What is your answer to Ken Silva?

by Grant
(near L.A.)

Christians are NOT <br>a Borg collective

Christians are NOT
a Borg collective

Brother Ken Silva over at Apprising Ministries performs an important and much needed service by pointing out false teaching and false teachers who lead the body of Christ astray.

Unfortunately Brother Ken himself sometimes gets it wrong (he's only human), making unkind claims about gays and gay marriage which are not supported by scripture rightly divided.

Brother Ken bases his exclusive heterosexual beliefs on his misinterpretation of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. Those verses describe the first couple God created, a man and a woman.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
-Genesis 1:27, 2:24

Brother Ken infers (because the passage does not say it) that since God originally created an opposite sex married couple, God intended to forbid, outlaw, prohibit all same sex marriages.

In Brother Ken's universe, there is no room for diversity, no possibility that the God who makes every snowflake and every fingerprint different could bless a marriage relationship different than the Adam and Eve model. Therefore Brother Ken makes the following statements.
Ken Silva writes:

"I argue that God most certainly is encouraging us to believe that the only marriage truly acceptable to Him is the one man with one woman marriage model ala Adam and Eve..."

"And as far as monogamy being the standard God has set, it’s pretty hard to miss when one reads the Scripture: The two become one flesh."

"Therefore, as Jesus was addressing the issue of divorce, He also ends up reinforcing the point that the marriage covenant God has decreed happens to be between a male and a female; thereby excluding same sex marriage."

Brother Ken has clearly stated his absolute complementarian argument, that God will only truly bless a one man with one woman marriage.

Here is the question
we must answer:

"Does the wording of Matthew 19:5
compel all Christians to agree
with Brother Ken's interpretation?"

"And (Jesus) said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" -Matthew 19:5

Our answer is an unequivocal No! Historical facts and human reality compel us to disagree with Brother Ken.

Fact #1 - Its not absolute that marriage can only be one man with one woman because God also affirmed polygamy, 2 Samuel 12:7-8, which is one man with more than one woman.

Fact #2 - Its not absolute that every married couple must fit into the Adam and Eve model because Jesus clearly told us that some men (known historically as eunuchs) cannot receive His teaching about Adam and Eve marriage, Matthew 19:11-12.

Jesus qualifies the exception to Adam and Eve marriage by citing three kinds of eunuchs to whom His marriage teaching does not apply.

Jesus differentiates between born eunuchs who did not make a choice to be eunuchs and metaphysical eunuchs who did make a choice to be eunuchs.

Born eunuchs were anatomically whole, having never been castrated, having never chosen to be eunuchs since they were born that way from their mother's womb.

According to Jewish teaching, born eunuchs were eunuchs by the hand of heaven because God intended them to be born that way. And according to Jesus born eunuchs were separate from and different than metaphysical eunuchs, "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven."

At the very least Jesus' carefully worded statement implies that Jesus, God in the flesh, did not require born eunuchs to be celibate and never marry.

Based on Jesus' careful differentiation between born eunuchs (involuntary eunuchs) and eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven (voluntary eunuchs) the implication is that born eunuchs, while not capable of opposite sex marriage and not required to participate in opposite marriage, may still form a committed same sex marriage partnership.

Do any heterosexual
conservative Christians
disagree with Brother Ken?


Professor Tom Schmidt, a heterosexual conservative evangelical Christian weighs in about the meaning of Genesis 2:24.

"So while it is true that the Genesis creation story does not provide explicit commands about sexuality, it provides a basis for biblical commands and for subsequent reflection on the part of those who wish to construct a sexual ethic to meet changing situations.

Applying this principle to our subject, it is fair to say that the human author of Genesis was not consciously prohibiting same-sex relations when he wrote the creation account, but it is appropriate for us to explore the relevance of biblical commands about marriage and to evaluate modern homosexuality in light of Genesis."

- From his book, Straight and Narrow?, Thomas E. Schmidt, Leicester: IVP, 1995, 240 pp.
If we believe Jesus, that "all men cannot receive this saying" (Matthew 19:11) about opposite sex marriages like the Adam and Eve marriage, then we must disbelieve Brother Ken when he insists Jesus is against any marriage different than the Adam and Eve model.

