The Bible backs same-sex couples: Point by point, why the haters are wrong

[xchrom]

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/10/the_bible_backs_same_sex_couples_point_by_point_why_the_haters_are_wrong/



If the essence of marriage involves a covenant-keeping relationship of mutual self-giving, then two men or two women can fulfill that purpose as well as a man and a woman can. But is lifelong commitment between two adults sufficient for realizing a Christian basis for marriage? Or is there something unique about heterosexual relationships that prevents same-sex couples from truly illustrating Christ’s love for the church?

The first response one might make based on Ephesians 5 is that same-sex unions are necessarily excluded from a Christian basis for marriage because Scripture uses only heterosexual language when describing it. But given the widespread association of same-sex behavior with lustful excess in the ancient world, it isn’t surprising that the biblical writers didn’t contemplate the possibility of same-sex marriage. Our question isn’t whether the Bible addresses the modern concepts of sexual orientation and same-sex marriage. We know it doesn’t. Instead, our question is: Can we translate basic biblical principles about marriage to this new situation without losing something essential in the process? We need to determine, from a biblical standpoint, whether the essence of Christian marriage permits the inclusion of same-sex couples, or whether it necessarily involves the union of a man and a woman.

We know covenant keeping is essential to Christian marriage. But is gender difference between the spouses also essential?

The Call to Procreate

One reason many non-affirming Christians believe gender difference is essential to marriage is the obvious one: Only a man and a woman can biologically procreate. In Genesis 1:28, after verse 27 says that God created humanity “male and female,” we read: “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.’ ” Since same-sex couples cannot increase in number through biological procreation, does that prevent their relationships from fulfilling the Bible’s basis for marriage?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. The bible does no such thing.

What a tortured exercise in making stuff up. Should modern religious institutions jettison iron age prejudices encoded in the bible? Certainly. But don't pretend that the text agrees.

[skepticscott]

2. Another Salon hack

who hasn't the mental chops to distinguish between "backs" and "doesn't specifically condemn every aspect of".

Does this person even grasp that the exact same argument could be made to show that the Bible "backs" slavery? Unlikely. Why this drivel is taken seriously on a daily basis is a great MysterY.

[mr blur]

3. What desperate drivel

Lying for the "right" reasons is still lying.

[cbayer]

6. It's desperate drivel to counter the religious right's claims about

what religion says about GLBT civil rights?

What is desperate drivel is denigrating all things religious, even when it supports things you support.

Unless, of course, that support itself is a lie.

[skepticscott]

9. When the author has to employ dishonest and tortured arguments

to make their case, yes..it's desperate drivel. Why would the author try so hard to reconcile the Bible (a book no one should need to look to for moral authority) with same-sex marriage rights, if they weren't in desperate need to maintain the legitimacy of both?

And are you seriously going to add your voice to the accusations in this Group that the people criticizing anti-gay bigotry by religious groups are being dishonest, that they don't really care about gay rights or other progressive causes at all, but are only using them as an excuse to bash religion? Because if you are, that's truly despicable. Not to mention flying in the face of your incessant calls to find "common ground" in this Group.

I do hope that I'm wrong about that, but from what you've said here, it doesn't sound like it. Here's your chance to correct me and to repudiate that position.

[hrmjustin]

4. Interesting article.

[skepticscott]

5. Please do

Expand on that. Share your thoughts. It does seem like you have more to say.

[Iggo]

22. How so?

[hrmjustin]

23. Because it is interesting to see how different people interpet the bible.

[Iggo]

24. I guess "interesting" is one word for that.

[hrmjustin]

25. Well to a non-believer it seems odd and unnecessary but I find it interesting.

[Iggo]

28. More like sad and scary, but yeah.

[hrmjustin]

29. Well thats life.

[intaglio]

7. Another click bait headline from Salon showing only that the Bible can be shown to prove anything

From the first paragraphs of the article

One reason many non-affirming Christians believe gender difference is essential to marriage is the obvious one: Only a man and a woman can biologically procreate. In Genesis 1:28, after verse 27 says that God created humanity “male and female,” we read: “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.’ ” Since same-sex couples cannot increase in number through biological procreation, does that prevent their relationships from fulfilling the Bible’s basis for marriage?

From a strictly Old Testament perspective, that position has some merit. In Genesis 12–17, God established his covenant with Abraham. He promised to make Abraham “into a great nation” and to bless him with offspring as numerous as the stars in the sky (see Genesis 12:2; 15:5). When God reaffirmed this covenant with Isaac (see Genesis 26) and Jacob (see Genesis 28), he again emphasized his promise of physical offspring.

/snip

But the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus ushered in a host of transformative changes, and one of those changes is vital to our conversation here: Biological procreation no longer determines membership in God’s kingdom. Spiritual rebirth through faith in Christ does.

The actual narrative this article proposes is:
the Old Testament say, "Yuck, homosexuality, God hates that!" but the New Testament says Jesus!!!

Well, what was Jesus' attitude to the Law of the Old Testament?

Matthew 5
17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Luke 16
15 And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.
16 "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.
17 "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.

See, cherry picking Biblical texts is a game everyone can play.

[cbayer]

8. What's wrong with cherry picking?

It gives you the opportunity to take the good fruit and discard the bad.

Unless of course, you are only interested in picking the rotten fruit for some reason.

Only a literalist would say that cherry picking should not be done, imo.

