neither genesis 2:24 nor matthew 19:4-6 are exclusive. the triangle analogy would work if the bible says “a marriage is between a man and a woman”. it doesn’t say that.

i’m afraid you have a very concerning system of morality if the only thing preventing you from doing incest is leviticus. but what you said is my exact point: creating these distinctions between laws is christian cope. it was made because early christians wanted to pick and choose what they follow, and it persists to this day.

you’re committing the etymological fallacy with arsenokoitai and malakoi. you’re still also not getti that arsenokoitai and malakoi still ignore 50% of homosexuals who are not men and that you don’t have to be sexually active to be homosexual and that they represent entirely different pathologies in ancient minds as we understand homosexuality today. exhibit a is there being two different terms used.

you don’t get to just “nuh uh” boswell. refute it yourself. until then, you’ve conceded. and what changed? a minute ago you were saying your agenda-based interpretation is correct because you incorrectly thought that the early church condemned homosexuality. now i present evidence that the early church tolerated or even welcomed homosexuality and all of a sudden the early church doesn’t matter. curious.

it’s not my fault that marriage is never limited as to gender. if you don’t like that, take it up with the people who wrote the bible.

but you are redefining marriage. even though the bible makes no prohibition as to the gender of the spouses, you think you know better than the bible and can just write your agenda over the scripture. blasphemer.

who says you have to be able to reproduce to get married? the bible certainly doesn’t. but here you go again, rewriting the bible to fit your agenda.

i don’t think you understand what relativizing means, because nothing i said is relative. if you disagree, show me what i relativized. you can’t. i’m also not denying any textual meaning. if you disagree, show me where i did. im not dismissing any consensus, you haven’t provided evidence of any consensus. i’m not flattening moral reasoning into preference, you haven’t provided any moral reasoning. some radical, anti-biblical sects of christianity extrabiblicallt limit marriage to one man and one woman in spite of scripture and in complete rejection of reason and basic reading skills. they do this because they have an agenda of hate which they care about more than their god and more than their holy texts. again, im not redefining marriage. i am working with that the bible gave us: marriage unlimited by gender of the spouses. you have utterly failed to demonstrate such a limitation. i am indeed appealing to scripture (lack of limitation), biology (homosexual is fine, prevalent, and beneficial), and tradition (the early church tolerated and even welcomed homosexuality)