-bed of Society: Marriage creates the most
important relationship in life and has more to do with peoples morals and
civilization than any other institution.
4

Selling out on our Christian Heritage: The conviction that human
sexuality is rightfully expressed only within marriage between a man and a
woman is deeply rooted in our history and Judeo-Christian beliefs.
The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely
involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as
the book of Genesis.
5

Same-sex behaviour Unnatural: It is not only the Apostle Paul and
Christian believers after him that find same-sex conduct goes against
nature.
6
Many non-religious people have an innate feeling that
homosexual behaviour is unnatural. For example, many people are
embarrassed by seeing a person kissing someone of the same sex in
public.

Gay marriage resisted in History: Very limited examples in history of
mankind. Not endorsed by Roman society; Tacitus poured scorn on
Neros homosexual activity.
7
A study sympathetic to the gay agenda by
Lubin / Duncan concludes, The resistance to same-sex marriage is
not limited to Western culture with its age-old anti-homosexual hysteria
and bigotry, but extends to almost every culture throughout the world.
8

Discrimination issue: Just as we rightly discriminate between
trained doctors and quacks to ensure our health and safety, so by
upholding traditional marriage and discriminating against a same-sex life-
style, we believe we are preserving the health and stability of society.

Phoney comparison with Race: Christian black folk find gay activists
attempt to liken their pursuit of special rights to the civil rights
movement abhorrent. As an American court found: In common sense
and constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital
restric-tion based merely upon race and one based upon the
fundamental difference in sex.
9

Right to Marry: While we all have the right to marry, that right is not
unrestricted as to who we marry. Thus a father has no natural right to
marry his daughter. Before any discrimination occurs it must be shown that
equal treatment is deserved. Nature tell us that a man is not a woman,
and that sexual friendship is properly between members of opposite sexes,
not the same sex.
10
Recognizing a right to marry someone of the
same sex would not expand the established right to marry, but would
redefine the legal meaning of marriage.
11

Marriage-Family nexus: Exemplary homosexual households are the
exception; most model a poor view of marriage to children as being
transitory and not normally monogamous or harmonious but rather
involving a high level of intimate partner violence.
12

What harm to Marriage?: One might ask, How does my printing
counterfeit 20 notes hurt your wallet? Or imagine a building where
every carpenter defined his own standard of measurement! One
cannot alter the definition of marriage without throwing society into
confusion any more than one can change the definition of a yardstick.

Conclusion: Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the
fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like
all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The
destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative
damage is inescapable.
Robert Bork, Stop Courts from Imposing Gay Marriage, Wall Street Journal
(August 7, 2001): 14.
Paula Ettelbrick, quoted in Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation? by
William B. Rubenstein, Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law (New York: The New
Press, 1993), pp. 398, 400.
Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madson, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its
Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s, 1989
In his exhaustive examination of human history, Giovanni Battista Vico (1668
1744), Professor of Rhetoric at the University of Naples, concluded that
marriage between a man and a woman is an essential characteristic of
civilization, and as such is the seedbed of society. Vico warned that chaos
would ensue in the absence of strong social norms encouraging marital
faithfulness and the loving care of children born to the union. The fact that some
married couples cannot produce children does not support the argument that
same-sex couples should be able to marry also despite their obvious incapacity
to produce. For parenthood involves far more than reproduction. Children need
also to be reared within the norm of a family of father and mother. No same-sex
family is depicted in Scripture.
The Judeo-Christian roots of the definition of marriage affirmed by the
Minnesota Supreme Court, USA, in Baker v. Nelson (1971)
Rom 1:18-32
In referring to Neros homosexuality, Tacitus wrote that the emperor polluted
himself by every lawful or lawless indulgence, [and] had not omitted a single
abomination which could heighten his depravity. This hardly constitutes an
endorsement of homosexuality in ancient Rome as some homosexual
advocates claim.
Peter Lubin and Dwight Duncan, Follow the Footnote or the Advocate as
Historian of Same-sex Marriage, Catholic University Law Review 47 (Summer
1998): 1300.
The issue of alleged discrimination was addressed by the Minnesota Supreme
Court in Baker v. Nelson, when it rejected the argument that denying a same-
sex couple the right to marry was the equivalent of racial discrimination.
Harry Jaffa, Homosexuality and the Natural Law (Claremont, CA: The
Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy,
1990): 19.
Minnesota Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, (1971)
That average same-sex relationships are not the equivalent of an average
heterosexual marriage is born out by the following statistics:
Relationship Duration is different. The vast majority of same-sex relationships
are short lived or intentionally transitory. (In the Netherlands average duration:
18 months)
Monogamy versus Promiscuity. While three quarters of herterosexual married
couples remain faithful to each other (while married), homosexual couple
typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity (average of 8 sexual
partners outside of their relationship per year!) Percentage reporting fidelity in a
Dutch study: 85% married women, 75% married men, 4.5% homosexual men
supposedly in relationship.
Intimate Partner Violence. Comparative experience of violence within
relationship: Lesbians 11.4%, Married women 0.26%; Homosexual men 15.4%,
Married men 0.05% (Source: Maria Xiridou, et al, The Contribution of Steady
and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual
Men in Amsterdam, AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.)
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
1989 After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the
90s by Marshall Kirk & Hunter Madsen, became the authoritative public relations
manual for homosexual pressure groups. Argued:
1. Homosexuals had to change their image from drag-queens to attractive
young people, middle-aged articulate women and smiling senior citizens,
i.e. look main-stream and normal!
2. They needed to portray themselves as victims of society to make
straights feel uncomfortable. Churches, with commitment to biblical
morality, were to be portrayed as the oppressors (bigots)
The movement began influencing public opinion through the media.
Should the worst happen
1. Independent Churches need to have clear statements in their trust
deeds of their commitment to a biblical view of marriage. Without this they
will be extremely vulnerable to legal challenge.
2. Ex-gays will be on the front-line for attack as living contradictions of the
claim that sexual orientation is fixed. They will need our prayers and
support
3. Churches should be prepared to lose gift-aid as their charitable status is
rescinded. (3 John 7)
4. Pastors need to teach their people how to handle with grace being
looked down upon as morally deficient!
Not PC! Gay lifestyle portrayed as immoral, unnatural, or as tending towards
promiscuity or violence. Note: A church in Hollywood attracts hundreds of gay
people who are turning to Christ. The Australian government has declined to
promote SSM proposals.

2a. A History of the Campaign for Gay Rights
The Slippery Slide of Same-Sex Marriage


1. How significant do you think is the part played by
Gay Rights campaigners in the process of getting
Same Sex Marriage accepted? How far is there a
popular movement towards redefining marriage
apart from such a campaign? Should it be resisted?
If so on what grounds? If not, what would you say in
answer to those organisations who oppose it, such
as Scotland-for-Marriage?

2. Is this all about civil rights or is it about a behavioural
lifestyle? Or both?


3. What place do you think our perceived Christian
heritage should have in deciding this debate? Does
it matter any more what the Bible teaches or what
the Church says as far as the good of society is
concerned?

4. Should we take into account what can be learnt from
history about this issue or what the rest of the world
thinks about it?

2b. Whats Wrong With Same-Sex Marriage Anyway?
The Key Traditionalist Arguments

THE ISSUES

MAKI NG WORDS MEAN WHAT YOU WANT: The Humpty Dumpty fallacy
The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.
The question is which is to be master thats all.
Di st i ngui shi ng equal i t y f r om equi val ence i s not di scr i mi nat i on
Sexual intimacy of same-sex couples not equivalent to coitus union of heterosexuals.
To obj ect t o a def i ni t i on of mot her hood t hat i ncl udes men not
di scr i mi nat or y!

THE GAY ACTI VI STS DEMAND: Equal Rights for all
The cl ai m: J ust i ce requires recognizing the equal i t y of any loving faithful relationship
to that of a traditional marriage.

DI SCRI MI NATI ON: About eligibility, not equality
Marriage is not extendable as if ent r y r ul es can be altered to accommodate gays
in the way an all mal e gol f cl ub might decide to change its rules to accept ladies.
We r i ght l y di scr i mi nat e bet ween t r ai ned doct or s and quacks t o ensur e
heal t h and saf et y.

EQUALI TY of RI GHT v. EQUI VALENCE of RI TE!
Equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals as fellow human beings
But equal right to marry? Begs the Q: who can marry?
Universal right to marry is r est r i ct ed: e.g. a father cannot marry his daughter.
A celebration of a same-sex partnership is not equivalent to a marriage rite because the
essential nature of the rite and its significance is not the same.

INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCES

A QUESTI ON OF WHERE TO FOCUS
Conj ugal mar r i age has an inherent or i ent at i on t o bear i ng / r ear i ng chi l dr en:
Its distinctive st r uct ur e (mother, father and child) is designed for this.
It thus contributes t o a st abl e soci et y (of which the family is a microcosm),
devel opi ng nor ms of behavi our such as per manence, monogamy
and f i del i t y.
Same- sex mar r i age is essentially a r omant i c uni on between two individuals:
A union of hearts and minds augment ed by sexual i nt i macy,
committed to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life.
I t l acks mar i t al compr ehensi veness and compl ement ar i t y.
COMPLEMENTARI TY: WHY I T MATTERS: Its lack affects same-sex unions
Single gender i nput l i mi t s t he coupl es r el at i onal devel opment and st abi l i t y.
Without reproductive connection only adoptive / surrogate (parasitical) family is possible.
A childs experience of parental role modeling is limited by only one gender.
Boys and girls need and tend to benefit from fathers and mothers in different ways.

CONSEQUENCES OF SAME-SEX MARRI AGE: Introducing it may well:
* Lessen mar i t al st abi l i t y by stressing emotional ties rather than bodily bonds
* I nduce publ i c conf usi on about the responsibilities of marriage
* Depr i ve chi l dr en of their normal right to the benefits of having both mother and father
* Result in t ot al i t ar i an i nt ol er ance of di ssent about approval of same-sex marriage.

HOW DEMOCRATIC?

THE GAY CAMPAI GN FOR SOCI ETAL CHANGE: Gay activists agenda.
Change soci et y s val ues and nor ms. (- Peter Tatchell)
Same-sex couples should fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once
granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, [because] the most subversive
action lesbians and gay men can undertake t o t r ansf or m t he not i on of
f ami l y ent i r el y. (-Michelangelo Signorile)
One of the last obstacles to the complete normalization of homosexuality in our society is
the understanding that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. (- Robert Bork)

DOES THE TAI L WAG THE DOG? Same sex marriage a minority demand.
18% of 1.6% gay population take up Civil Partnerships, not all of whom want SSM
Yet resistance to same-sex marriage extends to almost every culture world-wide.

THE POLI TI CS
Rather than bringing in a brace new world of justice and equality to an under-privileged
minority, the government that introduces same-sex marriage will eventually bring
shame upon itself when society realizes the loss of what was formerly contributed to
the common good by the ages old institution of conjugal marriage.

SOCIAL GOOD OF CONJUGAL MARRIAGE
Marriage creates the most important relationship in life and has more to do with peoples
morals and civilization than any other institution.
Developing healthy family relationships prepare all concerned for responsible citizenship.
Mar r i age nor ms of f i del i t y, per manence and r espect f or t he opposi t e sex,
learnt in a monogamous heterosexual family household, promote a healthier society.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ---------
2)3!+)3&!)-!"!(3"%.(.)-"#.'(!4!,.,#.0"#!5.&6!)7!'"+&8'&9!.''$&'!'&&!!"#$%&'()*
+$,-.:!;./&'(!<!=($%>!?$.%&!)-:!666@*"-%'&#A3&''@)3/@$B!
Follies of The Promotion of Same-Sex Marriage

1. It is a comparative folly to argue that SSM is just another evolutionary
step in marriage reform, since this fails to recognize the administrative
nature of changes of such steps in the past, which have not impacted on
the essential meaning of marriage as an institution.

2. It is a timid folly, since the strategy to promote it (e.g. in schools) reflects
a culture of fear of causing offense to the small minority whose sexual
practice actually involves serious risks to health.

3. It is arrogant folly for the Government to work to increase international
recognition of same-sex relationships whether that was civil partner-
ships or civil marriages for same-sex couples (2012 Consultation), as if it
knows best with the moral right to judge the norms of other societies.

4. It is hasty folly, a social experiment being rushed through parliament
without adequate research into the likely sociological implications.

5. It is consequential folly as unintended consequences such as polygamy
and polyamory cannot be ruled out as gay history since the 1960s has
witnessed a slippery slope from taboo to tolerance to normalization.

6. It is diversity folly to argue that because of the diverse ways in which
people express love for one another exercising moral disapproval is
discriminatory and thus undermines equality, since no one first
principle can demand that every other value and belief defer to it.

7. It is discriminatory folly, since, while claiming to be anti-discriminatory in
demanding equal right to marriage for same-sex adults on the grounds of
same mutual love and commitment as found in heterosexual marriage, it
discriminates against any other group of mutually loving and
committed persons (e.g. siblings,) joining the marriage club. Why this
taboo?

8. It is disingenuous folly to deny association with other taboo
sexualities while appealing to diversity and inclusive principles for
acceptance of SSM.

9. It is legislative folly, requiring so many changes in current laws, not
least, as the Government Consultation document acknowledges, in the
matter of consummation (an issue in conventional marriage, a nonsense
and involving a category error when applied to same-sex union).

Thirty Follies of Same-Sex Marriage Legislation
The British Governments proposed bill to legalize same-sex marriage and
its promotion are utter folly on at least thirty counts.

Political and institutional

1. It is political folly since those conservative-minded voters who will vow
never to vote for a party that introduced Same-Sex Marriage, are many
more than the miniscule number of the gay community who might thereby
be persuaded to switch their allegiance to the Conservatives, George
Osbornes optimism notwithstanding. (He ignored the fact that the majority
of States in the USA have not voted for Same-Sex Marriage.)

2. It is democratic folly, being introduced by a Government that has not
mentioned it in an Election Manifesto, a Queens Speech, or Green
Paper, and being railroaded through Parliament with the aid of an
Opposition that will whip all its members in favour.

3. It is a priority folly, as one High Court Judge has pointed out: "So much
energy and time has been put into this debate for 0.1% of the population,
when we have a crisis of family breakdown. (-Sir Paul Coleridge) Patently
there are other more urgent issues to address!

4. It is civil folly, since, by imposing its totalitarian acceptance on all
society, it will inevitably repress any who oppose its validation and
promotion of a gay lifestyle, whether in the public square or within the
family. Those objecting to the revisionist definition of marriage will be
labeled bigots and penalized for discrimination.

5. It is national heritage folly, as the nations Christian heritage of conjugal
marriage as the bedrock of society and the universal norm is being lost.

6. It is institutional folly in so far as it replaces a basic and foundational
social institution that extends back to the furthest known reaches of
recorded history (R.S. Harris) by a contract to a lifestyle choice that has
no similar historical foundation to encourage fidelity and permanence.
Marriage is not a creation of the State whose proper role is recognition of
a marital union whose legitimacy lies in its inherent nature rather than in
the States legislation.

7. It is legal folly in so much as the passing of any same-sex marriage
legislation would produce a legal fiction (legal on paper, but not in
intelligent accord with reality), since marriage is intrinsically between a
man and a woman. Further it would open the door to legal challenges to
authorise incestuous marriages and other more bizarre marriages, such
as polyamory.
8. It is constitutional folly for, as Prof Tom Devine, OBE, the Scottish
historian, pointed out, it will be very difficult for the Queen to sign a bill
enforcing in law what the Church of England, of which she is Governor,
does not allow in its canons.

9. It is conceptual folly, mistaking the wedding ceremony for marriage as
an institution, which is the implication of distinguishing two categories
of marriage, civil and religious. Fundamentally changing the States
understanding of marriage means the nature of marriages solemnized in
churches and other places of worship would also be changed. (Harris)

Philosophical and moral

10. It is philosophical folly to redefine so fundamental a word as marriage,
as the following much quoted dialogue from Alice in the Looking Glass
illustrates:

When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,
It means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.
The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words
mean so many different things.
The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master
thats all.

The intrinsic and indispensable properties that serve to characterize
and identify marriage including its primary purpose - perpetuation of the
human race and the raising of children - are inherent and unchanging in
nature, no matter how the State or Law attempts to redefine it purely in the
narrow individualistic terms of subjective love and mutual commitment.
SSM is a basic category error.

11. It is societal folly since gay campaigners do not want to create a legal
institution called "same-sex marriage", but want to redefine the one
definition of marriage that applies to all of us, denying a five thousand
year understanding of marriage as the union of a man and woman, as
recognized worldwide by most nations laws.

12. It is simplistic folly since it dilutes the meaning of marriage to an
understanding of love that extends no further than the couple
themselves.

13. It is moral folly since it promotes as normal and good what, until recently,
was generally considered immoral and abnormal (and still is by most
societies worldwide), undermining the natural order and morality by
turning a moral wrong into a civil right.

14. In the view of Christians who hold to Biblical teaching it is also spiritual
folly, legalizing a lifestyle that, according to Scripture, offends God. For
where Gods clear commands are ignored, spiritual deafness ensues with
all the serious consequences of living outside of His guidance.

