What is marriage, and why does it preclude homosexuality? (Moved from C,P&E to DOH)

[AetheriusLamia]

As far as I understand it, the Bible does not define marriage. Rather, it seems the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church decided what marriage should be, and then the powerful groups of Protestants, when they broke off, found no problem with their ideas.

So now, reading the Bible with an open mind, temporarily suspending what I have been told to think while so doing, I have not found sufficient discourse in the Bible about marriage that justify barring it from homosexuals, especially as it is the only venue for releasing sexual tension, as Paul recommends for those who cannot remain abstinent.

In fact, I only recall reading two passages specifically about marriage. The first appears at Genesis 2.22-24. But that is not a definition of marriage, it is merely an explanation for heterosexuals forming unions with each other, as well as evidence that God designed men and women to go together. It is not evidence that men can't also go with men: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Jesus later references this passage in Matthew and Mark, but Jesus speaks about heterosexuals who wish to divorce. Nothing is stated about the nature of marriage by Jesus other than its permanency, that the two are bound as one flesh, and that humans are not to interfere with the union God made.

Then, from where does the idea arise that homosexuals may not marry? No where in the Bible is emphasis placed upon the body, other than the old Sinai Covenant, where God makes it clear that men are not to enjoy sex so much (by ordering their foreskin removed -- alas!); to the contrary, the New Testament is about focusing on your spiritual affairs, and admonishes against wrapping yourself in earthly affairs, such as, for example, caring about the location of reproductive organs.

And actually, it seems to me that the Bible supports the idea of not placing too much emphasis upon your earthly body or earthly marriage. See Matthew 22.23-30, where the Sadducees question Jesus about the Resurrection, involving Levirate Marriage. Also, Paul says there is no male or female in Heaven (Galatians 3.26-28).

Please explain to me what I am missing about marriage. Why does it matter what I have between my legs? The Roman Catholic Church says intercourse is sinful if it is not penal-vaginal; they appear to me to have an unhealthy fixation on the idea. Many do not want children, and many wish to adopt (including homosexuals), yet the Roman Catholic Church acts as if gays are incapable of raising adopted children, simply because they cannot birth them.

In short, the Roman Catholic Church cites as one of its only reasons for prohibiting gays from marriage that gays cannot birth children. They are, in short, claiming that God cannot or will not bless them, which is blasphemous. It is also poor logic, as the same precludes those born with birth defects (and what of hermaphrodites?), those who have suffered testicular or ovarian cancer, those sterile, etc.

Please help me understand marriage, because it appears that, after reading everything the Bible has to offer, I don't understand what the majority of Christians (or at least the loudest) seem to believe.

I have been considering this topic for about two years, and after much prayer and consideration, I feel that God doesn't care what your sex is, nor does God have a problem with gays.

To be clear, this thread is not about homosexuality, it is about marriage. So please, do not move it to the Debates on Homosexuality board, because it does not belong there.

 

[SpiritDriven]

Unfortunatly most Christians attend Churches that do not trust Gods grace with the individual and then try to make them feel guilty because they break some Church rule....

Thus many Christians are misled about their right standing with God.....marriage has nothing to do with your right standing with God.

All rules and regulation breaches where fully accounted for at the Cross.....or Jesus failed in his mission on the Cross.

If you seek to justify or not to justify marriage for any reason you are walking after the flesh....and not the spirit....because you are focusing on what the Flesh does....and the flesh will never inherit the Kingdom.


Since the completed work of the Cross....all is now allowed....but not all is edifying.


Peace

 

[WileyCoyote]

As far as I understand it, the Bible does not define marriage. Rather, it seems the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church decided what marriage should be, and then the powerful groups of Protestants, when they broke off, found no problem with their ideas.

So now, reading the Bible with an open mind, temporarily suspending what I have been told to think while so doing, I have not found sufficient discourse in the Bible about marriage that justify barring it from homosexuals, especially as it is the only venue for releasing sexual tension, as Paul recommends for those who cannot remain abstinent.

In fact, I only recall reading two passages specifically about marriage. The first appears at Genesis 2.22-24. But that is not a definition of marriage, it is merely an explanation for heterosexuals forming unions with each other, as well as evidence that God designed men and women to go together. It is not evidence that men can't also go with men: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Jesus later references this passage in Matthew and Mark, but Jesus speaks about heterosexuals who wish to divorce. Nothing is stated about the nature of marriage by Jesus other than its permanency, that the two are bound as one flesh, and that humans are not to interfere with the union God made.

