What about Mark 10?

[Apollo Celestio]

Interesting post. I didn't really care about it before, but you make interesting points. I'll be sure to think on it.

 

[tulc]

The Scriptures are not saying that one must stay with their parents. YOU are adding what is not there.

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Well the six times I found this Scripture it said the same thing: for a man to get married he would have to leave his father and mother first. So if we are to take the Bible literally doesn't that mean we have to be with them till we get married?
tulc(who has known bible teachers who taught this)

 

[BreadAlone]

tulc,

It does say a man will leave his father and mother, but it does not say one must stay with his father and mother until such time he is married.

 

[LightHorseman]

tulc,

It does say a man will leave his father and mother, but it does not say one must stay with his father and mother until such time he is married.

*LMFCO* and yet... somehow I imagine that if you were told that the Bible never specifically prohibit homosexual marriage, you wouldn't accept that as valid

 

[BreadAlone]

and yet... somehow I imagine that if you were told that the Bible never specifically prohibit homosexual marriage, you wouldn't accept that as valid

Good thing such is not the case, as exampled by the point of this thread..

 

[tulc]

tulc,

It does say a man will leave his father and mother, but it does not say one must stay with his father and mother until such time he is married.

...so you believe that scripture prohibits all marriages other then between men and women (or the 8 types of marriages also found in the Bible) and yet you don't feel the whole Scripture applies?
tulc(how do you decide which parts apply and which don't?)

 

[BreadAlone]

I never said such things tulc. Please post the verse which indicates that the Bible is commanding a person to stay with their father. The only reason it says this is for a case-in-point effect. In that God established marriage for people to have once their old enough to leave their parents' home. I don't mean to read in what's not there, but it seems to me that you're attempting to read in what's not there to in the end undermind the Scriptures.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

I'm taking time now to read through the Catholic Catechism, doctrine, Theology of the Body, etc. What I've been saying could be very ignorant.

 

[BreadAlone]

Have you tried the Lutheran Catechism!? lol I don't know if it addresses homosexual marriage..I doubt it, since this ploy of Satan hasn't been around until the last couple of years or so..

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear tulc,

Well the six times I found this Scripture it said the same thing: for a man to get married he would have to leave his father and mother first. So if we are to take the Bible literally doesn't that mean we have to be with them till we get married?

Well you are free to follow that. If one takes the Biblical teaching holistically instead of literally in a legalistic way one may see that one needs to honour ones father and mother as well. All same-sex couples have fathers and mothers but none of them can be fathers and mothers between them, which is another exmaple fo how disordered the relationship is.

Again I see discussion on what the Bible doesnt say. Much of the thinking about same-sex is based on what the Bible doesnt specifically sat ignoring what it does say.

 

[tulc]

Much of the thinking about same-sex is based on what the Bible doesnt specifically sat ignoring what it does say.

...uhmmm isn't that what I said? You basically take the part you like (man and woman) build a case on it and ignore the parts you don't care about (staying with parents until married).
tulc(I don't know that sounds a little...liberal to me)

 

[AetheriusLamia]

It seems I was mistaken about a few things. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Marriage in the order of creation

1603 "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage."[87] The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity,[88] some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."

(Parts bolded for emphasis.) The Church itself refers to these other unions as marriages, so my previous argument is wrong. However, the Church insists that the God of Abraham is the author of marriage -- so a marriage attempting to exclude or not recognize God is perverse -- and that marriage is the union of man and woman, apparently arguing from Genesis (so a homosexual marriage would also be perverse.) The Catechism also strongly suggests that homosexuals are actually heterosexuals with homosexual problems:

1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone."[92] The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.[93] "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."94 The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."

If this argument is true, then men are meant to turn to women, not each other. I have not yet researched the Church's claim of having the teaching authority of Christ, so I currently don't accept anything as true "just because" the Church says it ... Apparently, children are also an intended result of marriage, something homosexuals can't have:

1604 God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love.[90] Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'"[91]

Go to the original webpage: The numbers in brackets refer to footnotes for citations to the Bible, else citations to other parts of the Catechism which then reference the Bible... I think. I'm not familiar with all the abbreviations used in the footnotes.