15. It is covenantal folly, since the level of monogamous loyalty is
notoriously low in gay relationships. Thus Lord Giddens acknowledges
that male gays, the prime everyday experimenters, challenge the
traditional integration of marriage and monogamy. Inclusion of gays in
marriage increases promiscuity that can only weaken a great institution
that is covenantal in nature rather than contractual!

Scientific and social

16. It is scientific folly since ideological beliefs about marriage that presume
the benefits enjoyed by married men and women can be replicated in
a different grouping (i.e. those in a same-sex union) has no place in
social science.

17. It is social folly, since well-adjusted families are the basis of a healthy
society, and families with one-gender parents will inevitably be lacking
certain elements of stable family life, such as the bodily union of one
flesh that contributes profoundly to a couples emotional stability.
Furthermore the ingredient of complementarity, both in the couple
themselves and as parents bringing up children, is missing, resulting in
weaker family development overall.

18. It is a focal folly since it focuses on what adults want rather than on
what kids need (i.e. what marriage is primarily about).

19. It is equality folly since it deliberately (by choice as opposed to
unavoidably) denies the equal right of every child to know and, to the
extent possible, be cared for by the two people who brought him or
her into the world. Further, its very design denies children of a SS family
the right to have both a mum and a dad. To equate the role and
contribution of a mother with that of a father (and vice versa) is to fly
in the face of the sociological facts.

20. It is biological folly since, if the SS spouses want a child, they must
circumvent nature to do so since they will always be dependent on
heterosexual begetting; same-sex parents will always have to import
this element of marriage into their relationship.
21. It is medical folly since it promotes biologically abnormal sexual
behaviour and practices that are harmful to health.
- Paul Burgess (29/12/12)
(In response to the Governments proposals for legalizing SSM)
Thirty Follies of
Same-Sex Marriage Legislation
and its Promotion

Abstract

A. The Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage

Political and institutional Follies
1. Political folly (vote loser)
2. Democratic folly (being railroaded through Parliament)
3. Priority folly (basing its urgency on a minority interest of some among
0.1%)
4. Civil folly (imposing a totalitarian acceptance on society)
5. National Heritage folly (losing the nations Christian heritage of conjugal
marriage as the bedrock of society and the universal norm)
6. Institutional folly (assuming marriages legitimacy lies not in its inherent
nature as recognized down history but in the States legislation)
7. Legal folly (a fiction, opening up other challengers to the reality of
marriage)
8. Constitutional folly (embarrassing the Queen as Governor of the Church
of England)
9. Conceptual folly (distinguishing civil and religious marriage, thus
confusing the marriage institution with the wedding ceremony)

Philosophical and moral Follies
10. Philosophical folly (redefining meaning of marriage)
11. Societal folly (altering understanding of marriage for everyone)
12. Simplistic folly (diluting the meaning of marriage)
13. Moral folly (undermining natural order, turning a moral wrong into a civil
right)
14. Spiritual folly (affirming a lifestyle offensive to God with serious
consequences)
15. Covenantal folly (turning a monogamous covenant into an open contract)

Scientific and social Follies
16. Scientific folly (claiming to replicate same benefits found in conjugal
marriage)
17. Social folly (lacking gender complementarity for couples & children)
18. Focal folly (focusing on adult wants instead of childs needs)
19. Equality folly (denying every childs right normally to a mum and a dad)
20. Biological folly (circumventing nature to renew the human race)
21. Medical folly (practices harmful to health)

B. The Promotion of Same-Sex Marriage

1. Comparative folly (SSM as an evolutionary step in marriage reform, not
recognizing the administrative rather than essential nature of past
changes.
2. Timid folly (reflecting a culture of fear of causing offense to gay minority,
e.g. no reference to serious heath risks, as with smoking, drugs, etc)
3. Arrogant folly (telling other nations to accept gay agenda we know
better?)
4. Hasty folly (no proper research into likely sociological implications)
5. Consequential folly (slippery slope from taboo to tolerance to
normalization encouraging other loving groups)
6. Diversity folly (disapproval of diverse expressions of love called
discriminatory)
7. Discriminatory folly (selective of SSM while retaining taboo on incest,
etc)
8. Disingenuous (championing diversity while denying other sexualities
equal rights)
9. Legislative folly (category error regarding consummation applied to SSM)
!

For a fuller four page version of the above see The Same-Sex Maze Roadshow
which also contains exhaustive resource materials for local seminars on Same-
Sex issues in Church and State. All material may be freely copied for church use
with acknowledgement of source.
For free download of this material visit: www.scribd.com/pburgess_2/shelf and
look on shelf for The Same-Sex Maze PCJB and Thirty Follies of Same-Sex
Marriage Legislation

Author contact details: Paul Burgess at paulandcathie@gmail.com
2b. Whats Wrong with Same Sex Marriage
Anyway?


1. Do you recognize any Humpty Dumpties today in
the Same-Sex Marriage debate? How would you
argue against such a Humpty Dumpty? Or do you
think such comparisons are unjustified?

2. What do you think the Same Sex Marriage debate
should be about: Equality and Discrimination? Or,
Equivalence and Distinctions?

3. How essential to the debate do you think is the belief
that marriage requires gender complementarity for
the good of the couple and of the children in a
family?


4. Do you think marriage is the seed-bed of Society?
If so do you think it will make any difference to
society if same-sex marriage is recognized in law? If
so what difference?

5. Should we be concerned about the alleged
consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage?
What goods associated with traditional conjugal
marriage do you think might be lost?

Is there a case for same-Sex Marriage? * Report by
R .S. Harris concludes:
The concept of equal marriage is fundamentally flawed as it
presupposes a questionable notion of equality and ignores the essential
and defining components of conventional marriage.
Gay marriage falsely judges parenting roles as interchangeable.
SSM wrongly assumes that the benefits of marriage are automatically
transferable to same-sex couples who enter the same institution.
There is no evidence that same-sex couples will benefit from the
commitment device invoked by marriage.
Gay marriage introduces a disturbing, unproven and socially risky new
norm into society, that children do not need both a mother and father for
optimal development, when all the evidence points the other way.
Same-sex parenting studies are fundamentally flawed in their sample
size and methodology when measured against commonly accepted social
science standards.
When same-sex couples create children through IVF, it is a grave
injustice to the rights of children, as they are unable to know and be cared
for by one or both of their natural parents.
Where SSM is already legal, this holds the status of legal fiction.
If love and commitment are the sole criteria for marriage then alarming
consequences ensue, such as the validation of incestuous relationships,
as well as recognition of polygamous, polyamorous relationships, as has
already begun to occur in countries with SSM.
Fear of causing offence makes society tread silently around disturbing
medical data from both the UK and the US that, like smoking, homosexual
activity is intrinsically unhealthy. For instance unlike the vaginal lining, the
rectal lining is unable to withstand penetrative activity without medical
damage. The active promotion of a gay lifestyle in schools that SSM
marriage inevitably entails is medically harmful for our children, especially
boys, and costly to the health service.
Dissent from the new government-promoted orthodoxy regarding family
life, sexual ethics and marriage is now treated with the same
uncompromising intolerance that the US Senate McCarthy Committee
once treated those suspected of supporting communism.
'Is there a Case for Same-Sex Marriage' by R S Harris, available
from Amazon as an e-book, Price 6.49 Book form from Voice for
Justice, PO Box 3837, Swindon, SN6 9DS, for 9.99 posted

Part 2
Understanding
The Biblical Evidence

Biblical Texts in bold analysed below are also
freely available in PowerPoint format
on
www.scribd.com/pburgess_2/shelf

!
1a. SCkI1UAL ASSAGLS that re|ate to SLkUAL ISSULS

SUBJECT TEXT'S GENRE
SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE
SAME-SEX
ORIENTATION SAME-SEX %&'()*+,-
MARRIAGE
(MAN + WOMAN)
OTHER
RELATED ISSUES
Texts that speak directly to Homosexuality

Ham's rape of Noah NARRATIVE (Descriptive)

Cen 9:20-27
The story of Sodom & Gomorrah NARRATIVE

Cen 19:4-11
The rape of the Levite's concubine NARRATIVE

!udg 19:22-23
Levitical laws LAW (Prescriptive)

Lev 18:22, 20:13
Sodom & G's 'detestable things' ORACLE (Visionary)

Lzek 16:30
Paul's exposure of homosexuality INSTRUCTION (Teaching)

kom 1:24-27
vlce llsL lnS18uC1lCn

1 Cor 6:9
vlce llsL lnS18uC1lCn

1 1lm 1:10
Sln of Sodom lnS18uC1lCn

2 eL 2:7
Sln of Sodom lnS18uC1lCn

!ude 7

Texts that refer to s-s cult prostitutions
Laws on sexual matters LAW

ueuL 23:17-18
8ehoboam's evll relgn PlS1C8? (8eporLlng)

1 kgs 14:24
8eforms of Asa & !ehoshaphaL PlS1C8?