Brother Ken struggles to convince us "God will only truly bless a one man with one woman marriage."

God provides answers
in the Bible


*** Did God truly bless any marriages which were different than the Adam and Eve model?

Yes, polygamous marriages were different than the Adam and Eve model yet God truly blessed polygamous marriages.

*** Did God truly bless any marriages which Christians today would find abhorrent?

Yes, God did truly bless alternative marriages including:
  1. Concubinage, Abram, Sarai and Hagar, Genesis 16:3-4

  2. Polygamy, Jacob, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah, Genesis 29:15ff, 30:3ff

  3. Levirate marriage, Boaz and Ruth, Deuteronomy 25:5-10, Ruth 2:20, 4:13

  4. Incestuous marriage, Abram and Sarai, Genesis 20:2, 12, Amram and Jochebed - Exodus 6:20, Leviticus 18:12, 20:19

It IS a cultural thing


Those marriages reflect cultural values of ancient times just as same sex marriages reflect cultural values of our time.

Same sex marriage - two men or two women settling down together in committed legal relationship, seems tame compared to incestuous marriage, polygamous marriage, marrying your brother in law or marrying a close relative.

Yet God blessed those marriages in ancient times. Is it so difficult to imagine that God will bless two Christians in committed, God-honoring same sex partnership?

God isn't interested in creating a Borg collective of assimilated Christians who cannot think for themselves, who cannot read and interpret scripture as they're led by the Holy Spirit.

We need to be as open to the leading of the Holy Spirit as was the apostle Peter in Acts 10. As a good Jew, Peter was determined not to have fellowship with or affirm Gentiles whom Jews viewed as outside God's covenant and strangers from God's blessing. He even quoted scripture to prove he must separate from common and unclean Gentiles, Acts 10:14, Leviticus 11:2-47.

Brother Ken is in many ways standing in Peter's shoes. He believes he can cite scripture which condemns gay marriage. He is determined not to have fellowship with or affirm those "common and unclean" homosexuals.

Will Brother Ken heed the gentle entreaties of the Holy Spirit and affirm the truth that God Himself blesses committed faithful non-cultic same sex relationships?

Peter eventually got it right, see Acts 11. Please pray that Ken Silva, our brother in Christ, will eventually get it right.

Gay Marriage - a rite
and a right


Return to Gay Christian FAQ

Return to
Gay Christian 101 Home Page


With genuine sadness I note the graduation to glory of our brother in Christ, discernment minister Pastor Ken Silva, on Sunday morning, September 29, 2014, after a long illness. We disagreed on the gay issue but agreed on many other issues and kept in contact over the last four years. Brother Ken will be missed.


This page updated October 7, 2014

Comments for What is your answer to Ken Silva?

Click here to add your own comments

May 18, 2010
What do you think motivates Christians who fight gays?
by: Roscoe J.

I know many people aren't gay friendly. But it seems like conservative Christians are VERY much unfriendly to us who are gay. What motivates them in your opinion?

Are they closet gays themselves? Are they control freaks who want to run everyones life?

I think its weird they're so focused on gay people - kind of unsettling when they devote so much time to opposing us.


May 18, 2010
Discerning motives is not always easy
by: Rick Brentlinger

Timely questions Roscoe. Its not always easy to discern motives. I have no idea what motivates Ken Silva. I do think some of the anti-gay venom flows from first-class hypocrites like Dr. George Rekers because he apparently has spent his entire adult life struggling with same sex attraction while leading the anti-gay movement while indulging his penchant for hiring male prostitutes.

Time would fail me to tell of Ted Haggard's adventures with meth and male prostitution and so many other anti-gay crusaders who display an unhealthy animus toward gays and lesbians.

Its difficult to make an honest case that they're impartial and simply applying scripture rightly divided, 2 Timothy 2:15, to the issue of homosexuality.

Lord knows they employ incredibly sloppy hermeneutics when dealing with allegedly gay related verses.

And Lord knows they refuse to consider cultural evidence, historical evidence, religious evidence about the clobber passages, preferring to ignore context so the verses appear to support their irrational agenda.

I'm not alone among GLBTs in finding their protestations of love - "its loving to tell you how much God despises you and your sin" - strangely unsettling.

