Does the Bible Alone Condemn Same-sex "Marriage"?

[Ursastar]

so do these self deluders take turns being the wife? or is one a TV

you fellas can’t you have Friendship without sex being involved?

Try celibate friendship.

 

[Digger71]

thistle:

Digger,

Do you deny homosexual acts are a mortal sin?

I’m not sure of your point. We are discussing whether the bible condemns same-sex marriage. As same-sex marriage is never mentioned, except in the case of Jonathan and David (which is debated) it is impossible to claim the bible discusses it.

What we have here is an argument from gaps. I like dogs a lot, and on my blog I talk a lot about teaching my dogs words and tricks. I have never mentioned elephants on that blog, or discussed teaching them tricks.

Do you take from this absense that I consider elephants to be vile, wretched and wrong? Or is it more probable that elephants are outside of my experience?

Further, just because I have never considered working with elephants, does this mean that later on I should never work with elephants if the opportunity arose?

Arguing from gaps by use of ‘reason’ is a very treacherous activity. I do not consider it reasonable to argue that a positive discussion of dogs is a negative impunement of elephants.

 

[Digger71]

tony_c:

What does the book of Genesis say about marriage? Gen 2:23-25
22
The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man,
23
the man said: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.”
24
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.
25
The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.
.

I seem to remember that taking the bible literally is not part of the Catholic doctrine.

Apart from anything else, the default gender is female.

 

[Ursastar]

it can never be a marriage between male and male because marriage is only for man and woman.
is the mother of God subordinate or Mary Magdalen, or was Eve created insubordinate, Deborah, Esther, Rebecca, Ruth, mother Theresa, Therese, Clare, St Catherine of Siena, Monica, St Julian of Norwich, St Non. The bible gives us dignity as our religion inspite of some people who are chauvinist and got it wrong.
The present pc IS demeaning. Are we honoured as wives? mothers? chaste women? or as male titillators? sex is meant to be holy self giving and open to the gift of life NOT a sordid self gratifying hobby/ amusement/ obsession/ false god? perversion.
Men have sex changes but their genetics remain XY not XX and they are wombless with a diffferent pelvic structure. They can never be women…and 2 men can never have a real marriage…it can never BE a marriage, only a masquerade of one.

 

[Ursastar]

if i say water is made from H 2 O, does that mean it can be made of HH ? H2 H / OO / O2 O2/ O2 O/ or H2 C/ C O2 or any yhing but H2 O. Nice try with the science bit mate. The devil quotes scripture and why not the pope too.
Stop bending the truth.

 

[Digger71]

Ursastar:

so do these self deluders take turns being the wife? or is one a TV

you fellas can’t you have Friendship without sex being involved?

Try celibate friendship.

I can partially answer this, as I now have many close gay friends.

The concept that a gay relationship is modeled in a straight one is simply the default thinking of heterosexual. The division of labour seems to depend on the individuals. One may cook and iron clothes, while the other cleans and fixes the electrics. Sexually any number of arrangements can occur. virtually everyone in on some scale such as top-70%/bottom-30%, or ‘pure versatile’. What they do with their partner depends on how that partner inspires them. So, yes, sexually there is ‘turn taking’ but not necassarily 50-50.

The reference to trasvesticism is just a reflection of heterosexist thinking.

The one good point you made is that you identified their love with friendship. While I know several lust driven or sensation driven gay men, I also know that the defining characteristic of these men is that in stable partnershps friendship is at the core of their feelings.

of course, you ask “why cant they be celibate?” and the answer is “why should they?”. Their friendships have a dimension ours do not. In my opinion they may even have a truer and deeper understanding of friendship than we do.

I should perhaps explain something here. I have several close friends of both genders and I realised some years ago that these relationships are deeply romantic though celibate.

It occured to me that perhaps my friendships, wonderful as I found them, were just pale shadows of real friendship. And that my insistance on comparing same-sex relationships to my straight relationship was a categorisation error.

So I concluded same-sex raltionships are the ultimate expression of friendship and comparisons to marriage are utterly sterile and wrong headed.

Well, that’s how I see it.

 

[M-Dent]

Digger71:

“why cant they be celibate?” and the answer is “why should they?”.

Because God only accepts such behavior in a valid Sacramental marriage. The marriage He clearly explained to us all. God doesn’t leave his people left dizzy in ambiguity.

1 Corinthians 7

1 Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,”
2 but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.
3 The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband.
4 A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife.
5 Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

The wonderful thing about being a Catholic is we do not have to rely on Scripture alone. Christ left his Church to teach and guide is.

Feel free to review the Catechism of the Catholic Church on marriage
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

It all comes down to the question, do you accept the Word of God? If not, you have to explain this to God not people.

 

[Digger71]

M-Dent:

Because God only accepts such behavior in a valid Sacramental marriage. The marriage He clearly explained to us all. God doesn’t leave his people left dizzy in ambiguity.
.

Unfortunately we do know that the scripture in englsih is much more strident than the original hebrew, at least where the OT is concerned. We also know the OT references were to paganism, not homosexuals. But dont let that bother you.