1 kgs 13:12, 22:46
8eforms of !oslah PlS1C8?

2 kgs 23:7
Lllhu's advlce Lo !ob nA88A1lvL

!ob 36:14
1he faLe of Lhe wlcked ACCAL?1lC (vlslonary)

8ev 21:8, 22:13
Texts that speak about Marriage
Creation of man and woman S1C8? (LxplanaLory)

Gn 1:27, 2:24
Solomon on sexual love CL18?

Song of Songs
Jesus on Marriage & Divorce C. 1LACPlnC

Mat 19:3-12
Paul's analogy of JC & the Church lnS18uC1lCn

Lph 3:22-33

Texts having an indirect bearing on
homosexuality
S on the M: Adultery & Divorce 1LACPlnC

MaL 3:27-32
Rejecting Jesus worse than Sodom C. 1LACPlnC

MaL 10:14-13
What defiles a person C. 1LACPlnC

Mk 7 20-23
Jesus and the adulteress C. 1LACPlnC

In 8:3-11
Paul on living morally LxPC81A1lCn

1 1hes 4:3-10
NOTES

Genre is important in interpretation: passages plainly descriptive of various behaviours should not be read as
prescriptive of how people should behave.
Similar distinctions need to be observed with Lev 18:22 & 20:13 which are MORAL LAWS (as opposed to CULTIC
/ CEREMONIAL LAWS and CIVIL LAWS)
Though equality AUTHORATIVE, all texts are not equally SIGNIFICANT for the subject in hand.

The most crucial text is: Rom 1:21-24, followed by Gen 1:27, 2:24; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Song of Songs; Mat 19:3-12;
Jn 8:3-11, & 1 Thes 4:3-10
In Scripture there are no references to either SAME-SEX ORIENTATION or SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

Does this mean the Bible is silent on either issue?

The LAW changed? - e.g. S on the M you used to get away with x,y,z, now no longer. - Jesus closed a permitted practice.
He maintained a heightened ethical demand coupled with a loving and forgiving outreach to violators.
!
e.g. !n 8:3-11
Rom 1: The place of Rom 1:24-27 within the larger context of the revelation of Gods righteousness for a world
trapped in sin. (2:4; 3:21-26: 6:1-8:17; cf Gal 3:22; 1 Cor 5:5) suggests that the hopeful intent of the punishment is
reformatory.)
!!
For more resources on Same-Sex issues see Embracing Truth: Digest & Study Guide on www.handselpress.org.uk
Recommended video: Conversations on Marriage (Bp. Jean Robinson & Robert Gagnon) www.skylinechurch.org (Aug
2012)

1b. KEY PASSAGES relating to SAME-SEX ISSUES:
Why they are significant

GENESIS 1:27; 2:24 Important because
They record the story of the origins of marriage
Jesus refers to these texts as authoritative regarding what should
be deduced regarding the subsequent issue of divorce (See Mat
19:4ff)
Paul alludes to them as substantiating his claim that God created
humankind male and female; God instituted marriage as a
heterosexual union; and what God has thus united, we have no
liberty to separate. This threefold action of God established that
the only context which he intends for the one flesh experience is
heterosexual monogamy, and that a homosexual partnership
(however loving and committed it may claim to be) is against
nature and can never be regarded as a legitimate alternative to
marriage. (John Stott on Romans 1)

LEVITICUS 18:22; 20:13 Important because
They record moral laws (as opposed to cultic ordinances or civil
legislation) regarding sexual relationships between people of the
same sex. (They do not refer to sexual perversions or cultic
prostitutes, but to same-sex acts in general.)
As part of the Torah (teaching with binding authority, referred to
generally in the NT as the Law), This would have been accepted
by Jesus unless he specifically had reason to revoke it. No such
annulment is recorded. (This is the proper silence of Jesus, not
that he did not speak against homosexuality but that he did not
revoke the Torahs teaching on it.)

There are also in the OT several narratives that involve homosexual acts
or references, notably the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Attempts have
been made to explain away all such references as nothing to do with
modern concepts of committed loving faithful same-sex relationships.
Equally attempts have been made to interpret the friendship between
David and Jonathan in homo-erotic terms, but without evidence. The
point to note about all these stories is that they are descriptive, not
prescriptive (as with Leviticus), so whatever interpretive conclusion is
come to, like such relationships as Abrahams polygamy / incest,
Scripture lends no support to using these incidents as either normative for
OT times or acceptable according to NT standards. That God blessed
such polygamists as Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon does not prove
that He approved of their polygamy. Like Rahab the harlot, they were
allowed to be part of Gods gracious plan of redemption from sin.

While all these stories represent aspects of that redemptive plan, they are
not primary texts for a study of the issues surrounding same-sex practice.

SONG of SONGS Important because
It extols the virtues of love between a husband and his wife.

ROMANS 1:24-27 Important because
It provides us with Pauls clear and authoritative denunciation of all
same-sex behaviour as a particularly strong example of
mankinds idolatrous determination to ignore God and do his
own thing. Revisionists often refer to these verses, along with
Leviticus and other texts, as the clobber verses, acknowledging
their genuine condemnation of same-sex acts. But again, some
would see only references here to such aberrations as pederasty.
It shows how idolatry leads to impurity including homosexual
activity, its sinfulness so severe that those who indulge in it risk
exclusion from Gods Kingdom (1 Cor 6:9)

MATTHEW 19:3-8 Important because
It answers the question regarding divorce: What would Jesus
say? From this it is possible to extrapolate what would be Jesus
attitude to same-sex behaviour had he been asked.

JOHN 8:3-11 Important because
It answers the question regarding adultery (punishable by stoning
in Jesus day): What would Jesus do?

1 THESSALONIANS 4:3-10 Important because
It challenges all Christian believers, in the face of temptations, to
live a pure life, especially in the sexual realm, as well as to show
true love to one another.
........................../&0&1*1.2345647..........................................THEMES
C*&-!/89!/%'0D! ! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GOD!
!!!!!1E&(!$'!"%12!:";<=;9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!CREATION MANKIND!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.-!)$3!.+"/&D!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GODS IMAGE
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.-!)$3!#.B&-&''D!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!')!(*"(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THE PRIME PURPOSE OF MANKIND!
!!!!!!!!!!!(*&>!"%3*$,42*)5&3*>?@.A=B?..-!>?@.B@"....................GOVERNMENT SEA!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>?@.C=D9B..-!>?@.B<ED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SKY!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)5&3!>?@.$=F@B>8G<.!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"$$.>?@.H=$9.";=:"$BD.!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)5&3!"$$.>?@.GD@">#D@B....................................CREATURES!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(*"(!"562!"#)-/!>?@.ID8#;9@F!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!EARTH!!!
=)!/89!&$2%-20!:";<=;9............................THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF MANKIND!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.-!*.'!)6-!.+"/&D!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.-!(*&!.+"/&!)7!?)%!!
!!!!!!!!!*&!&$2%-20!(*&+G!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!+"#&!"-%!7&+"#&!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!GENDER!
!!!!!!!!!*&!&$2%-20!(*&+@!!
/89!#42//20!>?@:!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BLESSING!
!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!
/%'0!()!(*&+D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THE PUROSE OF PROCREATION!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!172*8$,'-8,4***** * * * *! !!!!!!!!!!!FERTILITY!
**********************"-%!!!!
******************'(&$2%/2!.-!-$+,&3G!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NUMERICAL GROWTH!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!8'44!>?@.@"D>?.............!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!
*****************/,#0,2!.(@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!CONTROL (KEEPING ORDER)!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!9,42*562$*>?@.A=B?..-!>?@.B@".!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>?@.C=D9B..-!>?@.B<E.!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)5&3!@F@DE.$=F=;I.GD@">#D@.(*"(!"562/!)-!>?@.ID8#;9@!!
................................../&0&1*1.432764J..................................THEMES
K?@.L8D9./89./%'0D! THE LORD GOD
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1H(!'/!-)(!/))%!7)3!>?@.:";.-5*#2*"#)-&@ MANS LONELINESS!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!H!:'44*"%12*".?@$M@D.'$.(",#&!7)3!*.+@F!!!A HELPER FOR MAN!
I)6!(*&!E)3%!?)%!.%0*85$"20*)$(!)7!>?@.ID8#;9...............................EARTH!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"$$.>?@.H=$9.";=:"$B.........................ANIMALS
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!!"$$.>?@.C=D9B..-!>?@.B<EN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SKY!
J&!#$5,).-!(*&+!()!(*&!+"-!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!**-5*/22*6*"(!*&!:5,40*(%"2*(*&+D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NAMING!
!"-%!6*"(&5&3!(*&!+"-!&%4420!@"G?.$=F=;I.GD@">#D@D!!
!!!!!!!!!(*"(!:%/!=>B.;":@@.!
=)!(*&!+"-!)%62!-"+&'!()!"$$.>?@.$=F@B>8G<D!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(*&!,.3%'!.-!(*&!'B>!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!!"##!(*&!6.#%!"-.+"#'@!!
K$(!7)3!L%"+!-)!'$.(",#&!*&#A&3.:%/!85,(0@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SUITABILITY!
!
=)!>?@.L8D9./89.&%,/20!>?@.:";..............................THE CREATION OF WOMAN
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-5*8%44*'(-5*".9@@M.B$@@MG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SLEEP!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!6*.#&!*&!:%/*/422;'()D!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-551!)-&!)7!(*&!+"-M'!.D=CB...........................................RIBS
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!(*&-!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&45/20*,;*>?@.M$"G@.6.(*!A$@B?@..................................FLESH!
C*&-!(*&!E)3%!?)%!"%02.".H8:";.....................................................A WOMAN!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!73)+!(*&!3.,!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*&!.%0*-%12(*)$(!)7!(*&!+"-D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!!!!*&!#$5,).-!*&3!()!(*&!+"-@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PRESENTATION
.
K?@.:";./%'0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THE MARRIAGE UNION!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1C*.'!N)-&!"(!#"'(O!'/!-)6!C8;@!)7!:E.C8;@B................UNION!
!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!!!A$@B?.)7!:E.A$@B?G!!
! !!!!!!!!!!!!!B?@!/.%44*#2*&%4420*P6)+"-DM!!!!
! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!7)3!'*&!6"'!("B&-!)$(!)7!+"-@F!
!C*"(!.'!6*>!".:";.42%62/!?=B.A">?@D."-%!:8>?@D!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!!!'/*,('-20*()!N/-'&1/!6.(*O!?=B.H=A@.!!!!!!!!!INSEPARABILTY
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!!!>?@E!#2&5"2!8;@.A$@B?N.
0+K&1.8;./&0.2.O.4!
!
Genesis explains the fundamentals of human existence, who we
are, where we come from, for what purpose and why things are
the way they are today because of our fall into sin.

