ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

A Christian Precedent for Same Sex Marriage -The History of Marriage and What it Means Today

Updated on November 23, 2012
Wedding Bands
Wedding Bands

The question of marriage has been going back and forth a lot in the news lately. In questioning current events, it is always important to look at how we got here. What is the history of Marriage? Where did it come from? What does it really mean? These are a few of the questions I mean to explore here, and hope that you join me in considering what is going on right now.

Note about the author: Daniel has a BA in History and is working on his Masters in History and Education.

What Are Some Key Points Covered?

1. Marriage was not created by Christians.

2. There are Christian precedents for same sex marriage. There is a history of same sex marriage in the Christian Church that people do not discuss.

3. A short explanation of Christian restrictions to marriage over time.

What is not covered: I will not go into detail on verses that clearly say to love thy neighbor, to love people, to not judge, and to be a good human being because even though a lot of 'Christians' do not abide by these, true Christians do. Also I will not go into a discussion about some of the strange and antiquated laws of the bible such as in the picture below, though it is an interesting point to ponder.

Bible Rules People Constantly Break
Bible Rules People Constantly Break

What does "marriage" mean?

Literally, the modern English word for marriage comes from marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife. The definitions of marriage have come and gone, ever changing.

Many marriage norms have existed throughout the world. In some societies an individual is limited to being in one coupling at a time, while other cultures allow males to have more than one wife or a female to have more than one husband - due to women's rights issues throughout the world most of the time this last one is seen as taboo as it would give women a lot of power. Some societies have (and now do) allow marriage between two males or two females. Societies frequently have restrictions on marriage based on the ages of the participants, kinship, and membership in religious groups or class groups.

Elephantine Papyri Sheet
Elephantine Papyri Sheet

The First Accounts of Marriage

Sumerians, over 5000 years ago, were the first instance of marriage that we know about. There were laws about marriage - however these laws were not the same as they would be in... most places. The "best man" needed to be the best to fight off relatives who would try to keep the bride from being kidnapped and rescue her. The Romans, who thought most things uncivilized, most certainly found this to be as well and created laws that made sure both bride and groom entered into marriage of their own free will.

The history of the marriage certificate - or contract as it was at this time and would continue to be for quite some time - starts 2500 years ago. This was found in a bundle of Aramaic papyri which was in the ruins of a Jewish Garrison at Elephantine Egypt. This was a contract that shows us that the groom got a 14 year old girl in exchange for six cows. Marriages were investments in life so they needed to be well paid for and contracted, this would continue for quite a while and would end with the dowry slipping away from marriage.

Shrine Wedding
Shrine Wedding

Japanese Marriage: Shinto

Marriage ceremonies became solidified in the Jomon period which is 14,000-300 BC. Shinto teachings consider marriage to be one of life's rites of passage. In ancient customs the couple is introduced to the ancestors by reporting the marriage to the ancestors before the household Shinto altar, and to the community by a banquet held by the family. At the start of the last century formal ceremonies were held at Shinto shrines or Buddhist temples.


Chinese Marriage

In traditional Chinese thinking, people in primitive societies - which all else were, like the Romans felt - did not marry and had sexual relationships with each other indiscriminately. Such people were thought to live like animals because they did not have the concept of a true family and filial piety, or the match-making and marriage ceremony. Part of the Confucian mission of civilizing people (like Rome, again) was to define what it meant to be "Father" and "Husband" and teach people respect of the relationship between family and to regulate their sexual behavior. Chinese culture in older times was often male oriented with Confucian sentiments of filial piety and obeying the father, so without clear distinctions everything would go to uncivilized chaos.

Handfasting Knot
Handfasting Knot

Celtic Marriage: Handfasting

Handfasting is an ancient Celtic ceremony of wedding that comes from pre-Christian times as well. The term is derived from the verb to handfast, used in Middle to Early Modern English for the making of a contract of marriage. Each family member and friend ties a knot around the wrists or hands of the pair and then they are 'handfasted'. This is the origin of the phrase "tying the knot" - the ceremony is tying/binding the hands of the pair together with a cord or ribbon.

Saints Sergius and Bacchus
Saints Sergius and Bacchus
Saints Sergius and Baccus
Saints Sergius and Baccus

Same Sex Marriage in Christianity

Did you know there was same sex marriage in Christianity? Furthermore did you know there were rites for all the ceremonies, prayers for same sex couples, and more? You may be skeptical, but I will outline and give sources for you.

