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

[Polycarp1]

For what it's worth, I was interested in exploring the David-Jonathan relationship to see if we can get a handle on what it tells us is acceptable feelings and behavior between two men -- something that the two sides seemingly talking past each other here might actually find agreement on..

 

[Polycarp1]

Have you by chance read the old testament? Jacob and Rachel was before the law (which was given for the knowledge of sin) was given.

Have you by chance read the Old Testament? Adam and Eve also were before the Law was given.

And in the New Testament, Paul claims that Christ's Atonement has made us free of the Law. (look it up)

 

[Angel4Truth]

And in matthew chapter 19 Christ references adam and eve and speaks about creation and its intention for marriage being man and woman. Perhaps you missed that? Where also might I find your scriptural evidence you claim you so aptly provided? Yet I added some in my response to you to refute the very notion of homosexuality in king david. (look them up)

 

[cheese007]

Because logically, he should be the one to provide possible evidence against himself.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Have you by chance read the Old Testament? Adam and Eve also were before the Law was given.

And in the New Testament, Paul claims that Christ's Atonement has made us free of the Law. (look it up)

I don't think you can really make an argument based on laws. Those arguments end up with citations of scripture, with one side interpreting it one way and the other a different way.

This really seems to be an area where philosophy becomes important to theology. We have to ask, what is the purpose of marriage- what was God establishling in humanity and what does the bible reveal about the nature of sex.

Western culture seems to hold the position that the purpose of marriage is to satisfy an innate desire for intimacy with another person, expressed through sex. However, this contracts what we can reason about the purpose of sex and marriage within God's revelation. It's not a mutual agreement between two people seeking intimacy- it's a calling that directs us to a higher part of purpose- procreation.

Homosexual marriage corrupts the purpose and meaning to marriage. Sins are, after all, when we do something that goes against God's will and plan for us. It's generally not the complete opposite, but a deviation from it. Gay marriage, pre-marital sex and other sexual sins are problematic in that the seemingly fulfill part of God's plan, but ultimately take us off course.

 

[Polycarp1]

I don't think you can really make an argument based on laws. Those arguments end up with citations of scripture, with one side interpreting it one way and the other a different way.

This really seems to be an area where philosophy becomes important to theology. We have to ask, what is the purpose of marriage- what was God establishing in humanity and what does the bible reveal about the nature of sex.

Western culture seems to hold the position that the purpose of marriage is to satisfy an innate desire for intimacy with another person, expressed through sex. However, this contra[di]cts what we can reason about the purpose of sex and marriage within God's revelation. It's not a mutual agreement between two people seeking intimacy- it's a calling that directs us to a higher part of purpose- procreation.

Homosexual marriage corrupts the purpose and meaning to marriage. Sins are, after all, when we do something that goes against God's will and plan for us. It's generally not the complete opposite, but a deviation from it. Gay marriage, pre-marital sex and other sexual sins are problematic in that the seemingly fulfill part of God's plan, but ultimately take us off course.

You make an excellent argument here, one I wish had been dealt with much earlier in the thread. I am going to concede a great deal of what you say in the earlier paragraphs, and then bring up the concept Catholic theologians have advanced regarding marriage. That is, there are two purposes in marriage: the procreative and the unitive. It is, on the one hand, for the conception and nurture of children, and on the other, the fulfillment of God's plan in giving us the desire for intimacy in the first place. For the Catholic, these must run together -- neither alone is sufficient. If marriage were only for procreation, then the infertile, women after menopause, etc., would be excluded from it. If it were for intimacy only, then the whole element of the proper nurture of children would be left unfulfilled.

However, I submit that this is normative rather than mandative -- that God does create people for whom normal one man/one woman marriage is improper. (The verse A4T mentioned earlier about eunuchs, generally understood to mean there are those who espouse celibacy as His call for them in particular, supports this.) My wife and I were not blessed with children of our bodies -- but He was able to lead us to understand that our call is to minister to others, together, including children alienated from their natural parents, and to comfort, counsel, and nurture those people, including those children, using the gift He gave us of our mutual love and support to sustain that ministry.

Marriage is, in my mind, for the creation of families. But that is, in my view, not just limited to two-parent-plus-kids families -- all those whom He has called together are included. The man who adopts children as a single parent because he has parental love to give and they are in need of it, and finds fulfillment in nurturing them. The gay couple who adopts children and raises them. The elderly couple who takes in their own abandoned grandchildren and resumes the parental role in their later years. These are all real and healthy families, and ones that don't meet the very limited "family values" definition.