The first recorded words of man recorded form a song if not a
shout. When he sees this beautiful person created from his side,
Adam is beside himself with excitement.

From Genesis 1 and 2 we learn that:
God made humankind as male and female to maintain creation
and govern its creatures.
But He created this gender distinction in a special way, taking
from man and forming woman and then bringing her to man to
reunite in one flesh again. This is taken to be the institution of
marriage whereby a man leaves his father and mother and
cleaves to his wife.
This marriage relationship was created to provide for man a
suitable helper in his task of maintaining and controlling Gods
creation. (No animal was found to be suitable.)
Part of the role of this helper was to produce other human beings
to help manage creation.
So husband and wife were told to be fruitful and fill the earth with
their progeny. Thus the intimacy (flesh of my flesh) of sex was
used to populate the earth.
Therefore differences in gender role are an essential part of the
Creators design for marriage. This complementarity precludes
any same sex partnership from the marital stated.
The union of man and wife is intended to be inseparable and
thus life-long. (v. 24 stick with, c.f. Ruth & Naomi, Ruth 1:14)
When they unite in marriage, the man and woman bring into
being a new family unit. (To be ones bone and flesh is to be
related by blood to someone.)
Note: These roles were assigned by God at Creation (Gen. 2:18,
20) and were reaffirmed both after the Fall (Gen. 3:16-19) and in NT
teaching (Eph 5:22-23; 1 Pet. 3:1-7).

From Adams side comes a wife to be by his side, whom God, as
the Father of the bride, brings to the man at this first wedding. God
could have created woman right after Adam, but by doing it the way
He did God make Adam all the more appreciative to God for his
wife.

The Big Picture

Gen 3:16-19 describes the beginning of human suffering: personal,
spiritual and physical. Instead of remaining fully in the image of
God and bringing order to nature, (as in Gen 1 & 2) man himself
falls into disorder. ( To love and to cherish becomes to desire and
to dominate. Derek Kidner) It was not until the perfect Man,
Jesus Christ, came that nature could gain the possibility of being
restored to order, and that only if and when man himself submits to
His lordship.

Qs for Discussion

1. What evidence is there to support the idea that marriage was
not simply a custom or tradition that has over time developed
or evolved, but is a union relationship instituted by God
Himself?

2. What would you say to those who claim that such an
exclusive presentation of marriage is discrimination against
other types of marriages (e.g. same-sex marriage)?

3. What is the evidence from this passage for viewing marriage
as a complementary union of a man and a woman?

4. What do you think is the essence of marriage?
L&)*K*P,1.2734Q64J.....................................TOPICS.
!!!!!!!!!
1P<5*(5-*.%62*B@R#"$.D@$">=8;B.6.(*!E8#D.;@=I?C8DSB.H=A@......ADULTERY!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!028'42!E8#DB@$A!6.(*!*&3@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DEFILEMENT!
!!!
!!!!<5*(5-*)'62*";E.8A.E8#D.G?=$9D@;..NE.(:!B@@9O!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*-5*#2*/%&$'8'&20*()!T8$@<D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!POLLUTION!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!7)3!>)$!",/-*(5-*;$58%(2!>?@.;":@.)7!E8#D./89@!!
!!!H!%"!>?@.L8D9@!!
*
**<5*(5-*.%62*/2=,%4*$24%-'5(/*6.(*!".:";..................................SAME-SEX ACT*
!!!!!!!!!!NE.(:!05*(5-*4'2O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"'!)-&!%)&'!6.(*!".H8:";G!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(*"(!'/!%&(&'(",#&@!!NE.(:!";."C8:=;">=8;O!
*
**<5*(5-*.%62*B@R#"$.D@$">=8;B.6.(*!";.";=:"$.........................BEASTIALITY!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!028'42!E8#DB@$A!6.(*!.(@!!
..(.H8:";.",/-*(5-*;$2/2(-**&3'&#7!()!"-!"-.+"#!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*-5*.%62*'&9$"#!3&#"(.)-'!6.(*!.(G!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(*"(!.'!".M@DF@DB=8;@!!NE.(:!"!G8;A#B=8;O!!!!!!!!!!!!!SEXUAL CONFUSION
*
*<5*(5-*028'42*>)$3'&#5&'!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.-!"->!)7!(*&'&!6">'D!!
!!!!!!!,&0"$'&!(*.'!'/!*)6!>?@.;">=8;B.............................DEFILEMENT of NATIONS!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(*"(!H!%"*)5'()*-5*0$'62*5,-*,&7)3&!>)$!!EXPULSION!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!#2&%"2*028'420@SU!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!L&)*K*P,1.4Q32Q62J.......................................TOPICS!
!
!!!"#!"#!$"!"##$%&!!"#$%&'(!!"#$%&'(#$)*%+&'!!"#$%&""""!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ADULTERY
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-!"#$%!"#$%&'#$('$"&)$*#&+",(-.-
!"#$%!"#$%&'(!#)#)$!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"#!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!"#$%&'(!#)#**$!"#$%&$'#$()%$%&$*#!%+!!
!
!!!!!!!"#$#%$&#!"#$#%&'"($)%("*+,-#$!"#$%!"#$%&'!()!!"!"#$!"""!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!INCEST
!"#!"#$%&#!'(')*%$!"#$%&'!()*$
!"#$%!"#$%&'$
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"#
!!!!!!!!!!"#$%&'()$!"#$%&$'#$()%$%&$*#!%+!""""""""""""""""""""""!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DEATH PENALTY
!"#$%&'())*&!"##$%&$!"#!"#$%&'()&"#*+,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!RESPONSIBILITY