A quick example would be the Saints Sergius and Bacchus from the 7th century who became martyrs because they were tortured to death for refusing to attend sacrifices in honor of the Roman god Jupiter. They were erastai, or lovers who got married "in the sight of Jesus". In the image to the left is what this statement arises from. The image shows Jesus as the 'best man' or witness to the wedding.

Historically speaking, Churches were storehouses of information so many historians go to Churches to examine old documents. Historian John Boswell has been able to collect around 70 manuscripts that show that same-sex couples were able to get married and show that they were in a relationship.

Here are some quotes from some 13th Century Documents:

A Prayer For Same Sex Marriage Ceremony [Greek inserted for clarity]
Forasmuch as Thou, O Lord and Ruler, art merciful and
loving, who didst establish humankind after thine image and
likeness, who didst deem it meet that thy holy apostles
Philip and Bartholomew be united, bound one unto the other
not by nature but by faith and the spirit. As Thou didst
find thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus worthy to be united
together [adelphoi genesthai], bless also these thy
servants, N. and N., joined together not by the bond of
nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit [ou
desmoumenous desmi physeis alla pisteis kai pneumatikos
tropi], granting unto them peace [eirene] and love [agape]
and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts every stain
and impurity and vouchsafe unto them to love one other [to
agapan allelous] without hatred and without scandal all the
days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and
all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine.

Another Prayer:
O Lord Our God, who didst grant unto us all those things

necessary for salvation and didst bid us to love one another
and to forgive each other our failings, bless and
consecrate, kind Lord and lover of good, these thy servants
who love each other with a love of the spirit [tous
pneumatike agape heautous agapesantas] and have come into
this thy holy church to be blessed and consecrated. Grant
unto them unashamed fidelity [pistis] and sincere love
[agape anhypokritos], and as Thou didst vouchsafe unto thy
holy disciples and apostles thy peace and love, bestow them
also on these, O Christ our God, affording to them all those
things needed for salvation and life eternal. For Thou art
the light and the truth and thine is the glory.

Source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.asp
Source of the source: John Boswell, Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, (NewYork: Villard, 1994)

There were ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century). These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

The History of Same Sex Marriage is rich and full of history, such as the Byzantine Empire in 867, Paris 1667, Dalmatia in 18th century, and a lot more. With a little research you should be able to find a lot of it.

Marriage Restrictions: Early Modern England

What are some ways that marriage has been restricted? There are a vast number of ways actually. Primarily in earlier times it was by class. A king would not marry a peasant. A Noble wouldn't even marry a peasant. The social order would become completely undone if the king, queen, or a noble married anyone beneath them because it would ruin the social order and the movement of assets between families and interrupt the Great Chain Of Being - God, the King who is God's instrument on earth, the Nobles who are given power to do the Kings work, and the peasants who serve the nobles. Gods rights can not be undone to take away the social order.

Marriage Restrictions: Race

1800s America. Picture it. The gold rush: America finds gold and will become rich. Other nations find out about it and send people over. China has a stream of people go to California and Australia for gold to make a new and better life for themselves. Other nations follow as well.

Soon, the Americans - white people - start to get angry that the Chinese are in such a high number. They start complaining that they work cheaper and are taking all the jobs. Australia, finding a similar problem starts to interchange ideas with California and they both use each other as precedents to escalate actions against the immigrants. This gets us to the marriage restrictions.

Plots of land would be next to each other, so we start to get letters back and forth between white neighbors about how "the animals" are looking in at their property and they want it, and they want their children too. Interracial marriage starts to circulate as "beastiality". "I will never talk to my daughter again because she has borne children from a beast" states one letter.

It is interesting to note that these days the common argument is "if we allow same sex marriage, we might as well allow incest and beastiality"... It's nice to see how times have changed.

For more information on racial inequality in history, please read the wonderful book.
Drawing the Global Colour Line: White Men's Countries and the International Challenge of Racial Equality (Critical Perspectives on Empire)

http://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Global-Colour-Line-International/dp/0521707528

Marriage Restrictions: Same Sex

So, if there was a history of same sex marriage in the Church, where did this come from?

This requires look at a few things. The first of which the word Sodomy. Let us deconstruct the meaning of this, without graphic detail. Sodom, after Sodom and Gomorrah. There is no explicit mention of any sexual sin in Ezekiel's summation of Sodom, and "abomination" is used to describe many sins.

