Vines-Brown Debate: Matthew’s Silly Non-Sequitur
Shortly after homosexual activist and alleged Christian Matthew Vines debated Dr. Michael Brown, he publicly posted the following comments on his Facebook page:
Here was Vines’ “wins all” argument in his debate with Dr. Brown:
The Apostle Paul didn’t know any committed monogamous same sex couples and there seems to be no documentation of any in Biblical times, therefore homosexual practice between committed, loving, monogamous same sex couple can no longer be considered sin.
The Apostle Paul speaks against all sexual sin in 1 Corinthians 5-6, including incest and homosexual practice. If there are ranking priorities to determining when a sexual sin becomes a non-sin based on worldly awareness, as Vines is suggesting, then why did Paul discourage all forms of incest as sin within 1 Corinthians 5-6 where homosexual practice is discouraged as well? If he didn’t know about two brothers or two sisters being monogamous and committed to only each other during his lifetime, then two brothers and two sisters having sexual relations is no longer sin. That is if we follow Vines’ reasoning to its logical end.
I would also like to know where the homosexual equivalent that is stated by Apostle Paul in Ephesians 5:31?
To say that Dr. Brown couldn’t answer the question, rather than acknowledge that no human can have the library of every historical text stored in his or her mind to be recalled at any second, is disingenuous. But we will address this issue nonetheless…
Although the Romans regarded marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing children, in the early Imperial period some male couples were celebrating “marriage” rites in the presence of friends. Same-sex “weddings” are reported.
Roman law did not recognize marriage between men, but one of the grounds for disapproval expressed is that celebrating the rites would lead to expectations for such marriages to be registered officially. As the empire was becoming Christianized in the 4th century, legal prohibitions against homosexual “marriage ” began to appear.
(Source: Martial 1.24 and 12.42; Juvenal 2.117–42. Williams, Roman Homosexuality, pp. 28, 280; Karen K. Hersh, The Roman Wedding: Ritual and Meaning in Antiquity (Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 36; Caroline Vout, Power and Eroticism in Imperial Rome (Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 151ff. )
Various ancient sources state that the emperor Nero celebrated two public weddings with men, once taking the role of the bride (with a freedman Pythagoras), and once the groom (with Sporus); there may have been a third in which he was the bride. The ceremonies included traditional elements such as a dowry and the wearing of the Roman bridal veil.
(Source: Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, and Aurelius Victor are the sources cited by Williams, Roman Homosexuality, p. 279.)
In the early 3rd century AD, the emperor Elagabalus is reported to have been the bride in a wedding to his male partner.
Other mature men at his court had husbands, or said they had husbands in imitation of the emperor.
(Source: Williams, Roman Homosexuality , pp. 278–279, citing Dio Cassius and Aelius Lampridius.)
Although the sources are in general hostile, Dio Cassius implies that Nero’s stage performances were regarded as more scandalous than his “marriages” to men.
(Source: Dio Cassius 63.22.4; Williams, Roman Homosexuality, p. 285.)
The earliest reference in Latin literature to a “marriage” between men occurs in the Philippics of Cicero, who insulted Mark Antony for being promiscuous in his youth until Curio “established you in a fixed and stable marriage (matrimonium), as if he had given you a stola,” the traditional garment of a married woman. Although Cicero’s sexual implications are clear, the point of the passage is to cast Antony in the submissive role in the relationship and to impugn his manhood in various ways; there is no reason to think that actual marriage rites were performed.
(Source: Cicero, Phillippics 2.44, as quoted by Williams, Roman Homosexuality, Williams, Roman Homosexuality , p. 279.)
By the way, there’s a pretty good chance that Nero was the one who had Apostle Paul executed…
Even though it was addressed above, Vines’ argument “can you cite me any ancient texts?” is really a non-sequitur. That is, this argument presupposes that people not knowing about same sex committed couples then somehow automatically makes homosexual acts more healthy or less sinful. We also didn’t know, and as a matter of fact, the world even told us at one time that the desire to act out cigarette smoking was a “no harm, no foul” behavior (see here), while the whole time GOD’s Word told us differently (see here).