!!!!!!!"#$#%$&#!"#$#%&'"($)%("*+,-#$!"#$%!"#$%&'(!)*+-!"-!"#!""""!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!"#$%"&%#$'(%!"#$%&$'#$()%$%&$*#!%+!"
!"#$%!"#$%"&'#%()*#%!"#!"#$%&$%'()*!"""#$%&'"()*+,-%)*.!!!!!SEXUAL CONFUSION
!"#$%&'())*&!"##$%&$'($!"#$%&'()!!"#$%!!
!
H7!".:";..%/*/2=,%4*$24%-'5(/*6.(*!".:";..................................SAME-SEX ACT!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"'!)-&!052/*H=>?.".H8:";D!N.@&@!6*)!"0('!"'!"!6)+"-O!!
C8>?.8A.>?@:..%62*05(2*6*"(!'/!%&(&'(",#&@!NE.(:!"-!",)+.-"(.)-O!
C*&>!%$2*-5*#2*;,-*-5*02%-.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ABOMINATION!
(*&.3!,#))%!6.##!,&!)-!(*&.3!)6-!*&"%'@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!H7!"!+"-!+"33.&'!,)(*!".H8:";..............................................!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?@D.:8>?@DD!!
.(!'/!6.0B&%@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WICKEDNESS!!
K)(*!?@!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!"-%!!
!!!!!!!!!>?@E!",/-*#2*#,$(20*.-!>?@.A=D@D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PURIFYING BY FIRE!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!')!(*"(!-)!6.0B&%-&''!:'44*#2*"+)-/!>)$@!
! !
NOTES

K)(*!A"''"/&'!'&&+!0#&"3#>!()!0)-%&+-!*)+)'&9$"#!"0('@!K$(!(*.'!
"''$+A(.)-!.'!0*"##&-/&%!,>!')+&!6*)!*"5&!Q$&'(.)-&%!6*&(*&3!(*.'!
A3)*.,.(.)-!"AA#.&'!()%">:!
!
1. 2.3'(!(*&>!A).-(!)$(!(*"(!(*&3&!"3&!+"->!)(*&3!A3)*.,.(.)-'!.-!
(*&!RC!(*"(!"3&!-)(!),'&35&%!()%">@!S"(.-/!'*&##7.'*!"-%!,.3%'!
)7!A3&>D!03)''!,3&&%.-/!#.5&'()0BD!A.0B.-/!$A!'(.0B'!)-!(*&!
=",,"(*D!A#"-(.-/!"!+.9($3&!)7!'&&%'!.-!"!7.&#%D!"-%!6&"3.-/!
0#)(*.-/!(*"(!.'!"!,#&-%!)7!(6)!(&9(.#&'!"3&!"##!&9"+A#&'!)7!"0('!
)7!3.($"#!.+A$3.(>!6*.0*!+"%&!"-!H'3"&#.(&!$-0#&"-. If so many
OT prohibitions are now not observed what authority now
attaches to the injunctions concerning same-sex behaviour?

2. Others say that Christ has abolished the whole body of OT
laws and we are now to be guided by the law of love that
Christ taught.

3. And there are some textual critics who say these verses
should not be interpreted as referring to gays per se, but only
to those who abused boys in the temple prostitution that
common in the region at that time.
Response:

1. Different laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy have differing
purposes, with applications to different periods. Thus cultic or
ceremonial laws related to the worship of Gods people prior
to His self-sacrifice on our behalf on the Cross, to which they
point, their obligations being revoked by his death. Civil laws
pertained only to the administration of Hebrew society of the
times. Moral laws, however, convey eternal principles of
behaviour for all people at all times.
We must maintain the unity of Scripture despite progressive
revelation (change over time) and diverse answers on some
issues appropriate for different situations or individuals.
2. Christ himself showed great respect for the Hebrew
Scriptures (OT), saying he had not come to abolish the law
but to fulfill it and that nothing of the law was to fail until
heaven and earth disappear when it will have completely
accomplished its purpose. (Mat 5:17) Taking just one key
theme of Jesus message and making it the criterion by
which everything else in the Bible is judged, does not do
justice to the balance found interpreting each and very part
of Scripture according to its original purpose and type of
writing (genre).

3. Most scholars accept the view that, while there is no
reference to the condition of homosexual inclinations in these
prohibitions, there is a strong condemnation of all
homosexual activity. (See Review of Robert Gagnans
Homosexuality in Embracing Truth for further discussion.)

Qs for Discussion

1. On what grounds is same-sex behaviour prohibited in these
passages? Why do you think it was condemned so strongly?

2. How would you respond to the view that:

a. The Bible is culturally conditioned and forbids a lot
of things we have no qualms in doing today, so we
dont need to worry about homosexuality?

b. The Bible only condemns exploitive homosexual
practice, not loving committed faithful monogamous
homosexual relationships?

SONG OF SONGS
It is beyond the scope of this study to examine this book which
would require being studied in its entirety. Suffice it to say there
have been many differing interpretations of its message. The
following is offered in this context:
=)-/!)7!=)-/'!.'!".$ED=G"$.M8@:.V"((3.,$(&%!()!=)#)+)-T.
@R>8$=;I.>?@.F=D>#@B.8A.$8F@.C@>H@@;.".?#BC";9.";9.?=B.
H=A@N!U"33."/&!.'!A3&'&-(&%!"'!"-!"33"-/&+&-(!.-!6*.0*!"!+"-!
"-%!6)+"-!"3&!+&"-(!()!#.5&!()/&(*&3D!/.5.-/!(*&+'&#5&'!()!
&"0*!)(*&3!.-!"!#)5&!(*"(!.'!'A.3.($"#D!&+)(.)-"#D!"-%!A*>'.0"#@!
C*$'!,)(*."BG@>=G=B:!V(*&!%&-."#!)7!"##!A#&"'$3&T!"-%!
?@98;=B:!V(*&!A$3'$.(!)7!)-#>!A#&"'$3&T!are to be avoided.

The book has three sections:
1. courtship (1:1 - 3:5);
2. the wedding (3:6 - 5:1);
3. marriage (5:2 - 8:14).

Note that as the marriage matures, the couple go through certain
difficulties that separate them for a time, before they overcome
these difficulties, are reconciled and return to a deeper love for
each other.

A long tradition of biblical interpretation has seen in this poem a
picture of the relationship between Christ (the Bride Groom) and His
Church (the Bride), showing Christ's love for us and how the Church
should be zealous and passionate for Christ alone.

For a good discussion of the message of this beautiful lyric visit:
www.gotquestions.org and search: Song of Songs.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
!
! !
ROMANS 1 P+0K&WK!8!C@A8D@!!V55@WX8YZT!
>+.2$285$2?@*
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and
wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks
to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images

-+T(01.234J64X.................................................... TOPICS.
Therefore MANS IDOLATROUS SUPRESSION OF TRUTH
God gave them over to sexual impurity IMMORALITY
in the sinful desires of their hearts SIN
for the degrading of their bodies DEGRADATION
with one another.
They exchanged the truth about God FALSE EXCHANGE
for a lie,
and worshiped and served created things IDOLATRY
rather than the Creator
who is forever praised.
Amen. REALITY: GODS PRAISE

Because of this, IDOLATROUS EXCHANGE
God gave them over to shameful lusts. LUST
Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations
for unnatural ones. UNNATURAL SEX
In the same way
the men also abandoned natural relations with women
and were inflamed with lust for one another.
Men committed shameful acts with other men, SHAMEFULNESS
and received in themselves PENALTY
the due penalty for their error. ERROR

P+0K&WK..6."A>@D!V55@YX7T!
Furthermore
God gave them over to a depraved mind.
They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.
NOTES

Rom 1:24-27 provides the most substantial and explicit discussion
in the Bible on homosexual practice. (Since homosexual orientation
is a fairly recent concept, on this aspect the Bible is silent.) It makes
grim reading and many have found its severity unpalatable.

Immediate context: Paul is pointing out that general revelation has
provided everybody with a limited knowledge of Gods power and
glory (v.19-20) Despite this, peoples thinking became darkened and
foolish (v. 21). Note that he speaks three times of human
exchanges (23, 25, 26) and three times says that God consequent-
ly gave them over (vv. 24, 26, 28).

Pauls argument is as follows:
1a. Their folly was seen in their idolatry and the absurd exchange
which that idolatry involved: fashioning idols in the place of the
glory of the immortal God (i.e. what might be deduced about
him from observing his creation). (v. 23)
1b. God has responded by abandoning them to the impurity of their
own sinful sexual passions (v. 24).
2a. The folly continues in the exchanging the truth of God (what he
has said about himself?) for a lie (v. 25).
2b. Gods response: to abandon them to shameful lusts (v. 26).
3a. As a result a further folly ensues: changing natural sexual
relations for unnatural ones (vv. 26f) with duly deserved
consequences.
3b. Gods response: to abandon them still further to a totally
depraved mind, for which the only outcome they deserve is
death (v. 28).

The pattern of thought is: Since some people cannot stomach the
truth about God or the truth he reveals to them, they exchange it for
a lie to accommodate their sinful desires and lifestyles. Their foolish
thinking leads to idolatry (worship of something other than God
himself), which in turn leads God to respond by giving these ungodly
people over to their own passions (i.e. tp give them what they want!).
These passions are particularly exemplified by immoral homosexual
behaviour whose practitioners are given over to experience the
futility of their lusts and the internal torment of a living death.