Sin is failure to love God with all that is in us, and to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to show that love in very practical ways -- where there is hurt, we are to comfort. Where there is sadness, we are to bring joy. Where there is injury, we are to heal. Where there is strife, we are to bring peace. Running down a shopping list of "Thou shalt nots" is not cataloguing sin; looking at the hurt in the world is. And when we have done that, our call is to relieve that hurt. Anything less is arrant sin.

 

[Anglian]

Dear AtheriusLamia,

You raise the issue of slavery and iask whether it is similar?

I suspect it is similar but not quite the same; it is the similarities which make it worth your while, and mine, to raise questions about the teaching of the Chruch on this subject of gay marriage. The difference, I guess, is that the Church has always interpreted the Bible as teaching that homosexual acts are sinful; slavery was neither condemned nor approved, but accepted as what society did.

The similarity, however, may come in this form. For many centuries the Church accepted slavery until some Christians decided it was incompatible with every one of us being a child of God who was loved by God. Christian slave-owners used counter arguments; but in the end slavery, at least in the west, was abolished. That that did not lead to an immediate improvement in the lot of black people ought to be a cause of deep shame to all Christians. Christ commanded us to love each other - not just to 'free' people.

Similarly, the Church has long taught that homosexual acts are sinful. At the moment that means that Christian homosexuals have to be celibate all their lives if they are to abide by the teaching of the Church. Is that compatible with God's love for each of us? If so - and that is where the debate needs to be had - then homosexuals will always have to bear this cross. If, however, it were to be accepted that God could look with approval on faithful homosexuals as He does on faithful heterosexuals, then things could be changed.

What, I suspect, will not advance things, is for us to argue that our own particular reading of scripture, accepted by none of the Apostolic Churches, should take preference over what those Churches have always taught. That actually makes people instinctively think there is something unsound about what we are arguing.

There may be, of course, I don't rule that out. My own biases are bound to take me in a direction I find desirable; it is the job of the Church to remind me that my will is not the whole of the law.

In peace,

Anglian

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear PolyCarp1,
When you refer to the two purposes in marriage,the procreative and the unitive, I agree those must be the assumptions by what united as one flesh means .But as pointed out to you, the Genesis passage shows God created woman for man. This is a definite as Jesus points out in Matt 19 and Mark 10 with divorce, divorce is covered by Genesis 2 so that means a man and a woman, not just men and women. So one can’t then assume it isn’t as precise as it has been demonstrated by Jesus. So therefore I think your submission of normative rather than mandative is untenable. If God’s purpose is clearly one man and one woman and not an assumption of one man and several women, then one cant possibly add any variations man and man. Its not good applying other assumptions such as eunuchs either as celibacy is the only alternative given and quite obviously celibacy isnt even an alternative union, so the alterative to a man woman faithful union is no union whatsoever.

This is why it is a waste of time debating assumptions with those of us who believe the Bible is clear and unambiguous, and this is also why the church is splitting because it represents to us simply a major and fundamental disbelief, denial and departure from the apostolic faith.

As to David and Jonathan, the idea that a man may love another man more than a woman is of course what happened with the Jesus loving His disciples and the disciples loving Jesus above any other. The idea of sexual attraction or union between the two means people are approaching the passages from a sexual definition of love, not an agape one. So from a sexual orientation point of view Jonathan looks like a heterosexual, he had a son Mephibosheth, and David looks like a heterosexual, he had a wife. Indeed David’s sin was that he took Uriah’s wife. The idea that Jonathan and David had a sexual relationship reveals a motive that wants them to have had such a relationship, it is not seeking God’s revelation at all.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Davedjy,

Genesis doesn't have to coin the term "heterosexual" in order for it to be describing one type of relationship.

What "expense"? nowhere in this passage does it state this is the only, exclusive relationship allowable. The passage also does not mention that marriage is limited to two opposite sex genders.

