Marriage = 1 woman + 1 man from the beginning of time/creation!

Well, yes and no and not necessarily so….“It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.”  Genesis 2:18  

Marriage, (the state of being united in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law) is just that, a law binding contractual state issued license.  I in no way want to minimize marriage (and as a huge believer in God and the Bible I say this with all due respect) but Adam and Eve were not “legally” married.  The very first civil marriage license ever granted was in the mid 1800’s   long after the Garden of Eden was home to Adam and Eve.  Of course, they were blessed, meant/created to be together and certainly spiritually united/married.  Nevertheless, the state did not grant Adam and Eve a license thus legal civil marriage was not born in the Garden of Eden. Furthermore, the fundamental basis for Adam and Eve’s relationship/marriage was that of companionship.  Therefore, (If you want to use God/the Bible in your anti-equality discussion), companionship (Gods original blueprint for nuptials) is the essence of marriage.  Adam and Eve enjoyed a spiritual marriage and one based on companionship (Malachi 2:14) – thus throwing away the argument that gays want to “redefine” traditional marriage because just as the very first “marriage”, we want and strive for companionship as well.

            Gays cannot procreate and marriage is about procreation!

    “And the two will become one flesh” Mathew 10:8 & Genesis 2:24 – Many scholars believe this verse is less about a similar mindset (joining emotionally, spiritually, mentally) and more so about bearing children.  There is no osmosis with flesh.  It is impossible for two fleshes to “become one” – when a male and female (both fertile) become one flesh the outcome is a new creation – (one child, same flesh).  That being said however, we have done that.  We went forth and multiplied (and now live in an overpopulated world in excess of seven billion people and growing) consequently resulting in our natural resources terrifyingly overextended.  This is not to say that the Word is not applicable anymore – absolutely not – but it does speak on the culture, needs and laws of the time.  Besides there are many that cannot/will not procreate, are all of these people out of Gods will? Some examples of such people include infertile heterosexual couples, gay couples, senior citizens, those choosing not to have children etc, are they all out of Gods will and condemned? 

    In my opinion, if there is any condemnation involved, it should apply to the moral high ground many disturbingly hold.  Opponents could care less if two drug dealers, two murderers, two child abusers, two con artists etc get married as long one has a penis and the other a vagina That is their SOLE criteria for codifying and legally defining a relationship. It is not about morality so much as exclusivity and marginalization of gays and lesbians. Side note; Gay couples can and DO have biological children as well. Being gay does not automatically destroy sperm and eggs.  Moreover, studies show that the children of gay parents are healthy in every facet of life…not because the parents are gay, but because their parenthood is (virtually always) deliberate. Lastly, one in every two thousand persons is born intersexed (biologically half male and half female), are all who are married half-condemned?  If the “go fourth and multiply/procreate” sword is used against marriage equality, it is not a sensible weapon.

    Speaking of God’s will, I often cringe when I hear people speak on his behalf regarding matrimony.  Let us take, for example, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach’s words used against Richard and Mildred Loving in the case of Loving vs. Virginia, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”  Personally, I would not want to speak for Almighty God, especially when it comes to the intricate matter of love.  We had better be absolutely sure we know Gods will because we will unquestionably be accountable for speaking on His behalf.  Similarly, we are told that marriage equality is not Gods original plan and therefore unnatural and against His design. Well I have already touched on this but since we are still speculating, allow me a few speculations as well.    If we are to say that any deviation/variation of Gods original plan is unnatural, here is some food for thought; 

–          Adam was created from the dust of the earth – Genesis 2:7.  I cannot speculate as to what color dust was at the time (dust usually has a grayish tint) however, whatever color it was I imagine was the skin tone of Adam (having been created from it).  He also could have been a reddish-brown as “Adam” means “reddish brown.” Are we to assume any variation in people’s skin color today is “not Gods original plan/design” and therefore they are unnatural/ against God?

