Does the Bible Define Marriage as Man + Woman Only?

[Loundry]

I know that homosexual relationships are based on nothing more than excitement and lust....mistakenly called "love" much of the time.

You have this "knowledge" only because you are ignorant, perhaps deliberately so. But do you choose to be ignorant? Let's find out.

My partner and I have been together for ten years now and we have one adopted son. According to you, my ten-year relationship with my partner is based on "nothing more" than excitement and lust. Okay, let's test that.

Because we live together, plan together, and dream together every single day, sometimes we get into conflicts with each other. When this happens, we have to go through the often-painful problem-solving process. Couples (gay and straight) who can't problem-solve usually break up. Our relationship has outlasted quite a few obviously inferior Christian marriages for this reason, but I digress.

Anyway, since our relationship is about "nothing more" than excitement and lust, why would I choose to go through the painful process of problem solving with my partner? According to you, it would be about "nothing more" than getting more sex. But why would I do that when I can get sex easily and immediately from at least ten different people by hopping on the internet or going to a gay bar? If my relationship is about "nothing more" than sex, why would I do anything that takes relationship work (like working out a budget, parenting a child, or solving problems) when sex could be had much easier?

Do you think that my partner and I do nothing but have sex with each other all day long?

Please explain, because your "knowledge" looks like nothing more than distaste for gay people.

 

[TheManeki]

I'm going to print this out and start putting it over "Marriage = Man + Woman" bumper stickers.

 

[Kimberlyn]

You have this "knowledge" only because you are ignorant, perhaps deliberately so. But do you choose to be ignorant? Let's find out.

My partner and I have been together for ten years now and we have one adopted son. According to you, my ten-year relationship with my partner is based on "nothing more" than excitement and lust. Okay, let's test that.

Because we live together, plan together, and dream together every single day, sometimes we get into conflicts with each other. When this happens, we have to go through the often-painful problem-solving process. Couples (gay and straight) who can't problem-solve usually break up. Our relationship has outlasted quite a few obviously inferior Christian marriages for this reason, but I digress.

Anyway, since our relationship is about "nothing more" than excitement and lust, why would I choose to go through the painful process of problem solving with my partner? According to you, it would be about "nothing more" than getting more sex. But why would I do that when I can get sex easily and immediately from at least ten different people by hopping on the internet or going to a gay bar? If my relationship is about "nothing more" than sex, why would I do anything that takes relationship work (like working out a budget, parenting a child, or solving problems) when sex could be had much easier?

Do you think that my partner and I do nothing but have sex with each other all day long?

Please explain, because your "knowledge" looks like nothing more than distaste for gay people.

As I said, I made an assumption based on my opinion and I apologize...really, I do. I had no intention of offending anyone. It was a careless mistake.
Any knowledge that I have about homosexuality i can promise you does not come from a distaste of gay people. It's not that I have anything against the people. It's the lifestyle that I don't care for. But, as a Christian who takes the Bible very literally, I hold firmly to the belief that homosexuality is a sin. Take no offense from that, please. But, you must know that I have nothing against gay people. I have a gay family member myself, and a bisexual friend, both of which know my view of that aspect of their lives.
I'm sorry for offending you.

 

[MrPirate]

As I said, I made an assumption based on my opinion and I apologize...really, I do. I had no intention of offending anyone. It was a careless mistake.
Any knowledge that I have about homosexuality i can promise you does not come from a distaste of gay people. It's not that I have anything against the people. It's the lifestyle that I don't care for. But, as a Christian who takes the Bible very literally, I hold firmly to the belief that homosexuality is a sin. Take no offense from that, please. But, you must know that I have nothing against gay people. I have a gay family member myself, and a bisexual friend, both of which know my view of that aspect of their lives.
I'm sorry for offending you.

Working real hard to be verbally gentle here….not really in my nature….



Is always good to admit mistakes…but the trick is correcting things so they don’t happen again.

It seems you don’t have any real knowledge of what it means to be homosexual despite your reference to a relative. You have an opportunity to learn…but that involves getting rid of your preconceived notions.

