You see, his actual comment was “Biblically correct sex is safe,” Robertson said. “It’s safe. You’re not going to get chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, AIDS — if a man marries a woman, and neither of you have it, and you keep your sex between the two of you, you’re not going to get ever sexually transmitted diseases.”
.
If you unpack that statement, we see that it is partially correct and partially NOT correct.
.
Phil is correct in the assumption that a married man and woman who don't have an STD before marriage will be safe from STDs. That is (mostly) true. The the idea that only this will keep you safe.
.
But also, if you are a married man and man, and you don't have an STD, then stay monogamous, you will not get the STD either. This is, in fact, the way Ed and I live. If you are a married woman and woman and don't have an STD, then stay monogamous, you will not get an STD.
.
If that is what Phil means by "biblically correct", then he should be happy to extend marriage to us gays.
.
But "Biblically correct sex" as a definition won't help anyone. The Bible is big on one man and many women. Lots of the Biblical Kings had many wives. Lots and lots of them. King David, King Saul, King Solomon - who built the first temple, many many women, including foreign women who brought their strange gods with them.
.
Biblically correct sex also includes a number of concubines.
.
And while incest in general is forbidden, father daughter sex is OK.
.
Hence, I don't really think Phil means what he thinks he means.