–           Adam and Eve were without a naval (as no umbilical cord was needed).  Are we to assume anyone currently having a naval is “not Gods original plan/design” and therefore unnatural/ against God?

–          Genesis 7 tells us that animals of the time were lead on the ark to procreate and populate the animal kingdom.  Are we to assume any hybrid or variation of animal from the ark is not Gods ultimate plan/design and therefore unnatural/against God?

–          God’s original design was foreskin.  We now know that (in today’s culture/understanding and some religions) there are certain reasons and benefits to circumcision.  Are we to assume all circumcised men are “not Gods original plan/design” and therefore unnatural/ against God?

    I will stop here with the hypotheticals, as I am sure you get the point by now.  Many things may have been originally created and/or for the purpose/reason/culture of the time.  God however, created us (whether Gay, Straight, Black, White, Left or Right Handed, Blonde/Brunette or otherwise – “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” Jeremiah 1:5), with a mind and intellect to act accordingly and with fairness. Such intellect and fairness is expected especially in regards to progressive institutes such as marriage (“Do unto Others as You Would Have Done unto You” Luke 6:31).  In addition, many cultures have blessed same gender unions/marriages throughout history (Fujian’s, Romans, Galicia Spain, and ancient Greece to name a few.)

Lastly, Gods will for love is marriage.  Thus, if we want to stay in His will then perhaps banning divorce should be the goal, not discriminating against who wants in.  Side note: Massachusetts became the first state to legalize marriage equality and is currently a state with one of the lowest (if not the lowest) divorce rates in the country, an eyebrow raiser with today’s fifty percent (and rising) divorce rate.

Show me a Gay marriage in the Bible

If the logic of some who condemn gay couples is legitimate, (that since God did not mention other marriage models in Genesis, God must be against gay couples/marriages), we can use the same logic to prove any number of things, which are not true. Here is where such illogic takes us.

  1. The Genesis 2 marriage model says nothing about wedding gifts therefore God must be against wedding gifts.
  2. The Genesis 2 marriage model says nothing about wedding rings therefore God must be against wedding rings.
  3. The Genesis 2 marriage model says nothing about getting married in church therefore, God must be against getting married in church.
  4. The Genesis 2 marriage model says nothing about adopting children; therefore, God must be against adopting children.
  5. The Genesis 2 marriage model says nothing about gay couples therefore God must be against gay couples.

    Such “analysis” does not make sense. It goes against the inborn common sense we have as human beings. Reading into scripture, something scripture does not say and then teaching as doctrine, is false interpretation. It leads to wrong conclusions  If you are thinking the “Bible doesn’t mention Heroin either but we know it’s not good for us” than please feel free to click delete and move on.  Because red herrings like such are purely nonsensical distractions, I personally do not feel anyone should waste time trying to make sense out of nonsense and so I will not. 

Marriage is a religious issue and this is an infringement. 

    Civil marriage is not a religious institution but a legal one.  Religions are free to teach and do what they choose.  For example, a Jewish couple cannot stride into a church and expect to get married, but they can obtain a state issued marriage license. Divorced Catholics, although ineligible to be married again in the church, can still get a civil marriage license (fifty times over if they choose). The government does not issue bat mitzvah licenses, nor does it issue communion licenses. Those are matters of individual religious beliefs/choice. The state however, does issue civil marriage licenses.  Civil marriage has always been a legal or “law of the land” matter, since we let the non-religious marry, and always have. 

    I do however believe in religious exemptions.  I fully support the right of non-government funded religious leaders refusing to marry anyone he or she chooses for any reason.  Lastly, we must also consider the many faiths that read the Word and hear the voice of a more inclusive God and joyfully perform same-gender marriages. Are we not infringing on their religious freedoms by denying them the right to marry loving and committed gay and lesbian couples?