The Church, of course, is our guide, never the less, we have to be of good conscience as well, otherwise we fall in to the trap of legalsim and of following human tradition. I have in mind Mark 7:1-15.

Now as I understand it the Church does not revisit tradition but work on the principle that it has not been in error ever (that was the promise made), but that does not mean it’s message is perfected.

Finally, the references to marriage relate to male and female. Gays (which are referred to as eunuchs in elder time) were considered a third gender and the rules of marriage did not apply to them.

Some have posited political reasons for the Churches stance. Obviously the Church would never do things for political reasons, but the following is informative.

jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/921.htm

 

[thistle]

Digger71:

Unfortunately we do know that the scripture in englsih is much more strident than the original hebrew, at least where the OT is concerned. We also know the OT references were to paganism, not homosexuals. But dont let that bother you.

The Church, of course, is our guide, never the less, we have to be of good conscience as well, otherwise we fall in to the trap of legalsim and of following human tradition. I have in mind Mark 7:1-15.

Now as I understand it the Church does not revisit tradition but work on the principle that it has not been in error ever (that was the promise made), but that does not mean it’s message is perfected.

Finally, the references to marriage relate to male and female. Gays (which are referred to as eunuchs in elder time) were considered a third gender and the rules of marriage did not apply to them.

Some have posited political reasons for the Churches stance. Obviously the Church would never do things for political reasons, but the following is informative.

jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/921.htm

Its clear that same sex sexual acts are an abomination and a mortal sin. It obviously follows that same sex marriage is the same abomination.
Sexual acts are confined to a valid marriage of man and woman only (not man/man or woman/woman).
There can NEVER be a valid same sex marriage!!
To say the Church will never change its position for political reasons is wrong. The teaching will not change because same sex relationships are an affront to God.

 

[rlg94086]

Marrying dogs or elephants is also not mentioned in the Bible.

Digger71:

I’m not sure of your point. We are discussing whether the bible condemns same-sex marriage. As same-sex marriage is never mentioned, except in the case of Jonathan and David (which is debated) it is impossible to claim the bible discusses it.

What we have here is an argument from gaps. I like dogs a lot, and on my blog I talk a lot about teaching my dogs words and tricks. I have never mentioned elephants on that blog, or discussed teaching them tricks.

Do you take from this absense that I consider elephants to be vile, wretched and wrong? Or is it more probable that elephants are outside of my experience?

Further, just because I have never considered working with elephants, does this mean that later on I should never work with elephants if the opportunity arose?

Arguing from gaps by use of ‘reason’ is a very treacherous activity. I do not consider it reasonable to argue that a positive discussion of dogs is a negative impunement of elephants.

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

Marrying dogs or elephants is also not mentioned in the Bible.

Yes, another gap.

 

[Digger71]

thistle:

Its clear that same sex sexual acts are an abomination and a mortal sin.

Actually it is far from clear…thus the debate.

thistle:

It obviously follows that same sex marriage is the same abomination.

As the original statement is contended, logical deductions are like wise suspect.

thistle:

Sexual acts are confined to a valid marriage of man and woman only (not man/man or woman/woman).

Empirical evidence shows the statement is false.

thistle:

There can NEVER be a valid same sex marriage!!

Empirical evidence shows the statement is false.

To say the Church will never change its position for political reasons is wrong. The teaching will not change because same sex relationships are an affront to God.

And now you have said the Church will change its position for political reason and said it will not change.

I’m afraid you need to restate.

 

[rlg94086]

Digger71:

Yes, another gap.

It’s not a gap, but it shows the stupidity of the argument being made. It is pretty simple; they didn’t mention a prohibition of marriage for homosexuals or animals. Why? Because no one foresaw a day when the abominable sins of beastiality or intercourse between two people of the same sex would be accepted as a normal relationship.

Just because they didn’t spell it out for us, doesn’t mean it wasn’t prohibited. If a same-sex couple insisted on being married in 100 B.C., they would have been stoned to death. No doubt, Jesus would have told them to “go and sin no more.” To think otherwise, takes a leap out of the realm of logic and into fantasy.

 

[Ursastar]

i am a gay person /not homosexual but celibate hetro. At school we sang songs in which the word gay was used. These songs are no longer used.
When women who fornicate with women and men who fornicate with men and practise buggery call themselves married, the whole concept of marriage is changed for the whole of society. Married personally or not , I resent the atempt to have an obsenity compared to a holy institution and the fundamental concepts of something so profound, life giving and structurally essential for humankind changed.
so the forcible legislated shoving down the throat of the whole of society a new concept of marriage is not violence?
Buggery and fornication between a man and woman are not a consumation of marriage. of course you wull keep lying that it is.
Buggery is dirty. [Mod edit: feces] is dirty.

as to the division of labour and who is to be called wife, those are diffirent issues and diverge somewhat from the point. The whole notion of authentic marriage differs utterly from the sham you propose.