Take a few moments and look at what you have posted here and then go and substitute in a different minority for homosexuals. Racial equality is denounced in the bible so Blacks works really well…though I notice those who state they are bible literalists avoid taking such things literally. How does your statement read to you when substituting African Americans for homosexuals. Offensive? Does it sound like you have “nothing against black people”

Remember that when you start talking about the “gay lifestyle”

 

[MarcusHill]

I'm always baffled by references to the "gay lifestyle". Apart from the gender of one's partners, there isn't anything that one could label a "gay lifestyle". The thing about gay people is that they're people who happen to be gay, and their "lifestyles" are as varied as those of straight people. If people object to the stereotypical "gay lifestyle" as portrayed by the Christian Right, the objection is really to sexual promiscuity, which is just as prevalent among heterosexuals.

If the only distinguishing feature of the "gay lifestyle" is the gender of one's partners, then by saying you hate it you're really saying "I hate your love".

 

[TheManeki]

According to posts 103, 55, and 35 in this thread, your interpretation is in error. Care to rebut the specifics?

actually all of those posts have multiple verses and multiple errors. why don't you pick the ones you find support your argument and repost.

I'm sorry that it took me so long to get back to you on this one, because I'd like to know exactly what you feel is in error about these posts' (103, 55, 35) logic. If you don't want to take on all three posts at once, please analyze them one at a time and let us know what issues you believe incorrect with our interpretations.

And while I'm addressing this primarily to silentreader, I'd be happy for anyone to jump in on this one. To make things easy, I'm linking directly to the posts:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36659627&postcount=103
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36618249&postcount=55
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36615497&postcount=35

 

[NeTrips]

As I said, I made an assumption based on my opinion and I apologize...really, I do. I had no intention of offending anyone. It was a careless mistake.
Any knowledge that I have about homosexuality i can promise you does not come from a distaste of gay people. It's not that I have anything against the people. It's the lifestyle that I don't care for. But, as a Christian who takes the Bible very literally, I hold firmly to the belief that homosexuality is a sin. Take no offense from that, please. But, you must know that I have nothing against gay people. I have a gay family member myself, and a bisexual friend, both of which know my view of that aspect of their lives.
I'm sorry for offending you.

Kimberlyn,

Your opposition to homosexuality being promoted and condoned is in agreement with biblical teachings. I commend you for having the courage to be honest about your beliefs. Many here will twist your words and assign prejudices and emotions such as hate to your beliefs, but do not be dismayed and do not be swayed. When people engage in sexual activity with a member of the same sex it is sinful. You are right in hating this sin. Please be careful to not include people's motivations in your hate of the sin, we are all sinners and all living in our our sin. The sin of homosexuality is no worse or different than other sins, just more in-your-face in areas such as CF.

It is promoted here by a very loud and antagonistic crowd. Just remember that CF is not real life. CF is not even a good cross-section of any culture. CF has a large pro-homosexual membership, not because it is representative of the population in real life, but because the small minority is allowed to shout down the few who stand up for what they believe.

God bless and stay strong.

 

[Loundry]

As I said, I made an assumption based on my opinion and I apologize...really, I do. I had no intention of offending anyone. It was a careless mistake.

It's okay. I've read back in the thread and noticed that you're fifteen years old. Your attitudes and opinions will probably change a lot in the next few years.

Any knowledge that I have about homosexuality i can promise you does not come from a distaste of gay people. It's not that I have anything against the people. It's the lifestyle that I don't care for.

My questions for you are: what do you know about "the gay lifestyle", and how do you know it?

But, as a Christian who takes the Bible very literally

No one takes the Bible literally, much less "very literally". Jesus said some very weird things and Christians usually "interpret" those mandates so that they don't have to follow them.

 

[silentreader]

I'm sorry that it took me so long to get back to you on this one, because I'd like to know exactly what you feel is in error about these posts' (103, 55, 35) logic. If you don't want to take on all three posts at once, please analyze them one at a time and let us know what issues you believe incorrect with our interpretations.

