"I thought I'd made it clear that I accept the clarity of Scripture on the rightness of sexual relations within marriage -- you say here I think the opposite!With the italicised (by me) words I think we have a reasonable description of the methodology of Pharisaism as portrayed in the gospels. The Pharisees, according to the gospels, misunderstood Jesus, interpreted Scripture 'fundamentalistically' when it suited, and not when it didn't, instead importing traditions and interpretations to justify their conclusions which often were the opposite of a plain reading of Scripture. Further the Pharisees were quick to pronounce when people were wrong, especially in their sexual behaviour. (To be clear, the commenter is not throwing the charge of Pharisaism or neo-Pharisaism at me. But in gospel terms, among those opposed to Jesus are the Pharisees, and their type of opposition is invoked in the description above).
What I am suggesting is that it is because of this that the institution of marriage should be extended to include same-sex couples.
Your position, which I do not regard as conservative but rather fundamentalist, is that the fact that Scripture only cites mixed-sex marriage that this is the only form of marriage possible. This is a position that runs counter to the principles laid out in the Articles of Religion. You are free to hold it, of course, but others are free to reject it.
In the long run, I do not think you are doing hermeneutics, or exegesis, but eisegesis -- you are reading into Scripture limitations that are not in the text, but imported and generalized.
Your words about accountability before God, and the day of judgment, are well stated. I am glad that you show willingness to apply them to yourself, and to see if you are standing with Jesus, or with those who found fault with him, on their reading of Scripture, and faith to their traditions. The mercy of God is unending, but is most generous towards those who seek to show charity and mercy to others, rather than engaging in judgment as to what is right or wrong in them or their lives."
Well, if the cap fits etc. But just before I put the cap on, might we have a moment or two to consider the extraordinary state the argument above thinks it has achieved:
(1) We might doubt that marriage is limited to a gender differentiated state.
(2) Actually, we might be sure that marriage is not limited to a gender differentiated state.
(3) Indeed, we can be so sure of (2) that we can move beyond this being a matter of adiaphora (agreeing to disagree among Christians) to it being a matter in which those not on the side of gay marriage are both not on the side of Jesus and for wont of good arguments to be counted among his opponents as the New Pharisees.
Of course, I might be the only one who thinks this to be extraordinary and I ought not to be given any reprieve from wearing a cap with "NP" inscribed on it.
I have a bit more sympathy for the Pharisees. Dimwits that they were in seeking to uphold the status quo!