    In conclusion, once again, I must stress that I am first and foremost a born-again Christian (radical Jesus loving follower) and firm believer in the Word.  I live, eat and breathe biblical principles and try my best to follow its teachings and examples. Having said that, at the end of the day, we do not place our hand on the constitution to defend the Bible, we place our hand on the Bible to defend our constitution.  This is basis of our marriage fight; equal rights and protections as declared in the 14th amendment. 

    If I have not made my point ever so clear – one last time – there is a world of difference between a religious ceremony and a state-granted civil marriage license.  It is a matter of separation of church and state.  One is a legal document issued by the government, the other a personal choice of one’s belief(s).  Although politically I support separation of church and state, personally I pray fervently that all have a close relationship with their creator.  As for me, when I got married, a church service was essential.  Both my spouse and I are Christians brought up in the church.  After receiving our legal marriage license from the court house, our pastor was just as thrilled marrying my spouse and I (of ten wonderful years), in a beautiful church (including an incredible religious service and ceremony), as he was the heterosexual couples before and after us


Filed under Civil Rights, Discrimination, Education, Equality, Gay, Legislation, Religion

31 responses to “Marriage = 1 woman + 1 man from the beginning of time/creation!

  1. Stephanie

    A well-thought out piece. I especially liked your statement: God’s design for love is marriage. I think people are overlooking the spiritual significance of making that kind of commitment to someone in front of your family and friends.

  2. Diane

    Equal rights for equal situations. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality, therefore equal treatment under the law is not due. There is no argument here.

    • Herein lies the issue – your current mindset. I am saddened for the many you may come in contact with on a daily basis who you view as second class citizens.

      • Diane

        I don’t view myself (a same-sex attracted woman) or anyone else to be second class citizens…I do know that not all desires or relationships are equal.
        Please explain why equal rights for non equal situations makes sense. You say you are saddened by my statement but don’t provide any rational basis for changing my views.

      • Perhaps I do not understand your perspective. Please clarify for me how two legal, loving, committed, consenting, non-related, monogamous adults are not equally qualified for civil marital rights and protections?

      • Diane

        Jason…I do not see a ‘reply’ button under your latest comment…how do respond to it specifically?

      • Diane

        OK….I get it…I have to go up above your reply to the original ‘reply’ box to enter a reply to your reply to my reply:

        Heterosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality simply because heterosexuality is rightly ordered while homosexuality is not….(sort of like intrinsically knowing that having 4 limbs is rightly ordered and having 3 is not).
        What IS equal is that we all have equal dignity in our shared humanity. We are ALL of value to each other and to God.

      • We have heard the “rightly ordered” comment throughout history and in that regard I guess we will have to respectfully agree to disagree – especially when there is no sound proof and the statement is debatable at best. As with any matter of equality, I guess, being on the right side of history is in my corner. That being said, I am not comfortable categorizing Gods children and believe we are all the apple of our Fathers eye and created (not the same) but equal.

  3. Diane

    Regarding overpopulation: you can fit the world’s population into the state of Texas and each person would have as much room as residents of Brooklyn. We have plenty of room, resources, etc for all of us and more….the issue is not overpopulation but distribution. And anyway, if husband and wife have valid reason for not conceiving, there is recourse built into our bodies…women are both fertile and infertile, for this reason…(no sex while fertile incorporates the important lesson of sexual self-control, which is why it is superior to artificial birth control).

    Regarding marriage including procreation: by design, husband and wife are designed to procreate, whether they can or can’t (advanced age, disease, etc). Being open to life is certainly part of a valid marriage, something that homosexual couples can never be, due to the fact that sexually, men and women are not interchangeable.

    Regarding matrimony: the root for “matrimony” is “mater”…latin for mother, which tells us that by design, procreation is part and parcel of matrimony.
    Regarding God’s condemnation: we don’t know who goes to Hell or Heaven…that is God’s job to decide based on a person’s actions, repentance, etc and not ours to presume in any situation.