In Ezekiel 16, a long comparison is made between Sodom and the Kingdom of Israel. "Yet you have not merely walked in their ways or done according to their abominations; but, as if that were too little, you acted more corruptly in all your conduct than they." (Ezekiel 16.47 New American Standard Bible)

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. (Ezekiel 16.49–50)

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

"Giving over to fornication" denotes whoredom. "strange flesh" refers to the giving themselves over to "the nature of man" if you look at the Greek.

Outside the Bible there is Josephus:
“About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, in so much that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices”

So, what did sodomy refer to in the Bible? Corrupt governments, selfishness, whoredom.

How did this turn into "same sex coupling"?
Roman Emperor Justinian I, in his novels no. 77 and no. 141 declared that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them. He also linked "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences" upon cities as being due to these "crimes" during a time of recent earthquakes and other disasters. Some knew that he was able to use the anti-homosexual laws he enacted upon personal as well as political opponents in case he could not prove them guilty of anything else.

So because Justinian had no other way to attack his opponents he had to create a way that he could, and it so happened that he was able to use this well to his advantage. Even though this happened, there were still same sex marriages after this.

Today

Strangely, today Christians use the statement that 'since before time marriage has been between a man and woman' yet we clearly see that there were marriages in other cultures that did not know Christianity. Furthermore even within the Christian faith itself there was same sex marriage even though the Church has done a lot to cover this up.

In considering what our values are as Americans, I think that we need to start being more logical and less ignorant. Is same sex marriage bad because God says it is, or because a few people say it is? Could the dreams of many be continuously crushed by the few people who dislike gay people, or are afraid of their own sexuality? How is this different from not allowing African American marriage between African Americans around the times of slavery? Or even interracial marriage later? What about not allowing marriage between classes? How is this any different from any of these?

Intolerance and ignorance can only be perpetuated by not understanding that people can lie, mislead, and do bad things in the world. Do some research for yourself - read sources yourself. Look at where people are getting their information before making up your mind about an issue. Change the cycle of ignorance.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Rodric29 profile image

      Rodric Johnson 2 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Thank you for sharing such a secret experience with God in such a public place where criticisms abound.

      I had such a similar experience save I did not go into the presence of God but God's presence visited me. The missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints came to my house and told me that God was real and that I could talk to him. I had never heard such a thing--that I could talk to him and he will talk to me it.

      Linda Missionaries left my house I went to my room and I kneel down to ask us if he was there and I had the most spectacular experience they receive a witness and God is there. Now, I pray often and I am often reminded of the great love that I felt when I played the first time and I know that God lives. I also know it my personal experience with prayer and receiving answers to those prayers that God still speaks to men.

      I have also studied Joseph Smith's life and his teachings, I have read the Book of Mormon, which converted me to Christianity. I wrote an article about it it sure did with the world. I also prayed and asked him his father is the teachings of Joseph Smith are true. Answer me affirmatively that Joseph Smith was truly one of his servants and authorized to teach his gospel and do all those things that he did do. I do not understand all the things that have been with you and what a review and why they were allow but I do know that God does not lie and I will not deny that he is these things he has also revealed to me that Thomas s Monson this also a process of his and that he speaks his words.

      My face does not diminish but it only adds to it your testimony of God and my testimony of the we come together to help those who do not believe that there is a God theology the opinions of each person is all the ology if it is not the revealed word of God that can be confirmed the Holy Ghost then it is all folly of men.

      Of course, God loves all of us God loves us no matter what we have done how we have done it and when we do it. Loves us unconditionally but he will not acept send in one degree of allowance. That is why you sent His Son Jesus Christ to suffer for our sins so that he will not have to if we just acept. I do not believe in a permanent hell but that all people will go to heaven and be in the presence of God in 1 degree or to another.

      So, I believe your experience with God. I believe your testimony that you will one day return to his presence I do not see those things as being in conflict with God's laws.

      We just disagree on whether or not a particular thing is or is not talked in the Bible. A large aspect of your life is considered in this debate so therefore it is very deeply personal.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Rodric29,

      When you study the origins of the Bible, as I have, and you go back over the many thousands of years that these documents were written, several things become very clear...we don't have a complete and final copy of what was written during any of these ancient times. Go back to the King James translation, go back to Wycliffe, go back to Origen, back to Theodotion, to Jerome, to the Vetus Latina, to the Septuagint, to the Hebrew texts copied in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and you find that nothing exists from the time of Moses but what was handed down orally. We can correlate many of these documents archaeologically and with supplemental historical documents elsewhere, but this is insufficient when it comes down to minute details, especially when we only have fragmented words in such passages as Leviticus 18:22. When this document is copied by the scribe who then brought it to the community of Qumram in the time before Christ, nothing exists of the passage that the "cherry pickers" love to refer to in their rants against homosexuals. Of course, we do not have the entire text, because there is much decay, and we have only portions of the book. But several things become evident.

