Originally Posted by BR
I think this is a complete diversion anyway. Gay marriage is no less wrong if someone chooses to be gay rather than if someone is born gay. It shouldn't fucking make a difference either way.
I never said it was "wrong." I said it didn't exist and shouldn't exist. As for choice, that matters quite a bit.
Getting back to the biblical thing for a moment...I don't want you to think I've ignored this, because I haven't (quite busy with other things today). All kidding aside, one reason I haven't answered specifically is that marriage is referred to as being between a man and woman on at least dozens of occasions.
No, gay marriage is not addressed specifically, nor will you find a passage that specifically
defines marriage. But this is because the concept of gay marriage is relatively new for most societies (as you noted, there are some where it was known previously. None of them have much to do with the majority of Western Civilization).
Secondly, I've been reluctant to start quoting the bible on homosexuality and marriage in general because my position is really not defined by my religion. In fact, I personally do not believe homosexuality is a sin while many other people of faith (Christian, Muslims, etc) do.
But since you brought it up:
Gen. 2:18, 21-24
The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'...and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (NIV)
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
1 Corinthians 7
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
Now, that is certainly not even close to an exhaustive list. My point in posting it is the number references to man and wife.
and even man and woman.
And what does the Bible say about homosexuality?Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
"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 [sic] of their error which was meet."
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."
The point is this: The Bible does not allow gay marriage, and is not exactly complimentary of homosexuality. It refers to men and women in a union, not men and men or women and women. This is all sort of an aside, because again, I am not arguing that the Bible is the primary justification for disallowing gay marriage. I'm saying that marriage has been an institution between a man and woman for a long, long time in our society and that redefining it to the core may lead to the destruction of the institution itself. This will not happen by allowing gay marriage alone. Instead, it will open the flood gates to all sorts of other alternative definitions. If we allow gay marriage based on the reasons presented, we have to allow all sorts of other definitions, which we've previously discussed. I just think it's better to avoid all of those problems by simply allowing civil unions.