Is opposition to gay marriage biblically correct?
In Note to Chick-fil-A Bigots: If You’re Going to Quote God, at Least Get Him Right at Politicususa.com Hrafnkell Haraldsson says bigotry, not theology, is what is behind fundamentalist Christian opposition to same sex marriage.
God is very precise about a great many things in the Old Testament including men not shaving, but he is troublingly vague about marriage.
Nowhere does he come out and say in those clear, precise tones adopted by today’s religious bigots, “biblical marriage is between one man and one woman.”
Nowhere.
Let’s do a quick run-down…we have man + woman where bride proves her virginity or is stoned to death (Genesis 2:24); we have man + woman + concubines (Judges 19:1-30); we have man + woman + woman (the most common form of biblical marriage – polygyny); we have rapist + victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29); we have son-less widow + closest male relative (Gen. 38:6-10); we have male soldier + prisoner of war (Numbers 31:1-18, Dueteronomy 21:11-14; we even have male slave + female slave (Exodus 21:4) and man + woman + woman’s female slave (Gen. 16:1-6, Jacob Gen. 30:4-5) because of course, slavery is also permitted in the Bible – it is not condemned and forbidden, as some southern bigot wishful-thinkers have reminded us.
So admittedly, we don’t have examples of male + male or female + female marriage in the Bible, but we also don’t have any place that says that Biblical marriage is man + woman. Obviously, there are a great many variations. In a strict sense, all these examples above are of biblical marriage and fundamentalist Christians should be fighting for all of them, not only your basic man + woman marriage
Haraldsson declares himself a Heathen and a progressive liberal on his twitter site. His Politicususa profile dubs him a social liberal with centrist political leanings. He has degrees in history and philosophy.
Haraldsson weakens his argument with his own anti-Christian and anti-Republican bigotry: (emphasis added)
God helps those who help themselves is actually attributed to Benjamin Franklin, and like loving the sinner but hating the sin, goes against biblical teachings. The whole self-reliance thing is very popular and chic among conservative Christian Republicans these days but the Old Testament teaches that when you harvest your crops you leave some “for the poor and the alien” (Leviticus 19:9-10). Can you imagine a Republican urging farmers to do this?
No, I can’t either. They won’t even help put out the flames when your house catches on fire. Can you imagine Jesus standing by and watching a house burn?
I know volunteer firefighters who happen to be Republicans. I’m offended for them by Haraldsson’s bigotry. Some of those Republican firefighters are also politicians who have run into burning homes before Newark’s Democratic Mayor, Cory Booker did that, tweeted about it and told the media it was a come to Jesus moment.
I also know quite a few Republicans who are very charitable, leaving large sums for the poor.
Let’s be charitable with Haraldsson and look beyond his bigorty. Are his biblical arguments valid? Is same sex marriage a violation of God’s Word?
More from my site
Garden State Equality Launches Campaign To Convert Chick-fil-A Operators To Their Cause- Chick-fil-A and Amazon
Democratic Leader Wants No Religious Exceptions For Gay Marriage- Christie Drops Appeal To Gay Marriage Decision
Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day is an enormous success
Garden State Equality Claims They’re Close To Marriage Equality Overide
Chick-fil-A responds to Orlando massacre with free food at a blood drive
Gay Marriage and The Church
O’Scanlon Reiterates His Support Of Gay Marriage
Same Sex Marriage Bill Signed In Maryland
Solomon had 700 wives…as I’ve pointed out.
Poor bastard.
Solomon had 700 wives
And that was before the invention of name tags!
Hanukkah must have been quite a party at his house!
I do not mind people who don’t believe the Bible is the word of God. That is their right.
It is also their right to believe that what the Bible says is irrelevant to the debate about gay marriage. Certainly it can be argued the Bible has more to do with your personal behavior then with public policy. Then again in a democracy the personal convictions of an individual certainly impact public policy via the individuals vote.
I do get annoyed however when people, usually those with a poor understanding of the bible and its history, misrepresent what the Bible says. Why God in the Old Testament tolerates things like slavery and polygamy rather then outlawing them is a good question. There is a lot of speculation about that and quite frankly I do not know the answer, I could only offer speculation. I do know that the Bible never explicitly states that either practice is OK and the Old Testament regulates both activities in ways that protected the slave and the women.