On the contrary Jesus shows us in Matt 19 and Mark 10 it is most definiately limited. You have assumed it doesn’t just mean what it says ‘a man and a woman’, but so did the religious leaders, because their hearts were hard they had assumed that it could mean man and a number of women in turn. But it doesn’t and it means exactly what it says as Jesus points out, it means a man and a woman, not a man and several women. So if it means a man and a woman it most definitely doesn’t mean a man and a man as you have assumed.
Indeed to show what rank disbelief and major fundamental error you are assuming, Genesis 2 also says God created woman for man, if He created woman for man don’t assume He created a man for man. Furthermore the only alternative given is celibacy, and celibacy is not an alternative union, it’s the opposite of a union. So you cant possibly assume an option is same-sex union without completely disregarding what the Bible clearly and actually says.

 

[stumpjumper]

Thread moved into the Debates on homosexuality sub-forum.

 

[davedjy]

Dear Davedjy,

On the contrary Jesus shows us in Matt 19 and Mark 10 it is most definiately limited. You have assumed it doesn’t just mean what it says ‘a man and a woman’, but so did the religious leaders, because their hearts were hard they had assumed that it could mean man and a number of women in turn. But it doesn’t and it means exactly what it says as Jesus points out, it means a man and a woman, not a man and several women. So if it means a man and a woman it most definitely doesn’t mean a man and a man as you have assumed.
Indeed to show what rank disbelief and major fundamental error you are assuming, Genesis 2 also says God created woman for man, if He created woman for man don’t assume He created a man for man. Furthermore the only alternative given is celibacy, and celibacy is not an alternative union, it’s the opposite of a union. So you cant possibly assume an option is same-sex union without completely disregarding what the Bible clearly and actually says.

Neither of those passages use any words to claim ANYTHING to the tune of it being limited to two opposite sex genders, or any "limit" being placed, or that gender is the key of the whole thing.

You have not proven anything by those 2 passages. Celibacy is not talked about as an op tion for gays or lesbians in these verses, or anywhere else. Try again. Using your wording "don't assume" it is definitely limited, because you haven't proven anything as far as what is limited by any of these passages, nor has anyone else in this thread.

 

[davedjy]

Jesus based it on gender. Also said how it was in the begining when there was ONLY a male and a female. No way around it. for any other scenerio to even be possible there would need to be more people than just adam and eve sorry since thats directly what he referenced and even said why.

No, you ASSUME that "for any other scenario" to be possible, there would need to be more than Adam and Eve. There is no proof that Adam and Eve are the end-all, be-all model situation for every possible person.

 

[davedjy]

This would be more convincing if the Church had not always done what its does today - and condemned active homosexual intercourse. Are you maintaining that at some point the Church approved gay marriage and then stopped? The evidence for this would be interesting to have.

I don't know what type of marriages, but homosexual relationships, as stated in the Boswell article were approved up until the 12 century.

At no point in your quotation was there anything about gay marriage or gay sex. Close male bonding is now often interpreted in the way you choose to interpret it; but nothing you quoted went to the case for gay marriage, did it?

Part of Boswell's claim (if not in the article), is that Gay marriage ceremonies were part of the Early Christian Church. The manuscripts eleventh-century Greek manuscript labeled Grottaferrata G.B.

Yes, the Church Fathers condemned homosexuality and the Church has never sanctioned gay marriages. Indeed there is little written on it because it was never an issue until modern times - and then only in the West. Your view is not atypical of western ones - but the west really is not, and never has been, the whole of Christianity.

Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Also, The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

Of course, and no one questions that. What it being questioned is the idea that the Christian Church has ever seen homosexual marriage as an option for Christians.

Many question that, and believe nothing good can come of a homosexual union.

What is being suggested is that the evidence from Tradition is overwhelming. If one's Church or one's own position is that Tradition is man-made and can be changed by man, then your position stands and indeed obviously is right. But if one holds that Tradition is part of the revealed Truth of the Faith once delivered, then we cannot change it, however much we want, and offering our own reading of words which runs counter to the teaching of the Church is simply a sign of disobedience to God's Law.

Maybe it falls down to your personal beliefs...Sola Scriptura, or not? Tradition is not part of my and many other Christian's beliefs.

The Roman Catholic teaching, like the Orthodox teaching on this is clear, has always been clear and there is no sign that it will change. For some of us that is a cause for sorrow - but an opportunity for humility and obedience.

...or an opportunity for unnecessary conformity to erroneous interpretational conclusions based upon certain passages.