Under the guise of loving us and trying to win us to Jesus, they also vote to strip away our civil rights, our human rights, our family rights, our inheritance rights, all the while reminding us "Jesus loves you!"

And after they've refused to discuss the cultural, doctrinal, historical, linguistic and religious context of the clobber passages, when we in turn refuse their half-baked exegesis, they shake their head sadly and mutter something about "deceived by the devil" or "full of birds" (Southern preacher slang for devil-possessed) or "God's already given them over to a reprobate mind."

My advice is always believe the Bible, always trust God and ALWAYS question their oddball anti-Biblical views about GLBTs.




Nov 19, 2010
ehh its not the biggest of deals
by: Anonymous

I frankly wholeheartedly disagree with u guys. God doesnt want anyone to be Homosexual nor did he make anyone like that. Forgive me if u spoke about this scripture i didnt read the whole thing lol. the bibles says homosexual sex is a abomination. Also i like to look at it this way. Our God is a god of life and procreation. God creates nothin that is not all about life. He is completely against all things that destroy or lead to destruction. therefore i think of it in this way. No offense to u ppl we're all brothers and sisters in christ. But take all gay people and put them on a island. Leave them there and come back in 150 yrs. What will happen one of 2 things:

1) they will find a way to clone people. which is another situation altogether.

2) there ALL dead noone is left alive. So i say to u that (No offense) being pro gay is being pro death which is directly against what God is for. What leads to death only sin so if homosexuality leads to death its a sin.

i say this to u people out of love. I dont care that you people are gay and my church Victory Christian Center in Boca Raton, FL would Gladly accept anyone regardless of there orientation. They also answer yes to all ur questions for finding a gay church.

We by no means think gay is not a sin but we would love all u guys and girls anyway. Also we believe that God would heal u of ur sin like any other sin that God can heal us of. We would be Happy as a clam to pray for anyone. In fact i will be praying for all people that run and visit this website. God bless u Guys. HE LOVES U ALL and so do I.

Blessings in Christ

Nov 19, 2010
last of 3 messages
by: Anonymous

oh me again lol i felt lead to say for w/e reason that i dont believe in marriage of gay people because its adam eve and the bible says the whole abomination thing. and my other messages reason. but i do believe that gay people should be able to get a civil union which would have all the benefits of marriage just under a different name and not under God. Since God sees gay as a sin u cant put a sin under Gods name. i know u guys love God but u should be praying for urself to be healed and become str8 rather than praying to marry a same sex

oh and that 1st message i gave i forgot to put the notice when u reply to it so if u want me to respond or see ur response u gotta reply to this one

Dec 02, 2010
response
by: robyn

"What leads to death only sin so if homosexuality leads to death its a sin."

Um. Life leads to death. So...is life a sin?
And also, if you put gay men and women on an island, I fail to believe they would refuse to reproduce simply because of sexual orientation.
Or just through some bisexuals on the island, you solve that problem right up.

Dec 10, 2010
robyn life leads to
by: Anonymous

robyn life only leads to death because we sinned thats the only reason. as for the island yea if u did what was the str8 thing to do then yes u would live and carry on but if u stayed with only ur partners of choice u wouldnt or if u put all males on one and females on another. as for bisexuals well i think there just confused frankly or greedy want it both ways one of the two. either way god loves them im not arguing that im saying being gay is as much a sin as lieing or cheating or anything else against the Lords will

Mar 05, 2011
Eunuchs
by: Sharon

Eunuchs are people who choose a life of Celibacy. God says celibacy is an acceptable alternative to marriage. Jesus was celibate. Therefore when Jesus says they cannot receive his teaching in Matthew 19:11-12, it is because they don't have the capacities for sexual relations (because of birth defects or castration) or because they have chosen to live a voluntary life of abstinence. If they are not going to engage in sex (involuntary or voluntary) period, why would Jesus have to tell them these things?

"while not capable of opposite sex marriage and not required to participate in opposite marriage, may still form a committed same sex marriage partnership." Jesus no where in the Bible accepts and encourages same-sex partnership! The only natural sexual relationship is between a man and a woman in marriage. You are twisting God's divine scriptures to sinful lusts that serve you, the creation, and not your CREATOR.