And while I'm addressing this primarily to silentreader, I'd be happy for anyone to jump in on this one. To make things easy, I'm linking directly to the posts:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36659627&postcount=103
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36618249&postcount=55
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36615497&postcount=35

thanks for clarifying the post. this post will deal with post #103. i will quote post #103 in red to differentiate.

The bible also addressed heterosexuality as well. It contains hundreds of condemnations for heterosexuality…so this must mean that being heterosexual is a bad thing.

It has no condemnation for hetrosexuality as a whole or as a concept. It has condemnations for specific acts such as pre-marital sex, sodomy, etc. God blesses the hetrosexual union of one man and one woman. this is the only union blessed in the Bible.

It is well known that the Greek word arsenokoites does not translate as homosexual. The most accurate interpretation seems to be that arsenokoites means a man who employees a prostitute or exploits a woman for sex.

the translation is not needed in my exegesis to show that homosexuality is a sin. homosexuality falls under the effeminate and fornication. though, again i do not need this verse in my overall exegesis showing homosexuality to be a sin. check out Romans 1:24-28, this will give you a start on part of my exegesis.

 

[eolculnamo2]

Working real hard to be verbally gentle here….not really in my nature….



Is always good to admit mistakes…but the trick is correcting things so they don’t happen again.

It seems you don’t have any real knowledge of what it means to be homosexual despite your reference to a relative. You have an opportunity to learn…but that involves getting rid of your preconceived notions.

Take a few moments and look at what you have posted here and then go and substitute in a different minority for homosexuals. Racial equality is denounced in the bible so Blacks works really well…though I notice those who state they are bible literalists avoid taking such things literally. How does your statement read to you when substituting African Americans for homosexuals. Offensive? Does it sound like you have “nothing against black people”

Remember that when you start talking about the “gay lifestyle”

Homosexuality is a decision people make. People can not help the way they're born as far as race is concerned.

There's no evidence for being born with a homosexual orientation.

Even if there was, don't we have a choice to have sex?

Do we have to have sex? If you were naturally born homosexual(which is a ridiculous statement) there's a choice to have sex with the opposite sex.

 

[eolculnamo2]

oh, and Im curious as to where racial equality is denounced in the Bible?

 

[TheManeki]

the translation is not needed in my exegesis to show that homosexuality is a sin. homosexuality falls under the effeminate and fornication. though, again i do not need this verse in my overall exegesis showing homosexuality to be a sin. check out Romans 1:24-28, this will give you a start on part of my exegesis.

Just because the use of "arsenokoite" doesn't fit your exegesis, it doesn't mean your exegesis is correct. It means you should revise your exegesis to account for new facts. After all, there are Christians whose exegesis allows them to conclude the Bible says the Earth is the center of the universe and doesn't move. ( http://www.reformation.org/stationary-earth.html, for example.)

As for Romans 1:24-28, I don't see Paul mentioning homosexuals. He uses "they" and "them," not "homosexual." And when you go back to Romans 1:21-23 to see whom Paul is referring to, he talks about people who "neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him," who "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." Sounds like idol worshippers. They probably were using sex in their worship routines, instead of using it in the loving way in which God intended.

I don't see it saying anything about homosexuality in a loving monogamous relationship being sinful.

 

[SimplyMe]

thanks for clarifying the post. this post will deal with post #103. i will quote post #103 in red to differentiate.

The bible also addressed heterosexuality as well. It contains hundreds of condemnations for heterosexuality…so this must mean that being heterosexual is a bad thing.

It has no condemnation for hetrosexuality as a whole or as a concept. It has condemnations for specific acts such as pre-marital sex, sodomy, etc.

That is true, there is no blanket condemnation of heterosexuality in the Bible but there is also no blanket condemnation of homosexuality. There are simply the same condemnations.

God blesses the hetrosexual union of one man and one woman. this is the only union blessed in the Bible.

This is false. The Old Testament clearly allows for polygamy. Two scriptures for you, on is Exodus 21:10 which is a guide from the Lord for a man to take another wife. Also, 2 Samuel 12:8 is quite interesting. This verse is part of the Lord's chastening of David after taking Bathsheba as a wife.