And I believe there was a segment within the homosexual activist movement citing very ancient examples of homosexual “marriages” that occurred as ammunition for their position. I would assume they were careful enough not to cite pederast “marriages”. (See here.)
It is very ironic how others, like Mr. Vines within the same movement, now want to use an imagined absence of historical documents of those “marriages” as proof for their position as well. Just like Vines is grateful for an atheist, anti-Christian bigot, avid Bible-basher (see here) and advocate of threesomes and every other conceivable form of sexual perversion Dan Savage (see here and here) to endorse or support his work:
These people are the kings of spin and confusion.
Matthew Vines also stated: “You cannot ask a person with same-sex attractions to be celibate, it causes too much harm to ask ‘gays’ to abstain from sexual relationships.”
First, what does the medical data say about that?…
- The introduction of effective drugs against HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, has not changed the risk of contracting the virus during a single act of homosexual sex…
- “We found that even if homosexuals behave the same way heterosexuals do — in terms of sexual partner numbers — homosexuals would still have a huge HIV epidemic,” Dr. Goodreau said. Universities of Washington and New York Sexually Transmitted Infections Journal, Sept. 13 2010.
“Gay Christianity” seems to be premised on the idea or notion that damaging one person’s rectum multiple times instead of multiple persons’ rectums at least one time will all of the sudden make homosexuality Biblical.
Sorry for being so graphic, but that’s what it really comes down to, and if you’re caught up in homosexuality and this visual offends you, that (a.) speaks volumes of negativity for what you are defending as a positive, and (b.) actually shows that GOD is still working inside of you warning you that this is not a good thing…that there’s IS in fact a BETTER WAY.
Trace McNutt (former homosexual drag queen) still has same sex attraction and he categorically disagrees with Matthew Vines’ claim that asking people with same sex attraction to be celibate hurts them…
God doesn’t ask us to be celibate …He demands it …how can you (Vines) be so bold to say you can’t suggest celibacy…that just proves the unnatural hold this perversion has. ..I know, because I believe unless GOD’s will is different. I will struggle with this desired perversion till I go home to heaven..i’ve seen many that our God has healed …but for some, the thorn remains….it’s scary when someone says the bible says something it doesn’t…again this perversion is so strong, they will even twist the Word into saying something it doesn’t …the bright spot is it seems he (Vines) is seeking GOD …the scarey spot is he’s twisting and leading others away from GOD…lets pray the blinders come off him and he sees the truth.
For an update on Trace McNutt’s testimony click here.
Matthew Vines also stated: “One of my friends declared his homosexuality and he did not feel safe to come home. He felt pain, because Christians disagreed with him.”
This is another non-sequitur argument that is also emotionally manipulative. People disagree with others all the time for many different reasons. Acting like a jerk to somebody or being abusive towards somebody is not right, but that doesn’t make homosexual behavior any more right, just, healthy, or less sinful in the eyes of GOD. When people continue to conflate a person’s actions with identity, they deceptively blur the lines between what they do and who they are. Christians aren’t the ones doing that…homosexual activists and their advocates are. The fact of the matter is, there are ONLY men and women. What we feel and how we behave are separate issues. The value of person-hood and life alone depends much on treating these things as separate issues.
This also happens to be inherent in the teachings of Christianity (see here).
I think this sums it up…
Matthew Vines doesn’t understand that the Bible is the inspired word of GOD, that it is GOD-breathed. He doesn’t seem to understand what that really means. Dr. Brown said it best that he’s reading the Bible through the lens of his emotive-sexual attractions. Vines is no different than most of us who need a Savior; it’s very easy to get caught up in the “what can GOD do for me” deception instead of loving GOD enough to center our lives around what He needs us to do for Him. Though Vines is like many people, he has a platform to spread that kind of selfish “gospel” to many others at alarming rates. I pray he recognizes this as the grave error that it is, repents, and finally experiences the love, mercy, forgiveness, and redemption our Lord has for him.
Here is the debate:
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.