So ... It seems I was wrong: One can refer to other unions of other cultures as marriages. The Church argues that God's command to "be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis implies that children are an intended result of marriage. This raises a problem for homosexual marriages, because they specifically exclude this intended result; the Church also makes this conclusion and I've quoted the corresponding bit of Catechism previously.

It certainly gives one more to think about ... Perhaps, though, with sin in the world, we must now take another route. If a tractor-trailer overturns on the interstate, you must take a different road to get to where you're going ... Perhaps homosexuals were meant to adopt the children abandoned through broken marriages, thereby fulfilling God's command to "be fruitful" (and the original parents fulfilled the "and multiply" part.) I am not familiar with adoption and abortion statistics, however: Perhaps there are enough heterosexual couples wanting to adopt every unwanted born and unborn child. Enough speculation, though.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear tulc,

...uhmmm isn't that what I said? You basically take the part you like (man and woman) build a case on it and ignore the parts you don't care about (staying with parents until married).

uhmmm not quite, it says man and woman uniting is God’s creation purpose so same-sex unions aren’t even I the debate, the bit about staying with parents isnt actually written, its your interpretation and neither does it say parents, it says father and mother, so no chance of the same-sex couples under the deception of parents there.
You see the bit about leaving father and mother could be about leaving the authority of the father and mother and taking on the role oneself.

 

[tulc]

the bit about staying with parents isnt actually written,

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (emph. added)

Uhmmm doesn't the bolded part say "for this cause" which I take to mean getting married "shall leave his father and mother" I understand to mean that's who you are with until you have your own family. I'm sorry it seems pretty straight forward to me.

You see the bit about leaving father and mother could be about leaving the authority of the father and mother and taking on the role oneself.

...so you don't actually have authority over your life until you marry? How is that different from what I've been saying?
Personally I don't believe you have to stay with your parents until you marry, but then I also don't think this is saying "only men and women can get married" either. To read it as such is (IMHO) building a case more on your own beliefs rather then biblical understanding.
tulc(still, that did remind me of my old fundamentalist days)

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Well the six times I found this Scripture it said the same thing: for a man to get married he would have to leave his father and mother first. So if we are to take the Bible literally doesn't that mean we have to be with them till we get married?
tulc(who has known bible teachers who taught this)

Wait, what?

1980 - 30 year old man leaves his parents' house and lives alone
1990 - 40 year old virgin finally gets married

There's an example where a man gets married but first leaves his father and mother. What is this question, that one must live with parents until marriage? That's nonsense. Hell, even an orphan satisfies the requirement, having lived inside the mother, who was at one point in time with the father.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Uhmmm doesn't the bolded part say "for this cause" which I take to mean getting married

No. "For this reason" refers to being made male and female -- the sentence immediately before it. Because they are made male and female, not "because they're getting married."

That was the crux of my OP...

Jesus is saying, "Because they are made male and female, they become one flesh in marriage."

What you're suggesting, tulc, would be, "Because they are getting married, they become one flesh in marriage," which doesn't make sense.

 

[tulc]

No. "For this reason" refers to being made male and female -- the sentence immediately before it. Because they are made male and female, not "because they're getting married."

Ahh! That does indeed make more sense!
tulc(thanks)

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear tulc,
Uhmmm doesn't the bolded part say "for this cause" which I take to mean getting married "shall leave his father and mother" I understand to mean that's who you are with until you have your own family. I'm sorry it seems pretty straight forward to me.[/quote] Uhmmm the bit about parents not being mentioned was just one part you ignored of the point I was making to you.
But ok yes that means shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wifde... quite straightforward until one proposes same-sex unions which is quite straighforwardly not for this reason.

Personally I don't believe you have to stay with your parents until you marry, but then I also don't think this is saying "only men and women can get married" either.

Exactly, you don’t think so, but it is saying that, it says God made male and female for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife. Couldn’t be more straightforward.

To read it as such is (IMHO) building a case more on your own beliefs rather then biblical understanding.

Whereas I think what you are saying is outright disbelief.

tulc(still, that did remind me of my old fundamentalist days)

And what you are saying reminds me of when I was a non believer

 

[tulc]

And what you are saying reminds me of when I was a non believer

Always nice to remember where we came from huh?
tulc(who remembers many things most of them are even true)

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Hey guys, PMs are available for discussing things that are off-topic. This thread's about homosexuality and marriage, not about nostalgic insults ...