 

[Polycarp1]

Dear PolyCarp1,
When you refer to the two purposes in marriage,the procreative and the unitive, I agree those must be the assumptions by what united as one flesh means .But as pointed out to you, the Genesis passage shows God created woman for man. This is a definite as Jesus points out in Matt 19 and Mark 10 with divorce, divorce is covered by Genesis 2 so that means a man and a woman, not just men and women. So one can’t then assume it isn’t as precise as it has been demonstrated by Jesus. So therefore I think your submission of normative rather than mandative is untenable. If God’s purpose is clearly one man and one woman and not an assumption of one man and several women, then one cant possibly add any variations man and man. Its not good applying other assumptions such as eunuchs either as celibacy is the only alternative given and quite obviously celibacy isnt even an alternative union, so the alterative to a man woman faithful union is no union whatsoever.

This is why it is a waste of time debating assumptions with those of us who believe the Bible is clear and unambiguous, and this is also why the church is splitting because it represents to us simply a major and fundamental disbelief, denial and departure from the apostolic faith.

Apparently you are working from a definition of "the apostolic faith" that I'm not familiar with, because issues of sexuality have never been deemed mandatory beliefs for salvation before people began suggesting that gay people didn't have to be ostracized from the church, that that was not in accord with Jesus's teaching about who might come to Him for salvation. I reread the Lambeth Quadrilateral recently; guess which of us is in an untenable state as regards what the primates set forth 100 years ago as the essentials of the faith.

As to David and Jonathan, the idea that a man may love another man more than a woman is of course what happened with the Jesus loving His disciples and the disciples loving Jesus above any other. The idea of sexual attraction or union between the two means people are approaching the passages from a sexual definition of love, not an agape one. So from a sexual orientation point of view Jonathan looks like a heterosexual, he had a son Mephibosheth, and David looks like a heterosexual, he had a wife. Indeed David’s sin was that he took Uriah’s wife. The idea that Jonathan and David had a sexual relationship reveals a motive that wants them to have had such a relationship, it is not seeking God’s revelation at all.

I asked a very specific question, Phinehas, which said not one word about homosexuality -- in fact, I very carefully limited it to what is said in Scripture and not what people might read into it. IMO, it is you and not I that is bringing fraudulent assumptions to the question.

 

[mattlock73]

I don't know what type of marriages, but homosexual relationships, as stated in the Boswell article were approved up until the 12 century.

Part of Boswell's claim (if not in the article), is that Gay marriage ceremonies were part of the Early Christian Church. The manuscripts eleventh-century Greek manuscript labeled Grottaferrata G.B.

Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Also, The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

Boswell is not a very credible source to use as even gay and lesbian Bible scholars claim that his conclusions are full of errors.

 

[davedjy]

Boswell is not a very credible source to use as even gay and lesbian Bible scholars claim that his conclusions are full of errors.

I've seen Scholars who have claimed to have problems with his work, but he did draw attention to the Greek manuscript of the same sex union.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Boswell is not a very credible source to use as even gay and lesbian Bible scholars claim that his conclusions are full of errors.

That is an ambiguous statement, if not slightly dubious: Simply because one or some of his works are flawed does not mean all of them are ... unless we're speaking of only one work; I'm not sure. Even then, watch out for appeals to authority; simply because a scholar takes issue with something doesn't make it wrong.

 

[Jerrell]

When we begin to discuss whether it is biblical or not for two homosexuals to get married WE have missed one big delimia. Which is that homosexuality itself contradicts the words of the Bible. Homosexual union cannot be proven/supported with the bible. Homosexuality by itself CANNOT be supported with the bible. Any real or true interpretation will always be against homosexuality. Why? Because God created man for woman and woman for man. The bible is very clear that homosexuality is wrong.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

When we begin to discuss whether it is biblical or not for two homosexuals to get married WE have missed one big delimia. Which is that homosexuality itself contradicts the words of the Bible. Homosexual union cannot be proven/supported with the bible. Homosexuality by itself CANNOT be supported with the bible. Any real or true interpretation will always be against homosexuality. Why? Because God created man for woman and woman for man. The bible is very clear that homosexuality is wrong.

No it isn't.

The Bible says nothing of the sort. You made that up, because thats what you WISH it said.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Anyway, its a really bad poll...

option4: Genesis neither defines, nor describes what or why a marriage is or should be