Mar 06, 2011
Well sure, if you ignore facts and context
by: Rick Brentlinger

Hi Sharon-

What an ingenious method of logic you've employed. Ignore the facts and ignore the context, then restate your conclusion without any supporting facts.

That might work in the circles where you feel comfortable but in the real world, facts trump opinion.

Even Dr. Robert Gagnon, THE leading anti-gay speaker and writer, admits that the category of "born eunuch" included homosexuals.

Your penchant for ignoring facts only works in your insular religious fantasy land, among folks willing to accept your opinion without any supporting evidence.

If your mind is not entirely closed to the truth as it is in Jesus, I hope you will expose yourself to additional information about eunuchs

Nov 10, 2011
Poor hermeneutics from Brother Ken
by: Anonymous

Brother Ken does not understand that the Genesis passage is etiological and not prescriptive. If that verse establishes the norm for marriage, then God violates His own norm by condoning polygamy and bigamy in the chosen line of the Messiah.

Also, from a technical interpretive perspective, an interpretation has to represent the author's intention and since it is unlikely that Moses was writing with the intention to confirm heterosexual marriage, it is unlikely that that meaning can be derived from the passage.

Indeed, in Genesis there are other passages that indicate "and that is why...," which, again demonstrate that the author meant to simply explain origins of a custom or tradition.

Besides, marriage was not defined in a Christian sense until the 12th century, so the idea of reading modern marriage ideas back into Genesis are equally is inane.

Jan 11, 2012
Christ-like
by: Mary

May the Lord rebuke you for leading people astray to serve your self indulgent flesh. The Bible teaches us to say no to ungodliness, Titus 2:11-14. Thinking "I can live any way I want now that I'm forgiven" reveals that your heart is not centered on loving Christ but rather on self-indulgent.

"HOMOSEXUALITY is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN, for it is an ENOURMOUS SIN." LEVITICUS 18:22 NLT

May 10, 2012
Do you think God really cares?
by: Anonymous

If He is most concerned about our spiritual life which includes our short lived temporal one, do you think God really cares who we go to bed with as long as it is a loving and committed relationship? When I think of 200 billion galaxies in our universe and our place in it, I have a hard time understanding how we can not understand His message of loving one another - in peace.

Before we make judgments we should all first ask - "what did Jesus really say". BM

Jul 15, 2012
@ Mary
by: S

that was by far the funniest comment I've ever seen on this site. unfortunately being hilariously ignorant will not help your walk with God. take the time to read this site and study the Bible

Jul 29, 2012
One key fact is being ignored
by: DNICE

First, marriage is an institution established by God. Therefore, the definition of marriage comes from God and God alone. No man, politics or laws can change the definition. God's Word clearly states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, a covenant that is made before God. Man-Woman is the divine/perfect model for marriage as we see with Adam and Eve.

The argument that God blessed marriages that fall outside of His divine order and therefore they must be accepted by Him is truly flawed because it ignores a key facet of God's personality and that's GRACE. It's God's grace that gives us the opportunity to repent of our sins and His divine providence that allows good to come from sinful situations. If you look at the lives of those men that engaged in polygamous or extramarital relationship, you will see the suffering that resulted because of the sin. Their children and families were in turmoil, tension and strife in those households - hatred between brothers; anger towards their father - which ultimately resulted in a divided nation. God had set forth a plan to redeem ALL SINNERS, through His son Jesus Christ and allowed His grace to live through those sinful relationships to accomplish His will. He didn't condone it any more than He condones the murder of a child. But in both cases He gives the offender a chance at redemption and repentance. It's His Grace that allows that to occur. The blessings are a result of His covenant with Abraham - not an approval of the sin in Abraham's life.

The fact is that we are ALL SINNERS, hetero- and homosexual alike. But let's be clear. The Bible clearly states any sex act outside the bondage of marriage is sinful - homo or hetero. But if we take it one step further, the Bible states that homosexual sex is an abomination and makes no concessions within the confines of marriage. Therefore, you can conclude that given the Bible's position on both marriage and homosexual sex, it clearly makes a case against homosexual marriages.

