pf:

Three points. First, you still have not incorporated one of the two points made.  Selective use of someone's argument is a nice tactic but is not a substantive engagement of the question. And one of the points of my "fancy" hermeneutic (and argument) is to read the Scripture as a whole and what happens over time in it. The fact that Abraham's child is not honored is a sign something less than what was desired was done. Nothing fancy about that reading; it is a point of the account. When Abraham tried to help God solve the problem of his barren wife, he went in a direction God did not have in mind.

Second, Jesus also pointed to Genesis 2, namely that marriage is between a man and a woman in dealing with the divorce question. That was where these posts started, on the Judeo-Christian point of departure in this conversation. That is the starting point for this discussion as well on what the Jewish-Christian perspective is on gay marriage.

Third, selective quoting of Jesus also does not get things done. He also told the woman caught in adultery, "Go and sin no more." He did set people straight, often using the prophets to do so (Just take a look at Matthew 23). He even called them to repent (Mark 1:14-15). He did note we should be forgiving, as you say. No problem there, forgiveness is central to the faith. He also taught that when a brother goes astray, he should be brought back into the fold (see Matthew 18:10-17). It is not as if Jesus did not care about morality. I agree that often times Christians do not conduct themslves in ways that reflects the meekness Jesus called for from disciples, but meekness does not mean not caring about sin nor fialing to seek to live in a righteous manner while encouraging others to do so. As for the Trinity (not sure how we got here other than scatter-shooting), Jesus did say he would share the throne of God (Mark 14:62) send the Spirit from God (Luke 24:49), and for believers to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit (Matt 28:18-20), so that gets us all the way down that road except for the explicit use of the word Trinity.

Now nothing I have said here involves fancy hermeneutics. Just reading the text in its fullness.

dlb