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

It’s not a gap, but it shows the stupidity of the argument being made. It is pretty simple; they didn’t mention a prohibition of marriage for homosexuals or animals.

Thank you. You have candidly attimitted the bible does not make specific reference. The accompanying bluster simply illistrates this.

rlg94086:

Why? Because no one foresaw a day when the abominable sins of beastiality or intercourse between two people of the same sex would be accepted as a normal relationship.

I think you need to consider carefully what you have said…‘no one’, are you perhaps telling us that God and/or Jesus didn’t know!!!

Naturally I am deeply amused by your conflation of homosexuality with bestiality.

rlg94086:

Just because they didn’t spell it out for us, doesn’t mean it wasn’t prohibited. If a same-sex couple insisted on being married in 100 B.C., they would have been stoned to death. No doubt, Jesus would have told them to “go and sin no more.” To think otherwise, takes a leap out of the realm of logic and into fantasy.

Of course what you are really doing is admitting the bible does not condemn same-sex relationships, and so resort to extrapolation. You then retro-port your extrapolation without actually realising that you are proving the point that there is no condemnation of same-sex relationships.

I am sure this seems reasonable to you, but it is really nothing but conceding the point.

 

[rlg94086]

Digger71:

Thank you. You have candidly attimitted the bible does not make specific reference.
Your welcome. My point, however, is that the fact that there is no specific reference is completely irrelevant.

I think you need to consider carefully what you have said…‘no one’, are you perhaps telling us that God and/or Jesus didn’t know!!!

Then Gnosis is guilty of the same when the following was stated:
“The biblical authors had a very different understanding of human sexuality than we do today, and this certainly affected their moral evaluation of sexual interaction. As I pointed out, they really didnt understand homosexuality, so how can we say that their evaluation of it applies to today?” I was responding to this sort of statement.

Naturally I am deeply amused by your conflation of homosexuality with bestiality.

Naturally, you don’t see that the issue is the same. If someone comes forward 500 years from now and says they think marrying a dog should be okay and there is no specific scriptural reference, they would be making the same idiotic point that you are.

Of course what you are really doing is admitting the bible does not condemn same-sex relationships, and so resort to extrapolation. You then retro-port your extrapolation without actually realising that you are proving the point that there is no condemnation of same-sex relationships.

Extrapolation? It condemns same-sex marriage because it condemns homosexual acts. How is that extrapolation? It’s common sense.

As I said, you are living in a fantasy world, where no logical reasoning is allowed. This is the problem with people who rely on Sola Scriptura to make moral arguments.

 

[rlg94086]

Digger71:

I think you need to consider carefully what you have said…‘no one’, are you perhaps telling us that God and/or Jesus didn’t know!!!

I want to further clarify my point. Of course, Jesus/God understood/understand the nature of homosexuality. The reason Jesus, even though he knew, did not say anything about same-sex marriage, is quite simple: there was no need to in 30-33 A.D. He has since made this teaching known, when it was needed - in the twentieth century.

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

Your welcome. My point, however, is that the fact that there is no specific reference is completely irrelevant.

Well, you are mistaken. From post 1 in this thread:

So, does the Bible alone condemn same-sex “marriage”?

This was the question, and as you so elegantly demonstrated, the answer is that the bible does not mention same sex relationships.

rlg94086:

Extrapolation? It condemns same-sex marriage because it condemns homosexual acts. How is that extrapolation? It’s common sense.

The bible does not condemn homosexual acts in the OT. All references refer to paganism, transvestitism or rely on one interpretation in many. In the NT pedastry (both the child nd the adult who uses them) is condemned. And there are many supportive staements which if taken as true, support a liberal view.

Reason and common sense are wonderful tools, but you actually have to start with accurate facts. Refer back to the hebrew and make sure you have accuarate translations. Make sure your empirical data is true.

My experience of these debates is that that stereotypes, discredited theories and arguing from conclusions is the norm.

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

I want to further clarify my point. Of course, Jesus/God understood/understand the nature of homosexuality. The reason Jesus, even though he knew, did not say anything about same-sex marriage, is quite simple: there was no need to in 30-33 A.D. He has since made this teaching known, when it was needed - in the twentieth century.

So, you know the mind of God and/or Jesus? That’s fantastic…

No wait, my mistake. It’s just another example of ‘explaining away’ the gaps.

Of course the 20th C has revealed a lot about our homosexual brothers and sisters. It has shown they are natural and normal, expected. It has shown that we areall made in Gods image, and that image is love.

 

[rlg94086]

I do. It’s called the Catholic Church. Jesus gave us the Church to provide such answers. The Church has been very clear that Same Sex Marriage is unacceptable. That is how I “know the mind of God and/or Jesus” and it is “fantastic” and there are no “gaps”.

Digger71:

So, you know the mind of God and/or Jesus? That’s fantastic…

No wait, my mistake. It’s just another example of ‘explaining away’ the gaps.

Of course the 20th C has revealed a lot about our homosexual brothers and sisters. It has shown they are natural and normal, expected. It has shown that we areall made in Gods image, and that image is love.