Tell me, where in the Bible is the word "marriage" defined as the union of one man and one woman? Let's just start by talking about the patriarchs: both Abraham and Sarah slept with people to whom they were not married, and Jacob had God-honored children by both of his wives and by their servants. Holding "marriage = one man + one woman" as a Biblical position is a nostalgic fantasy construction which has no basis in the Bible. I'm not saying your church has to say that a domestic union of same-gendered people is acceptable (though I wish it would), but claiming that the word "marriage" has that biblical definition is false. Even the biblical description of what makes a God-pleasing household is flexible. And as long as you are free to practice your religion by not marrying same-gendered couples, I should be free to practice my religion by marrying them. "Marriage" has always been a legal term; "blessing" is the religious term.
I don't know about you, but I might take Adam and Eve as a good first example. There are many descriptions of a God-pleasing household in the OT, which aren't meant to be thrown out, but Christ has one bride: the church. Every Christian is an image bearer of Christ. Yes, the definition of a household blessed by God has flexibility, but that does not make homosexuality okay.
And where in the Bible do you see God blessing any kind of homosexual relations, much less blessing a homosexual "marriage"? I don't know of any examples in the Bible who were said to be God-fearing and righteous in what they did, but committed homosexual acts.
Adam and Eve cohabitated; they weren't married. Marriage is a state-sanctioned ritual, and there's no description of any sort of ritual to unite them in the stories about them. Granted, during most of history and in most places in the world, the state and religion were united, hence the U.S. practice of allowing clergy to serve as state agents in signing a marriage license, but it's a document you have to get from the secular government in places where the two are not unified. I'm a fan of the separation of church and state, and this is one necessary distinction (among many) to preserve that division.
I find a dearth in scripture of advice regarding how a faithful person should deal with many modern situations. My stepmother has claimed openly that flying in an airplane is a sin; I disagree. Scripture says nothing of the matter. What about the many chemical and physical forms of birth control? The last I heard on the matter was about Onan, and his intent was to prevent his brother having progeny, an incredibly rare opportunity today in any case. Same-gender relationships to the exclusion of biological-offspring-bearing relationships are a new concept because children were the biblical Social Security & retirement plan. At the time, they almost ubiquitously took place as an adjunct to a different-gender partnership so that children could care for the parents when they became elderly. Children today rarely expect to care for their forebears, regardless of government assistance or prudent investment, so the need to have children has been eliminated. It is no longer reckless to have a partner of your own gender, so I think that God did not speak to this context in scripture.
Just as I speak against the argument that "science cannot prove the existence of God means there is no God" because science does not concern itself with the question of God, so do I speak against the argument that "the Bible doesn't explicitly bless a certain course of action so it must not be acceptable" because God continues to reveal what is good and a compact library like the Bible cannot and could never address every situation which arises in the life of creation. The Bible continues to inform us of what God has done and is sufficient to cradle the grace of God and spark of faith, but it is just that: a cradle. It is an excellent and comforting place in which to begin and to which to return to fortify our faith, but one who never leaves the cradle cannot be considered to have a mature and critically claimed faith.
I'm not saying that the place in which you find your faith is bad, merely that it is perhaps an unquestioned faith. If you are comfortable with that, then you are blessed! That being said, I object to your pointing a finger at my faith and saying it is false. I doubt; I have asked God to help my unbelief. I have asked many questions, realized that some things are mysterious and cannot be answered, that there are even paradoxes which cannot be reconciled, and I believe in spite of those holes. I thank God that the Spirit dwells in me and engages with me so that I can use my God-given reasoning in concert with scripture, the church's traditions, and my own experiences. God's word is revealed in all these, not just in a library which is commonly published in a single volume.
Question: If that passage condemns slave traders, why do other passages in the Bible say that slaves should be submissive? Also, if we listen to this, why do we ignore other factors the NT mentions, like women not being able to teach men in churches. Besides that, you can always just write a note saying you don't want your little Bobby learning sex ed at the school and teach him at home. Then he'll just get sent to the library or something during class. You're the parent, it's not like you have no say in the matter.
I don't know about anyone else, but marriage wasn't covered in my sex education classes. We talked about the physical operation of sexuality and how to protect ourselves from emotional and physical harm, including STIs. It was largely self-focused, and the practices are useful independent of the one(s) with whom one is sexually partnered.
I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this. :)
I'm going to say this right now: I have no problem with Gays, I don't hate them, they are people also.
I feel as if Gays should be allowed to marry in a legal marriage. I do believe that it is a sin to sleep with someone the same gender, but God gave us free will to do what we want. He isn't controlling our lives.
I do believe that some Christians are trying to ban Gay rights because we think that our religion is 'the one' and that everybody should follow it, and that it goes against our views, right? (I am a Christian, and do believe that it is the right one, bu the way.) But Christianity is about choice. We don't have a set of rules that we have to follow, or else. God's 'rules' are there to guide us, because we've already broken His laws, one way or another. Anyways, we follow them because we want to, not because we have to. And by banning Gay Rights, aren't we forcing our views on Gays, saying that "You need to follow this and change your ways, because it is the Law!"? Just because their sexuality is different, doesn't mean that they aren't people, and that they shouldn't have any rights.
Romans says that even Hell can't seperate us from God's love. So beign sent to hell doesn't mean he doesn't love us really.
Besides that, I've heard people say that thing about prostitution before, but how do you know that's what it meant? It's logical, but is there evidence within the Bible or supported by historians or linguists or people who study the Bible professionally to support this?
There is a ton of scholarship to support where you seem to want to go but can't find support for yourself. It's a lifetime's work for some, but here's a place to start: http://www.amazon.com/Pro-gay-theology/lm/R1QCBKQGC1Q32V/ref=cm_lmt...
Some of these authors I know as professors from seminary, many I've never heard of at all. Regardless, since you seem to trust professionals, get reading and you'll find that you are far from alone. In fact, the oppressive interpretation of the Bible is the opinion of a mere shrinking, vocal minority.
I commented on who God's children are here.
As far as I can tell, Israel was not having serious problems with homosexuality when Jesus came, so he did not have to address it. It was, however, addressed very clearly by Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, in Romans 1.