Then, from where does the idea arise that homosexuals may not marry? No where in the Bible is emphasis placed upon the body, other than the old Sinai Covenant, where God makes it clear that men are not to enjoy sex so much (by ordering their foreskin removed -- alas!); to the contrary, the New Testament is about focusing on your spiritual affairs, and admonishes against wrapping yourself in earthly affairs, such as, for example, caring about the location of reproductive organs.

And actually, it seems to me that the Bible supports the idea of not placing too much emphasis upon your earthly body or earthly marriage. See Matthew 22.23-30, where the Sadducees question Jesus about the Resurrection, involving Levirate Marriage. Also, Paul says there is no male or female in Heaven (Galatians 3.26-28).

Please explain to me what I am missing about marriage. Why does it matter what I have between my legs? The Roman Catholic Church says intercourse is sinful if it is not penal-vaginal; they appear to me to have an unhealthy fixation on the idea. Many do not want children, and many wish to adopt (including homosexuals), yet the Roman Catholic Church acts as if gays are incapable of raising adopted children, simply because they cannot birth them.

In short, the Roman Catholic Church cites as one of its only reasons for prohibiting gays from marriage that gays cannot birth children. They are, in short, claiming that God cannot or will not bless them, which is blasphemous. It is also poor logic, as the same precludes those born with birth defects (and what of hermaphrodites?), those who have suffered testicular or ovarian cancer, those sterile, etc.

Please help me understand marriage, because it appears that, after reading everything the Bible has to offer, I don't understand what the majority of Christians (or at least the loudest) seem to believe.

I have been considering this topic for about two years, and after much prayer and consideration, I feel that God doesn't care what your sex is, nor does God have a problem with gays.

To be clear, this thread is not about homosexuality, it is about marriage. So please, do not move it to the Debates on Homosexuality board, because it does not belong there.

You are not going to like this. God is against homosexuality. So obviously, same sex marriages would be a mockery of what He originally instituted. He instituted man for woman.


Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


If God is against homosexuality, why would He be for gay marriage?

 

[AetheriusLamia]

That is not a valid reason, because it is not clear that the Bible condemns homosexuality. That is a huge controversy in and of itself. At best -- or worst -- the only thing you can possibly get from a literal reading of a correctly-translated Bible is a condemnation of anal sex between men. ... which does not seem to be necessary for two men to live together or be married or raise children. (Must a man be capable of an erection in order to marry a woman?)

(By the way, Romans has absolutely nothing to do with condemning homosexuality: it is a condemnation of idolatry. We do not know what the word in 1 Corinthians is. My Bible translates it to mean sodomites, which, of course, has nothing to do with homosexuality; see Ezekiel.)

Whether the Bible condemns homosexual sex, is there any other reason? And are we not appealing to human tradition for our definition and understanding of marriage, rather than the Bible itself?

 

[WileyCoyote]

That is not a valid reason, because it is not clear that the Bible condemns homosexuality. That is a huge controversy in and of itself. At best -- or worst -- the only thing you can possibly get from a literal reading of a correctly-translated Bible is a condemnation of anal sex between men. ... which does not seem to be necessary for two men to live together or be married or raise children. (Must a man be capable of an erection in order to marry a woman?)

(By the way, Romans has absolutely nothing to do with condemning homosexuality: it is a condemnation of idolatry. We do not know what the word in 1 Corinthians is. My Bible translates it to mean sodomites, which, of course, has nothing to do with homosexuality; see Ezekiel.)

Whether the Bible condemns homosexual sex, is there any other reason? And are we not appealing to human tradition for our definition and understanding of marriage, rather than the Bible itself?

*sigh*. I really can't see how the Bible can be clearer on this subject. Homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10. I already quoted this.) It doesn't say only sodomites. It says HOMOSEXUALS. Whethere they sodomize each other or not. How can you get past this verse?

 

[AetheriusLamia]

*sigh* I was hoping I wouldn't be dragged into this seemingly futile discussion. If you insist ...

*sigh*. I really can't see how the Bible can be clearer on this subject. Homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10. I already quoted this.) It doesn't say only sodomites. It says HOMOSEXUALS. Whethere they sodomize each other or not. How can you get past this verse?

Easy.

Step 1: Read 1 Corinthians 6.9. Be sure to read the footnotes.