    • B.J.Simons

      Diane, I just wanted to add that you are being far too liberal with the “by design” wording. In no way is procreation “by design” part and parcel of matrimony, but rather, the word “matrimony” is by design part of procreation. Human language is not intrinsic, but rather a capability. Action precedes the existence of definition, and therefore, procreation has only been attached to marriage because of what those in the past have preached. I do not see too many animals getting married before they procreate and I certainly don’t see my neighbors dog asking for my hand in marriage before it tries to hump my leg.

  4. Diane

    You say that you disagree with me that heterosexuality is rightly ordered and homosexuality is not but you give no specifics in support of your statement. The gay community itself acknowledges my position by designating heterosexuals as ‘straight’.

    The proof that heterosexuality is normative and rightly ordered is grounded in the simple physiology/biology of our bodies.

    Are you denying the physical reality that sexually, men and women are complimentary?
    What do you mean, “the right side of history” with regard to gay equality? Can you give me some specifics?

    I agree with you that we are all the ‘apple of God’s eye’ if you mean that He loves us all. His love does not translate to approval of all of our actions, sexual or otherwise.

    Thank you in advance for your responses to these questions that I have.

    • Thank you for being patient with me. Our seven month old dictates when I am allowed computer time. 🙂 I will do my best to respond to your comments with the limited time our little angel allows.

      “You say that you disagree with me that heterosexuality is rightly ordered and homosexuality is not but you give no specifics in support of your statement. The gay community itself acknowledges my position by designating heterosexuals as ‘straight’.”

      I am not exactly sure of your point here to be honest and if there is one, unsure what it would prove. Further, thank you for giving the gay community credit for coining the term “straight” however the word and definition can be found in the dictionary – added long before gays had a voice.

      “The proof that heterosexuality is normative and rightly ordered is grounded in the simple physiology/biology of our bodies.”

      All bodies are normative (well, unless born otherwise) and thus rightly designed/ordered by God “before I formed you in the womb I knew you Jer 1:5”

      “Are you denying the physical reality that sexually, men and women are complimentary?”

      Absolutely not. Fertile male/females can choose to conceive for the purpose of child bearing thus making their bodies compatible for that purpose. If a male/female choose to intimately engage for pleasure, their bodies are complimentary. If two members of the same gender engage intimately, their bodies are complimentary for that purpose. There are things opposite gender couples can do that same gender cannot and vice verse. I am not sure that is a litmus test for who ranks higher on the human hierarchy. Besides, a tremendous amount of male/female couples cannot bear children and a blanket statement that “child-bearing capability/couples trump all” sounds a bit harsh – just my opinion.

      “What do you mean, “the right side of history” with regard to gay equality? Can you give me some specifics?”

      I was referring to the initial topic of my blog in regards to equal legal rights, responsibilities and protections with all American citizens. Many that stood and fought for equal treatment (Native Americans, African Americans, women etc.) were on the right side of history.

      “I agree with you that we are all the ‘apple of God’s eye’ if you mean that He loves us all. His love does not translate to approval of all of our actions, sexual or otherwise.”

      Agreed. The Father makes it clear His design for intimacy is love confined to the marital bed (marriage). No one is exempt or excluded from His guidelines.

      • Diane

        1. My point is that heterosexuality is rightly ordered and homosexuality is not.
        2. I didn’t say the gay community created the word ‘straight’. I said that they apply it to heterosexuals to indicate that heterosexuality is normative.
        3. I didn’t say anything about a body not being normative or incorrectly designed. I said that same-sex activity is not normative.
        4. Sexual pleasure runs the gamut. Sexual pleasure can be and is derived from a wide variety of actions but that does not make all of those actions normative or rightly ordered.
        5. Whether a couple can or can’t (due to age, sickness, etc) procreate does not undermine the reality that men and women’s bodies are complimentary.
        6. Framing gay rights as a civil rights issue does not work since being black, American Indian or a woman is not disordered.
        7. I can tell by your religious references about intimacy being confined to marriage that you believe in God. If you are a christian, what do you say about St. Paul’s admonitions against homosexuality in his epistles?