If you don't remember the story, Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah the Hittite. David coveted Bathsheba and to "get Uriah out of the way" so David could marry her, he had Uriah sent to the front of a major battle in order to ensure Uriah's death. Nathan the prophet was sent by the Lord to David. The Lord says in verse 8 that He gave David his wives (note the plural) and that if that wasn't enough for David He would have given him more. This clearly shows that the Lord fully approved of David's polygamy, His only problem was David coveting another man's wife and committing murder (even if indirectly) to get her.

It is well known that the Greek word arsenokoites does not translate as homosexual. The most accurate interpretation seems to be that arsenokoites means a man who employees a prostitute or exploits a woman for sex.

the translation is not needed in my exegesis to show that homosexuality is a sin. homosexuality falls under the effeminate and fornication.

The problem here is that "effeminate" is not an accurate translation of "malakoi" the Greek word used in this verse. The word malakoi actually means "soft" in ancient Greek and was a commonly used word. As an example, the word is used in Matthew 11:8 in reference to clothing, in this case soft (or fine) clothes. It is not a reference to homosexuality. Rather, it implies a moral weakness, a moral "softness"; or a better translation might be undisciplined; this is the way the word was used anciently.

The word arsenokoites is one that Paul appears to have made up, there are few other manuscripts of the time that use the word and the meaning in those documents is also ambiguous. If Paul had meant homosexual, it seems strange that he'd make up a word, or use a word that was not commonly used or understood, because there were six other words meaning homosexual in use at the time. Paul would have likely used "paiderastes" if he meant a person that has homosexual sex.

though, again i do not need this verse in my overall exegesis showing homosexuality to be a sin. check out Romans 1:24-28, this will give you a start on part of my exegesis.

Actually, that piece of Romans actually starts much earlier. If we start at verse 21, Paul talks about people who had knew God but didn't glorify Him nor were thankful, iv v. 23 the make an idol to worship, v. 24 the word "wherefore" is used (or, in the original the Greek equivalent). Paul is saying that because they have rejected God they become lustful. In case you didn't understand that point, Paul repeats in v. 25 that these are the people who "changed the truth of God into a lie", and then again shows, in v. 26, because of the rejection of God these people now turn to homosexuality. Now, in case you still didn't catch it, again in v. 28 Paul again reminds us that since these people didn't remember God that this happened to them.

If you look at this along with Romans as a whole it becomes clear that Paul is setting them up. Paul is actually using what he knows of some Pagan beliefs and ceremonies at the time as his template. Everything through verse 28 fits the various Pagan ceremonies and rites practiced in Greece and Rome. He knows that the Roman Jews, in particular, will feel superior to these "evil" Pagan believers. He knows they feel justified because the follow the Law of Moses, which condemns the Pagan rites.

Yet, Paul in chapter 2 condemns them for judging these people. He talks of God granting mercy and repentance. He further, in Chapter 3 says that we are not justified by the law but rather condemned by it -- we are justified by Christ. To use Romans to condemn homosexuality requires proof-texting. Beyond ignoring the context, it also requires ignoring that homosexual acts occurred first 1) because these people rejected God and 2) that they appear to be heterosexuals (probably married) that are now performing homosexual acts.

Last, in case you feel like bring up Leviticus, my simply translation is here. It's the simple one because I don't bother showing things like how the Hebrew word "zachar" should be translated (consecrated male) in that verse.

 

[MarcusHill]

Homosexuality is a decision people make. People can not help the way they're born as far as race is concerned.

There's no evidence for being born with a homosexual orientation.

Actually, whilst it hasn't been shown to be completely biologically based, there is ample evidence that there is a significant biological bias to sexual orientation.

Even if there was, don't we have a choice to have sex?

Do we have to have sex? If you were naturally born homosexual(which is a ridiculous statement) there's a choice to have sex with the opposite sex.

I recall hearing about a gay man addressing an audience rebutting this exact fallacy. He described, in some detail, various homosexual sex acts and asked the audience to imagine being one of the participants. He then said "Do you feel disgusted by the thought of doing that? Well, that's exactly how I feel when I think about having sex with a woman."