Step 2: Read the first mention of the town of Sodom found at Genesis 19.1-29, and realize, through good reading comprehension, that the sins illustrated there are lust, rape, violence, inhospitality, as well as other incredibly wicked deeds not named; to declaim against homosexuality from this passage is analogous to declaiming against cars from watching a drunk driver, or to denounce teenagers, dating, and heterosexuality because of date rape.

Step 3: See Ezekiel 16.48-50 for more about the sins of Sodom, thus actually giving you a valid definition of a sodomite: by definition, one of Sodom, NOT "a homosexual" or one who engages in anal intercourse.

Thus, 1 Corinthians 6 is not about homosexuals, but about sodomites, which is not about anal intercourse.

Note that this post, as well as the one to which I've replied, is off-topic: this thread is about marriage, not homosexuality. (I suppose it's valid, though, since we're talking about the homosexual aspects of marriage.)

 

[WileyCoyote]

*sigh* I was hoping I wouldn't be dragged into this seemingly futile discussion. If you insist ...
Easy.

Step 1: Read 1 Corinthians 6.9. Be sure to read the footnotes.

Step 2: Read the first mention of the town of Sodom found at Genesis 19.1-29, and realize, through good reading comprehension, that the sins illustrated there are lust, rape, violence, inhospitality, as well as other incredibly wicked deeds not named; to declaim against homosexuality from this passage is analogous to declaiming against cars from watching a drunk driver, or to denounce teenagers, dating, and heterosexuality because of date rape.

Step 3: See Ezekiel 16.48-50 for more about the sins of Sodom, thus actually giving you a valid definition of a sodomite: by definition, one of Sodom, NOT "a homosexual" or one who engages in anal intercourse.

Thus, 1 Corinthians 6 is not about homosexuals, but about sodomites, which is not about anal intercourse.

Note that this post, as well as the one to which I've replied, is off-topic: this thread is about marriage, not homosexuality. (I suppose it's valid, though, since we're talking about the homosexual aspects of marriage.)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 mentions 'homosexuals' as among the individuals who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. You still haven't explained this. You seem to be avoiding it.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 mentions 'homosexuals' as among the individuals who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. You still haven't explained this. You seem to be avoiding it.

That was Step 1, the very first thing I addressed. You may want to actually click the links I've provided (to the New American Bible, freely hosted online.) I don't know what translation you're using, but it doesn't seem to be a very good one.

 

[mattlock73]

That was Step 1, the very first thing I addressed. You may want to actually click the links I've provided (to the New American Bible, freely hosted online.) I don't know what translation you're using, but it doesn't seem to be a very good one.

My NASB also states homosexuality. It seems like you are trying really hard to justify something that is pretty plainly spelled out in scripture.

 

[WileyCoyote]

That was Step 1, the very first thing I addressed. You may want to actually click the links I've provided (to the New American Bible, freely hosted online.) I don't know what translation you're using, but it doesn't seem to be a very good one.

I use the Amplified, the New King James, and the King James. Pick one. All of them say 'homosexuals', with the exception of the King James, which says 'abusers of themselves with mankind'. Why are you trying to twist the scriptures? Homosexuality is an abomination to God. He hates it.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

A lifelong sexual relationship between a man and a woman?? What's "gay marriage?" Why not just call it "marriage"?

 

[Anglian]

Dear AetheriusLamia,

Personally I am not unsympathetic to your reasoning, and if either of belonged to a Church which placed private judgement above Tradition and what the Church has always taught, we'd be OK; but we aren't.

Your Catholic Church, like my Coptic Church has always taught that homosexual acts were sinful, and we are not free to argue, like Protestants, about the interpretation of various biblical texts. Our Churches have pronounced on this, and until they pronounce otherwise (and we might well try to make that case within our Churches) we are, are we not, bound by our respective Magisteriums?

The Coptic Church, citing many Church Fathers and the practice of the Church through the ages tells us that homosexual acts, like some heterosexual ones, are sinful; who am I that my view should be placed before that of Holy Tradition?

One might indeed argue that it does not preclude homosexual 'marriage', but again, the Church has pronounced on this and again, I consider myself bound by that. There is a duty of obedience to the Truth as revealed and taught within the Church.

In peace,

Anglian

 

[AetheriusLamia]

My NASB also states homosexuality. It seems like you are trying really hard to justify something that is pretty plainly spelled out in scripture.