Further notes based on John Stotts commentary on Romans

What Paul saw plainly, wrote C.H. Dodd, was that Greek philosophy
easily came to terms with the grossest forms of superstition and
immorality. Even the lofty philosophy of Hinduismutters no
effective protest against the most degrading practices of popular
religion in India today. Stott adds, To exchange the worship of the
living God for the modern obsession with wealth, fame and power is
equally foolish and equally blameworthy. He concludes that the
history of the world confirms that a false image of God (idolatry)
leads to a false understanding of sex (immorality). Illicit sex
degrades peoples humanness; sex in marriage as God intended,
ennobles it.

This traditional interpretation, that Paul is describing and
condemning all homosexual behaviour, is being challenged today by
revisionists. Three arguments have been advanced.
1. This passage is about Gods wrath at sin, not a treatise on
ethics, so discussion about gays today is irrelevant. But
whatever the main purpose, theres no getting away from the
fact that Gods displeasure is roused by homosexual acts.
2. Paul is talking about pederasty or temple prostitution, not the
loving committed same-sex partnerships found today. But the
text contains no hint of this.
3. Thirdly, there is the question of what Paul meant by nature.
Since homosexuality is natural for homosexuals Paul is here
condemning homosexual acts committed by apparently
heterosexual people, i.e. an un-natural act for them. But
contemporary evidence shows the opposition of natural and
unnatural very frequently distinguished between
heterosexual and homosexual behaviour. Further,
differentiating between sexual orientation and sexual practice
is a modern concept, so to introduce a distinction entirely
foreign to Pauls thought-world, in fact a complete
anachronism. To act against nature means to violate the
order which God has established.

Big picture context of Gods plan of redemption: The place of
Rom 1:24-27 within the larger context of the revelation of Gods
righteousness for a world trapped in sin (2:4; 3:21-26: 6:1-8:17; cf
Gal 3:22; 1 Cor 5:5) suggests that the hopeful intent of the
punishment Paul refers to is reformatory.

Qs for Discussion

1. How far would you agree with C.S. Lewis statement: There
are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to
God, Thy will be done, and those to whom God says, Thy
will be done. All that are in hell chose it? Is this what Paul
was saying?

2. I dont want God to be the centre of my life. Why does this
attitude, as Paul suggests, lead to all sorts of sins, including
sexual ones?

3. What reasons are given for objecting to homosexual practice
today? How far do they match Pauls?

4. How significant is the silence of Paul (and other biblical
writers) about sexual orientation? Does it affect the validity of
what he has to say about homosexual practice?

MATTHIEW 19:3-8 What would Jesus say? TOPICS
Some Pharisees came to him
to test him. TEST
They asked,
Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE
for any and every reason?
Havent you read, he replied,
that at the beginning
the Creator made them male and female, GENDER
and said, For this reason
a man will leave his father and mother PARENTS
and
be united to his wife, WIFE
and
the two will become one flesh? BODILY UNION
So they are no longer two,
but
one flesh.
Therefore
what God has joined together,
let no one separate. SEPARATION
Why then, they asked,
did Moses command that
a man give his wife a certificate of divorce DIVORCE CERTIFICATE
and send her away?

Jesus replied,
Moses permitted you to divorce your wives
because your hearts were hard. HARDNESS OF HEARTS
But it was not this way
from the beginning.
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife,
except for sexual immorality, IMMORALITY
and
marries another woman
commits adultery. ADULTERY
JOHN 8:3-11 - What would Jesus do? TOPICS
The teachers of the law
and
the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. POLICING ADULTERY
They made her stand before the group STANDING
and said to Jesus,
Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
In the Law THE LAW
Moses commanded us to stone such women. STONING
Now what do you say? INTERROGATION
They were using this question as a trap, TRAP
in order to have a basis for accusing him. ACCUSATION
But Jesus bent down BENDING DOWN
and started to write on the ground with his finger. WRITING
When they kept on questioning him,
he straightened up STRAIGHTENING UP
and said to them,
Let any one of you who is without sin SIN INNOCENCE
be the first to throw a stone at her. DISPENSING JUDGEMENT
Again he stooped down
and wrote on the ground.
At this those who heard
by their conscience being convicted, CONSCIENCE
began to go away one at a time, DEPARTURE
the older ones first,
until only Jesus was left,
with the woman still standing there.
Jesus straightened up
and asked her,
Woman, where are they? ACCUSERS
Has no one condemned you? CONDEMNATION
No one, sir, she said.
Then neither do I condemn you, Jesus declared.
Go now
and
leave your life of sin. STOP SINNING

NOTES
THE WITNESS OF JESUS

Had Jesus a view on homosexuality?
Just because Jesus stressed loving others does not elevate
this as a core value that trumps other values, such as
sexual purity, a value Jesus also emphasized.
On Jesus supposed silence on homosexuality: textual
absence of a topic does not prove Jesus never mentioned it
or that he even tolerated it, only that we have no record of
him speaking about it. Textual silence on any issue should
not be stretched to imply tacit approval.
Arguments from silence can be used as proving
acceptance of the 1st C Jewish position that did not tolerate
homosexuality. Sexual immoralities (porneiai), for Jesus
always an evil, would be understood by any 1st C Jew to
include the total list of Lev 18 & 20 (including homosexuality).
No comment on homosexuality by Jesus was necessary
since generally speaking homosexual activity was not
prevalent in Judaistic society, though it was in the wider
Roman world, hence Pauls severe condemnation of it in his
letter to not the Romans.
Portraying Jesus as a prophet of tolerance who forgives
and accepts regardless of any behavioural change,
distorts the historical reality.
Jesus silence may also have been due to the fact that
supposedly responsible and loving expressions of
homosexuality were not prevalent in Jesus day, hence
any absence of criticism. Certainly there are no grounds for
supposing Jesus would have countenanced even the idea of
a responsible and loving form of homosexual practice, let
alone tolerate such practice.
Jesus stated that he did not come to destroy the Law but to
fulfill it. As a 1
st
C Jew, embracing an exclusively
heterosexual model of mono-gamy (based on Gen 1:27;
2:24), he would reject homosexual practice.
In other sexual issues Jesus was more rigorous than
pundits in the culture of his day.
Jesus did not criticize or overturn any specific prohibition of
the Law, but rather he transcended the Law, prioritizing its
core values and even expanding its demands. Thus the law
on healing on the Sabbath he reinterpreted as consistent with
its humane purpose.
Jesus integrated righteous conduct with mercy, as shown
in the case of the woman caught in adultery. This is not the
same as tolerating her weakness (sin).
Jesus never confused love with toleration of any kind of
behaviour. Where unacceptable behaviour requires
repentance, forgiveness that does not lead to transformed
life is retracted, as the parable of the unforgiving servant
makes clear.

Jesus view of Marriage
Jesus accepted Gen 1-2 model for marriage and sexual union
(c.f. his divorce discussion in Mk 10:1-12) Thus from
creations beginning marriage was ordained by God as union
of a man and a woman. Jesus appeal to it as a means of
ending the concession in the Law establishes his commitment
to this one model of sexual reunion.
Adams side (rib) was split open to create a second gender
and thus provide the companionship of a complementary
being. (The missing part of man is found in woman and vice
versa.)
The reuniting of the two genders was into one flesh, not
simply two individuals stuck together.
Same-sex intercourse fails to restore this disunion as it does
not reconnect complementary beings. An alternate pattern of
marriage and sexuality requires an alternate creation story.

Jesus teaching on Sex
Sexual thoughts as well as sexual intercourse itself must be
confined to ones spouse. Just refraining from fornication and
adultery is not enough! One must refrain from lustful
fantasizing, imagining ones sexual involvement with
another woman.
The marriage vow was absolutely indissoluble, not only for
husbands initiating divorce, but also for their wives victimized
by it. NB: Our first concern today is the rights of the victim:
(locked in a loveless or violent marriage!) Jesus first concern
was sexual purity (i.e. a moral rather than a social
motivation), away from self-interest to the interests of the
kingdom of God: love others like yourself! Fidelity to the
covenant of marriage (love for ones spouse) takes
precedence over psychological self-interest or sexual self-
gratification.
Sex is only for this age and can be given up for the mission
of proclaiming the Kingdoms coming. Jesus was no
proverbial party animal, sexually liberated or finding
himself through sexual experimentation. For Jesus only two
options were open:
o A. Sexual thoughts and actions directed to ones
permanent opposite-sex spouse only.
o B. Complete abstinence from sexual intercourse and
erotic fantasies.
All else is abhorrent to God.
Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery in the
sense that he put aside her sentence of stoning, not in the
sense of removing her guilt or condoning her behaviour.
Thus he allowed her time to repent of, and change, her
behaviour.