Now, should the LGBT community be afforded the same rights and legal protections under the law as heterosexual couples? Absolutely, but it is wrong to take a divine principle like marriage and attempt to change it's definition to serve a secular purpose. What the LGBT community wants is equality and we should fight to make sure they have it - as civil unions not as marriage.

Rick's comment: You seem to be advocating the old "separate but equal" argument Dnice. That didn't work in the Civil Rights era and it will not work for gay rights.

Oct 18, 2012
Life Change
by: Eileen

If you believe in God and his word you surely don't try to change his word. God never changes, lies, he is sinless. Sleeping with, making love, man to man, women to women is as God said abomination to Him. THAT'S A FACT. You need to repent, change YOUR lifestyle, be born again and your life will change dramatically. God Bless America.

Rick's comment: Eileen, you obviously have never studied the gay issue. I encourage you to start studying to shew yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, 2 Timothy 2:15.

I do agree with you, when people get saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, that is a LIFE-CHANGING event. But getting saved never has and never will change anyone's sexual orientation.

Jan 07, 2013
Truth
by: Anonymous

Scripture in both the New and Old testiment clearly shows homosexuality as a sin. Christians should not hate gay people, they should love them but hate the sin that they are in.

Rick's comment: Dear Anonymous, you are so confused. If at any time in the future you become interested in what the Bible says in context, please read this website and look up every Bible verse cited. Doing that will help you find God's truth.

Jun 13, 2013
guess the gay defend themselves
by: micmicbee

when reading here i only come to the cunclusion that no matter what God indeed stated very clearly in the bible man and man should not be together, he even states it to be an abonmination, while for the others in leviticus it is gentle words as sin, seems to me that God has something to say about it, do not be like the country you came from or the country i bring you in as they sinned greatly.

If you read leviticus you can only come to one conclusion Homosexuality is indeed sin and seems further abomination as God himself says so.

If you know state it was cultural, it means you just trying to escape facts, cause if yo state one thing to be wrong in the bible then why folow the bible at all.

And Yes i also belive God cna heal you if you ask him to hlep you. In Lord, May he guide you

Rick's comment: Dear micmicbee, you are so confused. On the NavBar of this website, please click on any button under, What The Bible Says, and begin reading and studying. It is time for you to educate yourself about what the Bible says, in context. Many thanks for stopping by.

Sep 23, 2013
love
by: larry

love is the most important thing where is your love instead of hate u walk in the flesh or u would love instead of condemning god way is not your way he gave love not hate he forgave the woman that committed adultery and said your free go and sin no more u can`t even follow his example to love one another the bible is in front of u bur until u can love instead of condemn u can`t truly be a servant of his.u need to learn to be a servant first before u can truly serve your master.yes i am gay and a christian i didn't have to ask u Jesus says come and i obey him not men or women with hate in their heart u cant just take the part that suit u have to eat it all

Rick's comment: What must I do to be saved?

Oct 07, 2014
another correction
by: Margot

Hi there Rick, it's Margot again. As I said, I am a pro-gay Christian, so I feel inclined to point out a loophole in your argument about eunuchs. You state that Jesus exempted eunuchs who were "born that way", or gays, from straight marriages, when he said, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given,". However, this is ignoring the whole context of the passage, which is about divorce.

When Jesus is asked if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason, he responds, "anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery," Then, his disciples say, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” In other words, they are expressing their disbelief that anyone could enter a union that was so binding, THEN Jesus says, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given,".

To me, it seems that here he means if someone cannot accept the binding nature of marriage, one should abstain from marriage altogether. Therefore, according to your argument, Jesus allows gay couples to divorce for any reason, but not straight couples. It's important to hold gay couples to the same standards of commitment as straight couples since they are just as valid.

I want to make it clear that this site contains so many great articles and arguments that everyone should see, and I am not denying any of the historical facts that you present about eunuchs. I felt compelled to point that out to you so that you could make your position stronger and lead more people towards the truth. God bless.

Rick's comment: Hi Margot - thanks for your kind words. Your view is interesting yet I believe it misunderstands the text. Here is more information from Mark 10, the companion text to Matthew 19, which I hope will make things more clear.

Is gay marriage scriptural?