        I know you are busy so if you need time to respond…no problem. Thank you in advance for your responses. I’m glad we can have a civil discussion without personal attacks and derogatory terms. If it’s easier for you to respond to my personal email, then that’s no problem.

  5. Stephanie

    Oh my gosh. Honestly, I can’t believe that this even has to be debated. Diane, I appreciate that you have your beliefs; beliefs are essentially to our personhood, our self-worth, our sense of figuring out what’s out there…But I fundamentally object to your assumption that you can seriously have this discussion with Jason, or anyone. The implication is that you feel your definition of marriage should override the definition of other consenting, adult Americans. This is not your country alone, and it isn’t the property of those people who agree with you. This country is yours as well as Jason’s, and mine etc. In my view, you are not allowed to have this opinion, it may be your view that you would never enter into this kind of marriage. But Jason should be more than allowed to do so, with the full blessing, so to speak, of this country’s leaders. There is no justification whatsoever for permitting your ideas of marriage to overcome Jason’s.

    Besides this, I feel that your views are mean-spirited. Jason is a grown man who lives a good life, and it is completely demeaning for him to have to even debate someone about whether his orientation is a perversion – or whatever – or not. I disagree with the fact that you are continuing on this page to assault Jason’s whole life, who he fully believes he is inside. Isn’t it God’s role to judge? I am completely confident that if you were living as yourself and you were told by others that you as a person, something you cannot change, were living as a perversion, you would be devastated on a daily basis. This is why vulnerable teens commit suicide over their sexuality. Your outspoken views are damaging. Honestly, I believe they are just mean, mean, mean.

    • Diane

      1. Denying a discussion or a person’s right to have an opinion is very, very extreme..
      2. I’m not forwarding ‘my’ definition of marriage. It is the definition held by the majority of societies reaching back to antiquity.
      3. The definition of marriage that I support is simply the normative one…nothing radical about supporting what’s normative.
      4. Marriage impacts the health of society, which affects us all, which is why people are not allowed to arbitrarily design their own idea of marriage and have it accepted into law.
      5. If you say “I have no justification whatsoever for permitting my ideas of marriage to overcome Jason’s” then the reverse is true as well.
      6. You don’t know me so you could not possibly know if I am mean spirited. You are jumping to conclusions because I have a different opinion than you.
      7. Not all of our personal desires and attractions are correctly oriented. Just because a desire exists within us does not mean it’s automatically OK to act on it.
      8. Please show me an example of my having judged Jason? Judging (deciding who goes to Hell or not) is God’s job. Our job is to discern right from wrong and act accordingly.
      9. I do live as myself and the knowledge that my same sex attraction is not normative. And that’s OK, because as a religious person, I know that as a result of Original Sin, we are imperfect. This is not “devastating on a daily basis”. Not acting on my same sex attraction is a way to ‘take up my cross and deny myself” and align myself with Christ on the cross.
      10. I think human nature is resilient and provides acceptable coping skills in the worst circumstances (captivity, slavery, etc). Suicide is such a radical way of dealing with problems that serious mental fragility is responsible.

      • Diane

        You may be interested in others who live as themselves (like me)….
        check out and

  6. Stephanie

    I want to continue by saying that I do not speak for Jason at all, though I too, am a gay person. I was born and raised in a wonderful family, in a New York suburb. I was a good kid who never set a foot wrong, got good grades in a school, who loves her family. At some point, when I grew older, I discovered I was gay. I have had a similar discussion with someone recently, a Catholic, who engaged with me in a highly philosophical, theological debate about whether I was acting like a pervert. Essentially. My belief is that you are either ill-informed or disregarding of the current science of sexuality. All the leading experts in the relevant fields recognize that homosexuality is just the same as heterosexuality, it follows the same sort of development. This is why your views, and those of the Catholic I spoke to, are so damaging, because you’re going around telling people that they themselves are a perversion, basically. I could let this sort of thing get to me, but I learned long ago to chalk it up to fear and the inability to expand your heart to embrace and include those people who are different from you. The whole point of our existence is love, love and more love. I too am struggling to live out this mantra every day.