 

[TheManeki]

eolculnamo2, Kimberlyn:

Since you both believe that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle that is abhorrent to God, I hope you feel the same way about people who divorce (for reasons other than spousal infidelity) and remarry. According to Jesus (Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18), those people are living in a constant state of adultery, which is equally offensive.

I hope you decry this abomination as much as you do homosexuality -- it would be pretty hypocritical not to do so. Or, if you believe (as I do) that it isn't an abomination for two divorced people to remarry, then why is homosexuality bad?

 

[TheManeki]

You know, we still haven't had too much discussion on this thread about polygamy.

Several people here believe that same-sex marriages are abhorrent to God because none are mentioned in the Bible. Furthermore, they say God defines marriage as between a man and a woman because we have examples like Adam and Eve, Mary and Joseph, etc. But if we follow this logic, we have to conclude that God also defines marriage as being 1 man and 2 women -- Just look at Jacob (Genesis 29). He was married to 2 women at the same time, and God blessed the heck out of him.

 

[NeTrips]

Actually, whilst it hasn't been shown to be completely biologically based, there is ample evidence that there is a significant biological bias to sexual orientation.

yet, it has not been scientifically proven. Many wish it were, but in reality, it even if it were, it does not change God's disdain for homosexual sex and sex outside of marriage.

 

[NeTrips]

You know, we still haven't had too much discussion on this thread about polygamy.

Several people here believe that same-sex marriages are abhorrent to God because none are mentioned in the Bible. Furthermore, they say God defines marriage as between a man and a woman because we have examples like Adam and Eve, Mary and Joseph, etc. But if we follow this logic, we have to conclude that God also defines marriage as being 1 man and 2 women -- Just look at Jacob (Genesis 29). He was married to 2 women at the same time, and God blessed the heck out of him.

This in no way refutes that sex outside of marriage is sin nor does it refute that sex between members of the same gender is sin.

 

[TheManeki]

I'm just trying to figure out the arguments here. If people believe God defines marriages as 1 man + 1 woman because of Biblical examples, why do they not believe God also defines marriages as 1 man + multiple women because of Biblical examples?

Is there some kind of scriptural basis, or is this just another example of the doublethink that goes on for people who read the Bible literally?

Sometimes I have to wonder how literally the literalists actually read the Bible.

 

[NeTrips]

I'm just trying to figure out the arguments here. If people believe God defines marriages as 1 man + 1 woman because of Biblical examples, why do they not believe God also defines marriages as 1 man + multiple women because of Biblical examples?

Is there some kind of scriptural basis, or is this just another example of the doublethink that goes on for people who read the Bible literally?

Sometimes I have to wonder how literally the literalists actually read the Bible.

The question can be asked, "Does God endorse sin?" and the answer is *no*. God never endorses sin because if He did it would be a contradiction and God would not be a perfect God of righteousness. God can never encourage sin, but He can allow or permit sin to flourish.

A better interpretation of 2 Samuel 12:8 would be to say that God *allowed* these events to happen. (The phrase interpreted "And I gave" is from the Hebrew word which means to allow or permit.) God has all power to stop sin whenever He wants to but in this instance He allowed David to get away with this particular type of sin. God gave multiple wives to David by allowing this sin to occur. He could have stopped David and punished him at any moment but instead God was good to David and made his way prosperous. The only time God punished David for adultery was when he had an affair with Bathsheba. The chastisement was a painful one, God's protective hedge around David and his family was lifted. Trouble was stirred up in the home of David. David's son Absalom turned against him and tried to kill David but he himself was eventually killed. For a brief time David also lost his power as king of Israel.

God may also allow sin to flourish in our personal lives, but that doesn't mean He encourages it. Day by day many of us fall short of righteousness and yet for many of us He continues to bless our way and make our way prosperous as if nothing sinful has occured. God does not relish and encourage sin in our lives but quite often He does allow our sin to occur until He chastens us very hard like He chastened David. It is often times through the chastening hand of God that we as Christians understand the seriousness of reoccuring sins and start to repent of it.

God has never and will never endorse or encourage polygamy. The bible reports on many things but reporting on them is not endorsing.