What we can learn from Jesus approach
Jesus condemned hypocritical judging, not exercising critical
discernment (Mat 7:1).
When Jesus did pronounce on specific moral issues it was to
strengthen their application: Do not commit adultery!
became Do not lust!; Do not murder! became Do not hate
your brother in your heart!
In Jesus day the Sadducees interpreted grace to permit
anything, but were lacking in the truth, whereas the Pharisees
were ardent about truth but lacked grace.
Revisionists can learn that no acceptance is possible without
transformation. Radical love can be practiced without
sacrificing and adherence and obedience to Gods demands
for righteous conduct.
Traditionalists should not separate upholding holiness from a
concern for the world. Righteousness can be wed to love. The
church proclaims a truncated gospel if either emphasis is
missing.

1 THESALONIANS 4:3-10 - The Text...........................TOPICS

It is Gods will GODS WILL
that you should be sanctified: [your sanctification]
that you should avoid sexual immorality; IMMORALITY
that each of you should learn to control your own body BODY CONTROL
in a way that is holy and honorable,
not in passionate lust LUST
like the pagans, WORLDLY PEOPLE
who do not know God; KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
and
that in this matter
no one should wrong
or take advantage of a brother or sister. CHEAT
The Lord will punish all those {who commit such sins,}
as we told you DIVINE PUNISHMENT
and warned you
before.
For God did not call us to be impure, UNCLEANNESS
but
to live a holy life. SANCTIFICATION
Therefore,
anyone who rejects {this instruction} REJECTION OF GOD
does not reject a human being
but God,
the very God
who gives you his Holy Spirit.
Now about your love for one another BROTHERLY LOVE
we do not need to write to you,
for you yourselves have been taught by God
to love each other.
And in fact,
you do love all of Gods family [the brothers] LOVE GODS FAMILY
throughout Macedonia.
Yet we urge you,
brothers and sisters,
to do so more and more.
Commentary
1 Thessalonians 4:3-10

Background:
In Greece, home and family life were near to being extinct, and fidelity
was completely non-existent. - William Barclay

Exposition:
John Stott observes One of the great weaknesses of contemporary
evangelical Christianity is our comparative neglect of Christian ethics, in
both our teaching and our practice We are busy preaching the gospel
that we seldom teach the law We are not under the law, we say piously,
as if we were free to ignore and even disobey it. Whereas what Paul meant
is that our acceptance before God is not due to our observance of the law.
Stott finds in this passage the following points.
(General)
Pleasing God is the foundation on which Christian ethical behaviour
is built.
Our incentive will be not so much to obey the law as thereby to
please the Law-giver.
(On sexual behaviour)
Although we recognize that sex is the good gift of a good Creator,
we also know that it has become twisted and distorted by the fall,
so that our sexual energies need to be rightly channeled and
carefully controlled.
Gods will entails a clean cut (JBP) with impurity, a total
abstinence. As Professor Howard Marshall rightly comments,
where things are evil the Christian attitude is necessarily one of
abstention and not of moderation.
V.4a The reference is to acquiring a wife. Paul is affirming
heterosexual marriage as the only God-given context for sexual
intercourse
Marriage is portrayed in Scripture both as a creation ordinance,
intended for companionship and procreation, and also since the fall
as a divine remedy against sin (c.f. 1 Cor 7:2-9).
Heterosexual and monogamous marriage is the only context in
which God intends sexual intercourse to be experienced, and
indeed enjoyed. The corollary is that it is forbidden in every other
context, whether with a heterosexual partner before marriage
(fornication) or outside marriage (adultery), or in a homosexual
relationship.
Marriage is not a form of legalized lust. Honourable conduct in
marriage he contrasts with *passionate lust like the heathen, who
do not know God* (5).
There is a world of difference between lust and love, between
dishonourable sexual practices which use the partner and true
love-making which honours the partner, between the selfish desire
to possess and the unselfish desire to love, cherish and respect
VV 4b-8. What is also impressive about this paragraph is that it is
from first to last an example of theological ethics, ethics arising out
of the Christian doctrine of God First, Gods call is to holiness (7,
Cf. 2 Tim.1:9). Be holy, he says, because I am holy. Secondly,
Gods will is our holiness (3). Thirdly, Gods Spirit is a Holy Spirit
(8), who is given to all his people in order to make them holy (2
Thess. 2:13; Cf.1 Cor.6:19). Fourthly, Gods judgment will fall upon
all unholiness (6). Therefore, without holiness it is impossible to
please God.

J. Hampt on Keat hl ey, I I I comment s:
Paul had in mind all the particular social conditions to which these
believers were susceptible in Greece stemming from their past
history as idolaters. The Thessalonians lived in a pagan
environment in which sexual looseness was not only practiced
openly but was also encouraged Clearly, one way to avoid
sexual impurity is through marriage and a proper understanding of
sex and marriage as God designed it.
It is not that all of those desires are evil, for many of them are God
given. Sex is not evil. From the beginning God created marriage as
a sacred union between one man and one woman and sex was to
be a part of that union for the continuance of the race and for
pleasure in marriage. What makes many of mans desires
(thelemata) evil is his self-centered commitment to follow those
desires contrary to Gods will (as in adultery) and at the expense or
exploitation of others.
We should note that Paul did not say the heathen do not know
about God. The reason, they behave as they do is because they do
not know God personally, even though they may know about Him.
When a person comes to know God by faith in Jesus Christ, not
only should his attitudes toward sex and marriage drastically
change, as he gains a knowledge of the Word, but he also
discovers that God gives him the ability to handle sexual temptation
as he couldnt before. Knowing God intimately is fundamental to
living a life in sanctification and honor. This is why both having
relationship with God (through faith in Christ) and maintaining a
close walk with Him (through daily intimate fellowship) is vital to
having and keeping a pure walk before God.
Sexual purity is grounded in the truth of Gods holy revelation.
It is something which man normally will not arrive at on his own
because of his own self-centered interest.
Educational Resources for Same-Sex Issues

Video: Conversation on Marriage (Skyline Church, Ca. USA) Highly
commended for presentation of both sides
http://vimeo.com/47223269 Duration: 2hrs 42mins!

Books: Embracing Truth, D. Torrance & J. Stein (Ed), Handsel Press,
2012, 6.95. Handsel Press has a Digest and Study
Guide written by Paul Burgess that can be downloaded
for free by visiting Handselpress.org.uk.
(Emphasis on truth)
Turning Controversy into Church Ministry: A Christ-like
Response to Homosexuality, W.P. Campbell, Zondervan,
2010, $18.99 Thoroughly biblical challenge to reach out to
people with S-S attraction!
(Emphasis on grace)
Is There A Case for Same-Sex Marriage, R.S. Harris. 'Is there a
Case for Same-Sex Marriage' by R S Harris available from
Amazon as an e-book, Price 6.49 Book form from Voice for
Justice, PO Box 3837, Swindon, SN6 9DS, for 9.99 posted

Organisation: The Christian Institute, http://www.christian.org.uk

For a good discussion of the message of the Song of Solomon visit:
www.gotquestions.org and search: Song of Songs.

Staging a Seminar / Meeting on Same-Sex issues?

For free download of all "#$!%&'$(%$)!*&+$!D@B8#DG@.:">@D="$B!7)3!/3)$A!
"-%!A&3')-"#!'($%>!VZ[AAT!visit: www.scribd.com/pburgess_2/shelf
and look on the shelf for: The Same-Sex Maze PCJB

Paul Burgess, who compiled these resources is available for seminars /
workshops / presentations, etc. He can be contacted at:
paulandcathie@gmail.com or by phone: 01505 850254
!
The Idea of
A Same-Sex Maze Roadshow

Founded on the conviction that Christians in todays society
need to be pro-active in
stating their beliefs and values
and providing a sound apologetic for these,
these seminars / meetings
aim to provide the reasons for the ethical beliefs we hold to,
in the context of the current Same-Sex Marriage proposals
that are being given continual prominence in the media
and are the subject of imminent parliamentary legislation.

The resource materials now gathered are just that:
a collection of succinct accessible summaries of
the issues raised along with bible-based responses.

The organization of meetings
will be the responsibility of
local churches and their leaders.

Those interested in following up this idea
are invited to contact Paul Burgess
to discuss
venue, implementation and content, etc

Contact: Tel: 01505 850254

The Same Sex Maze PCJB

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Same Sex Maze PCJB

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THE SAME SEX MAZE

S-ar putea să vă placă și