[skepticscott]

10. The problem is that you have no religious justification

for deciding what's "good" and what's "bad", even though some religionists claim to have that wisdom from their "faith tradition".

[intaglio]

11. Because you can then use the Bible to prove any thesis you desire

Cherry pick and Pi=3
Cherry pick and you can see the whole world from a tall enough mountain
Cherry pick and Jerusalem suffered a zombie invasion at the time of the resurrection
Cherry pick women cannot preach or instruct or exercise authority over a man.

[cbayer]

12. So what? When the religious right has mounted the argument that

the bible supports their bigotry towards GLBT people, it makes perfect sense to try and counter that by providing a different interpretation.

Why would one object to that?

[intaglio]

14. So the bible can be used to prove anything

And so that book provides a good basis for faith?

The headline is click bait, claiming one thing i.e. the Bible as a whole can be shown to be non-discriminatory towards homosexuals; whilst actually claiming to prove another i.e. that Jesus changed that. The argument Vines uses is exactly the same as that used by the Christian Right to counter the claims of 7th Day Adventists - so it lacks even the virtue of originality.

[cbayer]

15. I'm not making the argument that it provides a good basis for faith.

That's someone else's fight.

The headline is an attempt to get people to understand that the religious right has used the bible to take a bigoted stance on a matter that is of great importance to democrats in general and progressive/liberal people in particular. It makes a case for countering that stance, something I would think we would share an interest in doing.

Certainly it accomplishes nothing, and may even be counter-productive, to attack things that actively go after the religious right and their bigotry towards GLBT people.

[intaglio]

17. An accurate headline would have been

Jesus included everybody in his message of Love -even Homosexuals.

It would still have been cherry picking and very open to dispute but it would have had the virtue of accuracy in respect of the content of the article.

[cbayer]

18. I like that as a headline, but I'm no editor

and your point is taken. They are looking for clicks - that's the business they are in.

Anyway, titles are often not written by the author, but by the editors of the site. I generally just let them be.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. why object? How about because it is intellectually dishonest?

Claiming that the bible says x when in fact you know it doesn't say x at all is an act of intellectual dishonesty. Worse of course, since most religious institutions are hierarchical authoritarian institutions that decree what is ordained truth to their followers, dishonest bullshit is being taught to naïve people who believe it is absolute unquestionable truth.

It would be intellectually honest to simply admit that the bible has little if anything in the way of truth or wisdom in it, that it is not the foundation of morality, and that we should use common sense and reason to understand how to live a good life.

[Leontius]

13. "not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished"

Missed the last four words there didn't you.

[intaglio]

16. Nope

Matthew 5:18
New American Standard Bible "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
New International Version
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
KJV
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Source Bible Hub

Though of course I could have used Bible Gateway

I could have reinforced the message by including verse 19:
"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.…

[Leontius]

20. The texts used are not your error.

[intaglio]

21. Then I suggest you read the whole of my post which included those words

and included them from the beginning.

Please read the final line of the Matthew 5 quote in that quote Please note there have been no edits of that post as can be seen from the edit history.

[jmowreader]

26. The Book of Leviticus puts the lie to this whole thing

Fred Phelps' favorite passage: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as with a woman, that is abomination."

Leviticus 20 (also known as God's Hit List) says in verse 13: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

A book that says to kill both partners in a same-sex relationship DOES NOT back same-sex couples!

[cbayer]

27. The author is making the point that some things outlined in the OT were rejected

by Christ, including gender roles.

There is all kinds of crap in Leviticus that even the most literal of literalists has to reject. To hang on to this one, while rejecting the others is hypocrisy.

It's a collection of books, imo, not a book that can stand alone. Too many contradictions and cultural influences.

[MellowDem]

30. Well it's not convincing...

And if I were to take the author's claim as true that Jesus did in fact reject gender roles, I'd then wonder why God went from promoting the stoning of homosexuals and calling them an abomination to saying they're wonderful people, when he's omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Who would want to worship that?

[Act_of_Reparation]

31. That's pretty much the argument many of us are making...

Last edited Mon May 12, 2014, 10:46 AM - Edit history (1)

It's a collection of books, imo, not a book that can stand alone.

Right. One book says one thing, and another contradicts it. That's why I feel you cannot make statements like, "The Bible supports gay marriage", because the Bible doesn't really support anything with any degree of consistency.

And you certainly can't say "The Bible supports gay marriage" when, as far as I can tell, the Bible doesn't even mention it. Nor, for that matter, should we expect it to. The kind of marriage equality for which we are arguing is a secular license issued and recognized by state and federal government(s). The books of the Bible are quite obviously products of their time, and this issue would have been utterly foreign to the people who wrote them.

[cbayer]

32. I don't disagree with you here.

Still, I don't think it's a bad idea to have counter-arguments and note the inconsistencies when the bible is used as the tool to justify bigotry.

The lines between the secular, civil partnership of marriage and the religiously based partnerships of marriage are not always as clear as you might draw. For example, the lawsuit filed by UCC and other religious groups in North Carolina last week was very much about the rights of religious organization and individuals to freely perform GLBT marriages.

I don't think you are doing this, but arguing for civil unions as opposed to full civil rights to marriage has gotten people thrown off this site in the past, as it should.

[Act_of_Reparation]

33. I'm definitely not arguing for civil unions

Just pointing out the distinction between the religious sacrament and marriage licenses issued by the state. I'll edit the post to make sure that distinction is clearer.

Thanks for the warning.