Jun 05, 2015
your take on Matthew 19:11-12 and Mark 10:6-9
by: Aaron Saltzer

I'm a bit confused about your interpretation of these two passages. They are both in the context of divorce, and yes, same-sex marriage is not prohibited in either, but you still go on to say that Matthew 19:11-12 is Jesus's gateway for homosexuality, when it clearly isn't. I would understand if the context was about marriage, but it's not.

Rick's comment: Hi Aaron - When I do not understand a passage of scripture:

1. I read and reread and study it, 2 Tim 2:15

2. I pray over it and meditate on it and think about it

3. I research the Hebrew or Greek words used to determine what they meant to the people who wrote them and the people who read them

4. I examine the biblical context - where it occurs in the Bible (before the cross or after the cross, Old Testament or New Testament, under law or under grace, addressed to lost people or saved people, etc, who wrote it, who read it, what other verses cross reference with it

5. I examine the cultural context - what did it mean to the ancient culture to whom it was given; how would they have understood it back then

6. I examine the historical context - what was going on in the country where and when it was written that might impact the verses I'm puzzling over

7. I examine the religious context - how did pagan religions or ancient Judaism or early Christians and their beliefs impact the verses I'm studying

8. I read as many online commentaries as I can find to see how other preachers understood it

Other than disagreeing with me, you have not suggested a differing view which is supported by the text.

Jun 13, 2015
your take on Matthew 19:11-12
by: Aaron Saltzer

I was referring to your response to Margot. You sent her links to pages stating that same-sex marriage isn't condemned in that passage anything, so it sounded Like you introduced a red haron, trying to justify same-sex marriage.

Rick's comment: Hi Aaron - You wrote in your June 05, 2015 comment: "I'm a bit confused about your interpretation of these two passages. They are both in the context of divorce, and yes, same-sex marriage is not prohibited in either…"

Since you admit that same sex marriage is NOT prohibited in these verses, why accuse me of introducing a red herring, trying to justify same sex marriage? If, as you admit, Jesus did NOT prohibit same sex marriage in these verses, then anti-gay christians, like Ken Silva when he was alive, who use these verses to teach against same sex marriage, are teaching something the verses do not say. That is my point.

Jun 28, 2015
Your take on Matthew 19:11-12
by: Aaron Saltzer

I understand. But that was not what was being discussed. As I recall the women that typed the comment did not agree with you on your interpretation of the above verses. But instead of telling her why you clearly believe that Matthew 19:11-12 included homosexuals, you simply shared with her a link that states that same-sex marriage isn't prohibited in that passage. I wasn't accusing you of anything. I'd suggest reading your reply to her, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Rick's comment: Hi Aaron - I told Margot that I believe her view misunderstands the text and provided the link to explain. I deal with Matthew 19 on one of the eunuchs pages of my website and more fully, in my eBook.

Jun 30, 2015
your take on Matthew 19:11-12
by: Aaron Saltzer

Okay. I'm sorry. I drew conclusions based on the first paragraph.

Nov 18, 2015
What is a born eunuch?
by: Olivia

Your argument hinges on the definition of the word "eunuch." You define a "born eunuch" as a homosexually-inclined man, but the reading of the passage doesn't support such a definition of the term "born eunuch," because the discussion is between engaging in sexual activity or not engaging in sexual activity, not among differing kinds of sexual activity. A "eunuch" either does not have or chooses not to use his male genitalia.

In the passage you cite, Jesus is saying that not everyone can accept the saying that it is better not to marry. He points out three types of "eunuchs" who CAN accept the saying that it is better not to marry, and these three categories are (1) those deprived by others of their male genitalia (eunuchs), (2) those who for the sake of the Gospel choose to abstain from sexual relations, and (3) those who are born without male genotalia (born deformed--born eunuchs).

It is my belief that whenever you have to perform exegetical contortions to get a passage to say what you want it to say you're probably not understanding what it is saying.

Rick's comment: Hi Olivia - Is it possible you have missed something in your reading of Matthew 19? World class Christian scholars who are not gay disagree with your interpretation.

Homosexual eunuchs?

Click here to add your own comments

Return to Gay Christian FAQ.

Site Build It! Site Build It!