With regard to polygamy it is clear that it was never the “ideal” and that Gods intention was one women marrying one man. Wherever the Bible speaks about the relationship of husband and wife it speaks in singular and not plural terms. Some examples, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife (not wives); and they shall become one flesh (not multiple fleshes)” (Genesis 2:24). We see in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives. This most definitely puts Solomon in direct disobedience against God. In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give “the husband of one wife” in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership.
One of the clearest statements on marriage that Jesus made was this
Matthew 19
3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,
5 “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6 “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
This analysis of marriage by Jesus seems to me to rule out polygamy as acceptable.
So I would have to disagree with Mr. Haraldsson that the Bible is vague about marriage or that Christians should be fighting for Polygamy.
As to Mr. Harraldsson’s slurs about the charitable instincts of Republicans it has been repeatedly shown that conservatives (who are usually republicans) and evangelical Christians have the highest rates of charitable giving.
In addition to the excellent post by MLaffey, I would add the following.
The problem with “gay marriage” is the definition and not necessarily the act.
When the Bible talks about people getting together for the purpose of sexual intimacy, it always refers to a man and woman.
The common law definition of marriage (man and woman) was derived in part from the Biblical pattern of marriage being a merger of the opposite sex into one.
There is no mention of a merger of the same sex becoming one.
Consequently, “gay marriage” is NOT Biblical because it is impossible – it does not exist.
The voting majority has no intention to prohibit civil unions or whatever anyone wants to call them, as long as no one tries to redefine morals by demanding a new definition for a historic, common law, and religious practice.
http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-Bible.html
Enjoy the topic and the forum.
It has been a long time, fueled by the arrogance of youth, since I felt in the least entitled to question anyone’s personal religious beliefs.
Since then I have seen the benefit to those in time of need as well as it’s constant help as an anchor and a rudder for everyday getting on.
The exception to what is basically a live and let live view of the issue of religious freedom or the primacy of anyone’s personal moral beliefs, occurs when children and the disadvantaged, male or female are involved. Unfortunately the record shows that abuse of this type occurs more frequently due to the actions of heterosexuals than homosexuals.
Next to child predators in order of infuriating behavior is when rights to religious freedom, moral correctness and assumed superiority are used as a probe, a tracer, or an all out barrage on the fringes or center of our form and substance of government.
The only results that ever come from mixing church and state are more clear, documented and unambiguous than any proof available in any version of the Bible as to whom God thought should be allowed to marry.
That’s why it is, was clearly stated to be, and should remain, an untouchable, no messing with principle.
PRINCIPLE, a word too often misunderstood, and more often misused.
Separation of Church and State, moral conclusion or belief allowed and just as steadfastly protected under that first cousin to religious freedom, Freedom of speech.
Pick your poison, support it to the max, yell shout, kiss and blather all you want, but don’t cross the line, play by the immutable rules you pay homage too every second bow you make if that is your heirachy.
May have been no burning bush present in the 18th century but there was certainly enough light to read by.
It is difficult to believe that Hrafnkell Haraldsson has studied the Bible. Not only is he confused about the Biblical meaning of marriage, he also has a distorted observation of the Biblical role of government.
He says “..when you harvest your crops you leave some “for the poor and the alien” (Leviticus 19:9-10). ”
Where does the Bible give permission to assemble a group of people to steal from one group in order to satisfy his fantasy of giving to his chosen group?
Concerning his fantasy Republican farmer, he would be surprised that most Republicans do not question gang stealing any more than Democrats.
Last I looked, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
“And the Lord FORMED MAN of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (Genesis 2:7)
“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man HE MADE INTO A WOMAN, and He brought her to the man.” (Genesis 2:21)
“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh …” (Genesis 2:22)
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)
Left unanswered is whether, after creating Adam, God saw some flaws and made some corrections when making Eve. (Women do outlive men).
The author says, “loving the sinner but hating the sin, goes against biblical teachings.” Apparently he has forgotten that the Old Testament (the Hebrew Torah) has, in the Christian sense, been updated with the New Testament.
Jesus, the Christ, came not for the righteous, but for the fallen, the sinners. Did not Jesus also reach out to non-Jews (Roman Centurion, Matthew, Chapter 8 ) and sinners (The Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well, John, Chapter 1 and the Adulterous Woman, John, Chapter 8)?
To err is human, to forgive divine.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/08/opposing-gay-marriage-is-rational-not-religious.
Interesting opinion appropriate to this article.