      One, when one reads the Leviticus copy at Qumram, called the Temple Scroll, it deals with building a Jewish temple that was never built. If this scroll was so sacred, if it was genuinely inspired by God, then why was that temple never built? God does not make mistakes. Why would he tell these ancient people to build something that was relevant to them only, then not make it possible for them to achieve this? And when one reads the lists of rituals, the sacrifices are pagan, borrowed from such cults as the Phoenicians and others in the world of that time. Study the Gudea cylinders which pre-date the writing of Leviticus, and note the similarities in their rituals. Such rituals today would seem extremely pagan and nonsensical.

      Two, such ancient books, relevant ONLY to that time in man's history, are being used today by people who should know better. These ancient Jews sacrificed their children to Molech, yes, Jews, as they looked to other religions for answers. And we are to copy them?

      Three, Jesus set us free from these ancient rituals of Leviticus. Thus, the New Testament. People like to abuse the writings of Paul to abuse homosexuals, but Paul did NOT speak against homosexuals. Further, Paul is not Jesus Christ, nor did he ever study under Christ. He studied under the first generation disciples, but he leaned almost entirely on his training as a zealot Pharisee and a Stoic. His writings are only valuable as one who tried to use his legal mind to further the cause of Christianity, but we must be careful of applying everything that Paul writes, because Paul was extremely influenced by his Pharisaic and Stoic studies, and he believed the world was going to end in his lifetime and urged people to live accordingly.

      Four, I often say to people, "If your Theology conflicts with God's reality, then you need to revisit your Theology." I know with all my heart that I am a child of God. Read my hub "Does God Exist," and you will see that I had an out-of-body experience when I was younger, and I was taken into the presence of God. So, if anyone believes in The Creator, it is I, but because I was born homosexual, I had fallible and imperfect people teaching me in my original denomination that I was not loved by God and was doomed to Hell. How could I be condemned by the very One who welcomed me when I was in Heaven during that experience? To make a long story short, when man's Theology conflicts with God's reality, guess which one I am going to choose? I struggled for many years trying to "pray away the gay." Utter nonsense invented by ignorant people who would rather worship an ancient passage in a book that is fragmented and irrelevant, and is only anti-homosexual when misinterpreted. The reality is that I commune with God daily, I know He loves me, and I love Him. I know and am assured of my reward when this life is over. While I was out of my body and in Heaven with God, I was told that I would return there, so I know my destiny is to be with Him when I leave here. Thus, no man-made idiocy is going become a substitute for what God revealed to me.

      You can argue from Joseph Smith's writings, which I have studied thoroughly and completely reject, you can go back to fragments found in Qumram and find no mention of Leviticus 18:22. You can wrestle with the obvious questions of why something supposedly authored by God did not come to pass. You can study the writings handed down from Leviticus 18:22 and see what is historically the real meaning, which is a prohibition against worshiping Molech, not a prohibition against homosexuality. You can study the history of homosexuality in ancient cultures, even in the time of Christ, and find that there was no prohibition against homosexuality in those times. You can even study history and find that anti-homosexual prejudice was invented under the reign of Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century and trace its evolution from there...fact! But one thing becomes very real to me after all of my decades of intense scholarly study, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, God does not condemn homosexuality, God is real, He loves me the way He made me, I love God, and I accept His gift. You can wrestle with your prejudices all you want to, but they are man-made, and they conflict with God's reality. Thus, you need to revisit your Theology.

      Brian

    • Rodric29 profile image

      Rodric Johnson 2 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      I am glad to hear that we share a belief that God does answer our prayers. I have had my prayers answered in some very mysterious ways. I think the only way that we can reconcile the difference is that we have is by turning to God and letting him director paths.

      This is apparently a delicate matter between us two and many others who have posted here. I think that we have posted out of pure emotion and not out of charity in many cases. I am working on my charity and trying to become more like Jesus Christ. I do think that we should love one another and help each other the best way to that we can draw closer to God through His Holy Spirit and His pure teachings.