    • Diane

      Homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality. They do share common characteristics (a sexual component, emotional attachment, etc).
      Your position that ‘they are the same’ would require that men and women be interchangeable, but they are not. They are complimentary….simple biologhy and a cursory glace at our bodies bear this reality out.

  7. And I thank you for our discussion as well. There are so many responses here, I’m not sure if they are getting placed correctly. Anyway, it is clear that you think I lack understanding/revelation and I the same. I would say that I feel sorry that you deny your natural/normal intimate feelings but it would certainly not change much. I believe our orientation is insignificant to the Father (Galatians 3:28) and His concern is our relationship with him. Did you know in certain Native American cultures gay and lesbian Indians were revered? Although I am saddened that you deny a significant part of who you are, at the same time however, I completely respect your path in life. We all have our individual journeys and one of the biggest lessons in life is learning what that is. God bless you for following what you believe is your authentic self/path.
    As for your previous post I absolutely do not think anything God designs is disordered so again, we agree to disagree and as far as Paul’s writings please check out some of my resources I mention in “Unapologetic Gay Christian.” God bless you 🙂

    • Diane

      1. To “deny myself” are words of instruction taken directly from the NT. We are to “deny ourselves and take up our cross” in order to follow Jesus. It means it will be hard to be His follower and we will have to not do things that we want to do. So for me as a same-sex attracted female, i will not act on my desires that go against God’s plan for humanity.
      2.Gal 3:28 refers to all being able to be a follower of Jesus, regardless of whether we are male, female, slave, non slave, and yes, same-sex attracted or not.
      It in no way gives the message “Jesus approves of people acting on same sex desires”.
      3. Native American spiritual beliefs are not something that I am interested in emulating, as they are not christian.
      4. You are right: God’s design of humans (his blue print so to speak) IS perfect. The result, though, is affected by Original Sin, which is why we are imperfect (prone to sin in all areas or born with an abnormal physical condition of some kind)..
      How else would you explain our tendency towards laziness, greed, or having down’s syndrome, etc? Behaviorally, babies are born self-centered and people have sinful impulses…does this mean that God put those characteristics in us and is OK with us acting on them? No. They are to be resisted and not acted upon, even though the desire is there.
      5. I read “unapologetic Gay Christian” and didn’t see how you would refute St. Paul’s admonitions against homosexuality. Could you explain? Thank you.
      6. Jesus himself does talk about marriage in the context of man and woman in Matthew. Also, St. Paul’s admonitions against homosexuality are valid because St. Paul speaks for Jesus, as did all of the Apostles.

      If the blog comments are too cumbersome, you can send your response to me at: Thank you in advance and take your time if you are busy. I happen to be in my home today which is why I was able to respond so quickly.

      Have a good day.

      • Stephanie

        Wait, you believe having Down’s Syndrome is a sin??????????????????????? Or a result of Original Sin? Wow, Diane! It follows that you probably won’t be swayed by this little factoid: did you know that homosexual behavior has been observed by scientists in almost 1500 different species from primates to insects, and everything in between? It’s a fact of nature, not something to be ashamed of 🙂 I’m glad you could take part in this discussion, but I personally will be hoping that for your own happiness, you will eventually accept, and embrace, who you are. You were made just how God wanted you to be, there is nothing wrong with you 🙂 This is a diverse and wonderful world, and I for one am thrilled about that! Because it makes life so interesting.