You have just stated that my Bible's translation is wrong because yours is right. Surely you see the gaping holes in logic with such a statement. (See the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.)

Please explain. What is it about my Bible's translation, compiled by fifty biblical scholars, that is wrong? Surely you must at least know something about the translation before condemning it. (That link is to the preface of the New American Bible, where they discuss its origin, formation, and means of communication.)

 

[AetheriusLamia]

I use the Amplified, the New King James, and the King James. Pick one. All of them say 'homosexuals', with the exception of the King James, which says 'abusers of themselves with mankind'. Why are you trying to twist the scriptures?

I am not. It is very widely accepted that the King James versions are very poor translations; do a bit of research to see why. I am sorry you are not aware of this fact. I don't know anything about the Amplified Bible, but, like the NASB, it is probably based off the poor King James. Anything that bases itself from the King James versions is not credible nor reliable.

The very fact that our translations differ should compel you to analyze the original texts. Sadly, we run into problems here, too, as scholars do not agree what the original words mean (thus the differences in translation.)

 

[AetheriusLamia]

A lifelong sexual relationship between a man and a woman?? What's "gay marriage?" Why not just call it "marriage"?

The idea here is that marriage is the union between two loving adults. Thus, God unions both heterosexuals in heterosexual marriage and homosexuals in homosexual marriage.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Dear AetheriusLamia,

Personally I am not unsympathetic to your reasoning, and if either of belonged to a Church which placed private judgement above Tradition and what the Church has always taught, we'd be OK; but we aren't.

Your Catholic Church, like my Coptic Church has always taught that homosexual acts were sinful, and we are not free to argue, like Protestants, about the interpretation of various biblical texts. Our Churches have pronounced on this, and until they pronounce otherwise (and we might well try to make that case within our Churches) we are, are we not, bound by our respective Magisteriums?

The Coptic Church, citing many Church Fathers and the practice of the Church through the ages tells us that homosexual acts, like some heterosexual ones, are sinful; who am I that my view should be placed before that of Holy Tradition?

One might indeed argue that it does not preclude homosexual 'marriage', but again, the Church has pronounced on this and again, I consider myself bound by that. There is a duty of obedience to the Truth as revealed and taught within the Church.

In peace,

Anglian

I do not see what authority our churches have on us, nor do I see why tradition is holy. A church is simply a group of people; am I not free to argue with my family? I don't understand what is holy about tradition, either: tradition is nothing but the recorded history of human actions and beliefs.

 

[Anglian]

I do not see what authority our churches have on us, nor do I see why tradition is holy. A church is simply a group of people; am I not free to argue with my family? I don't understand what is holy about tradition, either: tradition is nothing but the recorded history of human actions and beliefs.

Dear AetheriusLamia,

That is not what the Catholic Church holds, or what the Catholic Catechism teaches. If one is to be a faithful Catholic (or Copt) then one accepts that Scripture is to be read within the tradition of, and by the light of, the Church that produced it. The Church is Spirit-filled in its pronouncements, not merely human, and for us to put our private judgement against that is an act of disobedience to our Father.

Like all children we can be disobedient and claim we know best; but that is not I think what either of our Churches teach.

Of course we are free to suggest that there might be other ways of approaching this, but we would need to do so by a way other than our private reading of the Scriptures. By what authority do we teach? The Church teaches by His authority.

In peace,

Anglian

 

[mattlock73]

Aetherius - I was not saying my version is correct and yours is wrong, I apologize if that is how you took it. I simply said my translation also said homosexuality, I meant to imply nothing more or less from it.

The point I was trying to make, and that I think you missed is that homosexuality is plainly spelled out in scripture as a sinful act. Yes, even in the NT.

Rom 1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

It doesn't get much more clear than that, unless you can somehow justify a 'vile affectation' as a good thing.

 

[Lupinus]

We can spell it out very easy, infact it has been already through scripture.

Homosexuality is a sin, this is cleared up very clearly in scripture. Not just sex, homosexuality itself.

You can argue all day that the sky isn't blue cause you want to claim it looks like a slightly different shade to you, but it's still blue.

 

[cheese007]

We can spell it out very easy, infact it has been already through scripture.

Homosexuality is a sin, this is cleared up very clearly in scripture. Not just sex, homosexuality itself.

If it was so clear, why is there debate on it? Obviously, someone is not reading, and I don't think it's the liberals.