      Jesus Christ teaches in the Book of Mormon when he appeared to those people in the land Bountiful near their temple that the spirit of contention is of the devil who is the father of contention.

      And he teaches all men everywhere that they should contend with one another in anger.

      Jesus says, this is not my doctrine to teach men to contend in anger with one another but that such things should be done away with.

      It almost seems as if anytime there is a good conversation going on during one of these hub articles there has to be contingent in order for it to be paid attention to. We are in a sad state of affairs when such things become the only things that interest us. I found that I was drawn into the argument because there was contention. I'm ashamed but I can learn from this experience.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Rodric,

      Do I believe that God will reveal the truth? Absolutely! Your arriving here was no accident. When we ask God for guidance, we are sometimes (unreasonably) expecting the answer to come with the trumpeting of angels, or at least with some kind of fanfare that shakes us. But God, as we are often taught, moves in mysterious ways. I was born and raised in Fundamentalism with a great future in my church denomination, but God had other plans beyond what I could understand at the time, and He led me out of the denomination I was born and raised in. I went through great periods of doubting my decision to leave the church of my birth. After all, I was a zealot like Paul, a true fanatic. Looking back, I am positive that God did indeed answer my question of whether to stay in my church or leave it. So, when you are seeking God's answers, you need to be ready for them, no matter how He delivers them. Remember this, when our Theology conflicts with God's reality, we need to revisit our Theology.

      Brian

    • Rodric29 profile image

      Rodric Johnson 2 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Okay, say I accept all that you have to say about the subject. Do you suppose that God will reveal to me or anyone who asks that what you teach is true?

      Do you believe God will confirm by the Holy Spirit what you teach?

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Rodric,

      You speak out of both sides of your mouth. With one side, you denounce homosexuals carte blanche, while out of the other side you soft-peddle it and use the "love the sinner-hate the sin" approach. You have stated clearly that you are against the rights of homosexuals to marry. I'm sure you are not so bereft of common knowledge as to not know that when homosexual couples live together, they are taxed higher than heterosexual couples, they cannot visit each other in the hospital if one of either of them is terminally ill, and I have even seen where homosexual couples who lived together in committed relationships suffered unbelievable sorrow after one of them died. Why? Because the family of the one partner came with a court order, dug up the body of the deceased, and took it to another state and reburied it in a private family plot. And you want to deny them the rights that you have, all because of WHAT? Because they don't act like you?

      I do not believe that your "prophet" speaks for God. You can, if you want to, but I do not. I only worship one prophet, and that is the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

      Furthermore, your equation that those who cannot reproduce should not marry rules out heterosexual couples, like my sister and her husband, because they have medical conditions that prevent them from having children. By your thoughtless legality, they should not be permitted to marry. And what about heterosexuals who simply do not want children? Should they not be permitted to marry either?

      For your information, sex outside of marriage was enjoyed all throughout the Bible by many of the most prominent names in biblical history...NONE of it condemned anywhere in the Bible. If you need help reading, start with Abraham, the father of Israel. Sex outside of marriage is never condemned as a sin, no matter how shocking that may be to you. Fornication is a mis-translation of the lowest cast of prostitution, the pornoi. Paul did not condemn the higher professions of prostitutes, the middle-class auletrides and the highest-class hetairai.

      You are NOT the mouthpiece for God, and for you to say that God Himself has condemned homosexuality speaks volumes. Once again, YOU do NOT speak for God! God speaks for God, and He has left plenty for us to study, not just the Scriptures, but the realities of life. God loves His gay children as much as He loves His hetero children. You erroneously think that gays chose to be gay, and that is the biggest sin for which you will answer to God, because it directs your passions against your fellow human beings.

      Any religion can use their religious freedom to deny religious marriage ceremonies within their churches, but civil marriage is a right that should be extended to all citizens, because to do less is not only bigoted discrimination, it denies hundreds of legal rights that are afforded to only heterosexual couples, all of which is completely unfair and unjust.

      God did not make this planet a private club for heterosexuals only.

      Brian

    • Rodric29 profile image

      Rodric Johnson 2 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Brian, I am not bringing sorrow to the lives of Gay people because I state that Gay Sex is not a holy sacrament.

      Heterosexual sex is considered a sacrament to many major belief-sets because of the sacred nature of the act in the production of life, all life--gay life.