  8. Diane

    Hi Stephanie,
    1. I didn’t say that having down’s syndrome was a sin. I said that we are imperfect due to the effects of Original Sin.
    2. As for homosexuality occuring in nature, of course it does….in many species including humans. That it occurs in nature does not mean that it is normative. Having 2 livers has been seen in nature (in humans)…that does not mean it’s normative.
    3. I embrace diversity in many ways. That does not mean I have to pretend that men and women are interchangeable. just like I don’t accept that polygamous marriages are OK for kids…embracing diversity does not mean embracing error.
    4. Because you are same sex attracted, you are simply unwilling to accept the reality that men and women are complimentary and instead, are trying in vain to forward the error that they are interchangeable.
    5.As for happiness, I feel that life on Earth is a test and the happiness will be at the end if God takes me up into Heaven…so I’m willing to defer personal, earthly happiness in order to do God’s will instead of doing my will and being at odds with God’s plan for humanity.

    Thank you for your responses.In this self-satisfaction driven society where talk show hosts and newspaper columnists promote recreational sex and satisfying sex lives, etc, I know I sound different…there are a bunch more like me, like

  9. Pingback: Gay Marriage in the Book of Genesis | DARREN MAIN

    • Diane

      I didn’t mean to get into the realm of religion…my issue with normalization of homosexual acts was more about logic since all of the arguments that I hear are emotional and not based on logic…the whole thing about what’s normative and why we are being compelled to treat something that is not normative in the same way that we treat something that is normative.

      But now that we are on religion:

      As a Christian, I know that the NT (new covenant) supercedes the OT (old covenant) which is why I focus my question on the NT:

      how do supporters of homosexual acts square their support in light of St. Paul’s clear admonitions in his various Epistles, knowing that St. Paul speaks for Jesus?

      For religious bodies whose faith and morals come only from the OT, it is clear that the OT does not support homosexual acts and ancient Jewish tradition upholds this view.

      Jewish or christian-styled groups in support of homosexual acts is a modern-day phenomenon…they essentially create their own brand of Judaism or Christianity, picking and choosing which beliefs they will keep and which they will not..all of which comes from personal interpretation of Scripture/religious history.

      Many people today ‘shop’ for churches in order to find one that conforms to their already held beliefs…careful not to settle on a church that would demand personal sacrifice that would interfere with the person’s ability to live the way they want.
      Sort of like shopping for a religion to fit the person rather than the person accepting the tenants, beliefs and demands of a religion…not the best way to find truth.

      • “Diane” I had written a pretty lengthy reply but decided to delete it as it is clear we respectfully agree to disagree on our interpretation of the sacred text. I receive countless emails daily and know when to say when. I completely respect your understanding/interpretation of scripture, as well as the path you have chosen in life to follow. Again, I encourage you to read/study some of the links I have included in and under “Unapologetic Christian.” I will conclude by saying what I personally believe, and hope that my personal beliefs are respected (as are yours). I fundamentally believe attraction and love is from God and normal regardless of its host. To me, that’s not only biological, it’s logical. As for Paul speaking for Jesus, Paul (once Saul of Tarsus) was a missionary as many before, and after him were/are. Paul was human, as we all are. Many Christians speak for Jesus; some speak in your corner, others in mine. Again, I wont get into a lengthy discussion of the epistles here, please take a look at some of the resources provided on my blog if you’d like. Lastly, I think it is, at times, healthy to “church shop” so to speak. One must not only go where they are getting fed, one must go where the spirit leads and sometimes that takes leg work aka shopping. For example; I used to be a literalist and attended a church that taught as such. I have since moved away from that logic/understanding/belief and with it came a church move. Bottom line, what is critical is striving for, working on and maintaining a close relationship with the Father – pursuing/knowing Him and his hearts desire for you, His child. If this is the goal, our convictions will guide us on our destined path. I wish you all the best in life and look forward to continuing this conversation over tea, in Heaven 🙂 God bless you, Jason