      We all come from the same place, a woman who was impregnated by a man. Just because the government endorses acts that do mot continue the species does not justify us doing it today.

      Nothing positively benefits the community from the union of a homosexual couple. Life is the benefit of a hetero sexual couple

      I am not against people! I am against sin. I have to repent everyday. Being attracted to the same sex is not the sin. The sin is acting on that attraction and using the natural parts that anatomically connect men and women for other things than procreation and unity in family love.

      A homosexual relationship is 100% selfish, because it does not improve society. It is purely about sex and lust, just like those who do not marry of the heterosexual persuasion but open their legs or plant their seed to the wind.

      God condemns it all. It is not just homosexual sex, but premarital, extramarital and unmarried sex.

      Thanks for introducing me to the history of fornication. The appellation stands. It describes unmarried sex perfectly. Just like adultery is against God's law, so is sex outside the committed marriage of a man and a woman.

      Now, I am still reading the book, which is one among many that I read. I must inform you again that I know that God still speaks through prophets today.

      God in these modern times has condemned homosexual relationships, premarital relationships, unmarried relationships and extramarital relationships where sex and intimacy occur.

      It is easy to debate the dead prophets words who are not here to clarify. The living prophets today reaffirm God's laws just because people would twist the Bible trying to justify sin.

      Thomas S. Monson is God's mouthpiece today. He affirms that God supports ONLY marriage between a man and a woman and any sexual relationship outside of this is sin.

      Now, are you willing to seek out if that is the truth or will you dismiss it like you claim others dismiss the book you want us to read.

      If I prayed about that book, what would God reveal to me?

      You never answered if you believe God still speaks to us.

      I don't want to continue in strife. It is against my faith. We will have to agree to disagree about same sex marriage.

      As far as that book is concern, I am reading it. I am open to the spirit, but I am also open to modern revelation.

      Read The Family: A proclamation to the World

      It is the most recent statement from prophets about the family and was revealed in 1995 before all of this tumult when people thought it was common knowledge that marriage meant a woman, a man, and some kids.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Rodric,

      You cannot make Jesus say what He did not say. Christ was asked a legal, and spiritually tricky, question about a man's property rights, vis-a-vis, a man's wife. Just because they didn't ask Jesus about computers does not, therefore, give one the right to say Jesus condemned computers. Homosexuality was so much a part of the accepted culture of the time of Christ, any questions regarding homosexuality could have been easily brought up and discussed...and they never were. Your oblique reasoning is nothing more than reading into scriptures what is not there, all in an effort to back uour unfounded prejudices. Your prejudice is a choice, sexual orientation is not, and for you to continually work to bring sorrow into the lives of gay people because of that prejudice is, in itself, immoral.

      Brian

    • William Dugat profile image

      William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

      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?

      6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

      Focus on those verses.

      I understand completely that the verse deals with divorce, but it also deals with homosexuality. It does not speak of homosexuality in the verse, true, but not mentioning it is what proves my point. It does not say "he shall cleave to his husband," does it? It does not say he made them to be male and male or female and female, does it? It does not say that a man shall leave his two fathers or two mothers, does it? No. And rodric brings forth a great point. God created sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction. Gay couples can't reproduce. Therefore, any sexual acts between same gender couples is sinful.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Rodric,

      The word "fornication" is just another of many mistranslations in the Bible. The word Paul uses is "porneian," which refers to the lowest class of prostitutes in his day, the "pornoi." They lived and died in the streets, living and dying in horrible conditions. The entire subject is covered in the book I mention, since all of Paul's relevant writings are completely and thoroughly examined under extremely demanding and scholarly methods. Without studying ancient Roman and Greek history and culture, one cannot begin to fathom what Paul is referring to when he lists the ills of his society, many of which do not exist today. The pornoi were the lowest class of prostitutes, and Paul spoke against them, but there were successively higher classes, all of which Paul was completely familiar with, and Paul never even mentions these classes. One has to study the conditions in which the pornoi lived to understand Paul's condemnation of their profession. For example, they had sex in the open in the streets, earning barely enough for a small meal. They got pregnant and either raised their children to become prostitutes, or killed their infants so that they could continue unencumbered in the prostitution profession. And as Paul was a strict Pharisee, the sight of a man's penis displayed in public was a tremendous shame (one of the ways prisoners of war were shamed was to parade them publicly in the streets naked). Men who frequented the pornoi displayed their male genitalia in public, thus adding to the shame of the pornoi and their profession.