  10. Diane

    I think you are leaving out an important part of Jesus…the issue of authority…which is VERY important and referred to many times in the NT and church history.
    1. Paul speaks for Jesus with authority, which is why his letters are part of the NT. Your view that any christian (with no apostolic succession) speaks with authority for Jesus is no where to be found in the NT.
    2. Yes, Paul was was human, but he was infallable as far writing of his Epistles, which is why they are included in the NT. The NT contains no error…
    3. “My” interpretation of Scripture is not mine…it’s the Catholic Church’s….the same religious body that used it’s authority in the year 390 in a council to decide which books where included in the NT and which books where not.
    Why do you accept the authority of the Catholic Church to have decided what were included in the NT but then do not accept that same authority for interpreting those books? This point illustrates the illogical view of non Catholics.
    4. When we interpret Scripture personally, we always can legitimize our own views and desires…always. The NT warns against this. The fact that people all have the same NT yet come up with different and competing beliefs/teachings is proof that personal interpretation of Scripture is an error.
    5. You even said yourself in one of your posts that you are not an expert in these matters of Bible/doctrine. All of what you have said about homosexual acts in Scripture is personal opinion and no where supported in the NT…only if one resorts to the error of personal interpretation will your views be supported.
    6. I think you want to believe attraction is from God, but the NT and church history just do not bear out your view on this. There are rules for attraction in the NT….what if I were attracted to someone else’s husband and everyone involved was OK with that? Would that be from God?? I know some people are attracted to things that are very obviously not “from God”…I’m sure you know that there are dark attractions that are not from God, consensual or not.
    7. That you still will not admit that heterosexuality is normative (a scientific and physiological fact that is clear even to a 5 year old) shows how you will simply not admit to truth..mostly likely because you have attraction outside of what is normative and can’t admit to being in error, because then you would have to be strong and celibate…too hard for you to face.
    8. Thank you for your time. The times that I have been able to “dig down” to see how people “in your corner” justify their views…it always turns out the same: support of gay rights based on emotion and some sort of personal connection, denial of clear biological truth and personal interpretation of Scripture…always always these same defense mechanisms in every case.
    9. Take care and God bless!

  11. Diane

    Jason…I saw this and thought of you. My response to Piers Morgan would be “be happy by living a heroic life of celibacy” or “happiness is doing God’s will not our will”, or “I want my child to be holy and happy…not just happy”.

  12. Thank you for the link. I would have liked to see reputable research cites to the authors extreme statements regarding the gay community. That being said, as always, I respect everyone following their God-given conscience whether that be marriage or celibacy.

  13. Jason, I noticed that when you quote scripture you take them out of context. For example, Genesis 2:18 is quoted, but not verses 24-25 – just in case your Bible doesn’t contain these verses, here they are:

    22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

    23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

    25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

    Also, you quoted Matthew 10, but there is also a 19th chapter in Matthew and a few of the verses from Jesus (of whom all CHRISTIANS are named) and he says in verses 3 to 5

    3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

    4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

    5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

    I’m not here to condemn you, but to ensure that the TRUTH of God’s word is correctly portrayed so as not to deceive or confuse those who read it.

    • Hello Ken and thank you for browsing my blog. I hope you are using your time on my blog to be enlightened/informed and not just scanning it to quickly pick out what you disapprove of. And yes my Bible does carry the verses you mentioned. I mentioned that precise verse in the very first sentence of my second paragraph. Did you read the entire post?

      Regarding Mathew 19 I didn’t feel it was relevant to include this verse as Jesus was answering a specific question on divorce asked by the pharisees, not giving his thoughts on gay marriage. I however want to thank you for writing as you have proved one of my previous posts: that we ALL Cherry-pick the Bible

      I don’t debate here on my blog, this was a one and only courtesy. I hope you return to read and it as I’m not here to condemn you, but to ensure that the TRUTH of God’s word is correctly portrayed so as not to deceive or confuse those who read it.

      – Jason

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s