      There is more to the Scriptures than anyone can ever read at surface. It takes deeper study, and that is why I tell people to read the book I mentioned with regard to this subject. Further, males marrying males was very common in the days of Jesus and Paul, including the example of same-sex marriages by many of the Roman emperors. People who like to say that marriage has always been between a man and a woman simply do not know their history.

      Prejudice is always based in ignorance, and people love to claim that the Bible backs their prejudices. The Bible has been used to suppress women, Blacks, Jews, Mormons, and many more, Whenever anyone wants to wave the Bible around to justify their bigotry, they look foolish, because Christ set the example of acceptance and love, which bigotry and prejudice certainly do not. The Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality, so when you take the Bible out of the equation, what do you have? Naked prejudice and ignorance exposed for what it is.

      Brian

    • Rodric29 profile image

      Rodric Johnson 2 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Aside from being a double minority and ignorant, you have not addressed anything besides reading the book. I could say the same thing about reading The Book of Mormon.

      It took 1000 years to compile and abridge, but people still say it is fiction and a work of Joseph Smith.

      I read everything you write. It is apparent that you are not reading my entire post. I voted this hub up, not because I agree with it, but because of the issue it puts before us. I am speaking for marriage between a man and a woman, not against homosexuality.

      If you tell me not to speak against it, I will respect that. I thought this was a place of expression of opinions without fear of insult, but I am wrong.

      I read the first three chapters of the book. I own a copy it. I am still reading the book. I do not speak Hebrew but I know people who do.

      Besides that, I mentioned that I know God still speaks to prophets, and the modern prophets say that God condemns all forms of fornication. Same gender marriage is just another form God condemns.

      All the information given by Wayne Gray about the poor treatment of gay people is true. No one deserves to be poorly treated for a hormonal drive and treated like animals. God gives us our weakness so that we will turn to Him; and He in turn will make our weakness strengths.

      Yes, I did refer to this biochemical process that occurs naturally in the brain as a weakness to work with such as any other natural desire that does not fit into the commandments of God.

      I am an avid reader of the scritptures I am confident, particularly the Bible does not support gay marriage.

      There is a plan of happiness and gay marriage does not fit into the purposes for which God Created us. Neither does porn, smoking, drinking, fornication of any kind, and a number of other sins.

      Same Sex attraction is NOT, I repeat NOT as sin! Fornication is however. Since God only sanctions marriage between a man and a woman, gay sex will never be a holy sacrament.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Rodric,

      Because you do not know Hebrew, when you are reading the Old Testament, you are relying on the translations of others. Further, if you do not study ancient history and culture, you cannot fully understand even the meaning of the English translations. You show that you are NOT a scholar when you so blithely dismiss the work of scholars simply because they go against your religious "choices." If your religious "choice," your religious "lifestyle," contradicts historical fact, deal with it. Fact is truth, prejudice is falsehood. You truly need to read the book I mentioned before you make such denunciations of facts. The book I mentioned took forty years of intense scholarly research to produce. It thoroughly relies on the original Hebrew and Greek, as well as ancient texts that were written at the same time as the Biblical passages of that time (which is already more than you will ever do), and because you have not read it, but disagree due to your prejudices, you make yourself look extremely ignorant to denounce what you have not even taken the time to read. How clever to simply say that the author is trying to make religion fit his lifestyle. How totally ignorant! You make your prejudices fit your lifestyle! If anything makes a person look like a fool, it is to dismiss scholarly research as flawed because it goes against one's prejudices. You so remind me of the Church and its morons who tortured those who dared to suggest that the Earth revolved around the sun...the Church leaders all "knew" that the sun revolved around the Earth. Ignorance is bliss, but arrogant ignorance is pure stupidity.

      The full and complete explanation of the correct translation of the passages you rely upon for your bigotry are found in "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." Keep making yourself look foolish by flying in the face of fact. I have a degree in Theology, as well as Hebrew and Greek. I know fact when I see it, and I know prejudice, unfounded prejudice, when I see it, as well. Anti-homosexual bigotry is against Scripture, and it is out of the will of God. God did not make mistakes, and for you to sit in the seat of judgment and condemn those who love Jesus Christ, follow the will of God, and just happen to be gay, shows that you do not know what you are talking about.

      Finally, talk about your absurd assertion that a constitutional amendment would be something you would applaud, the same could be said of the laws that made your religion free from persecution by other prejudiced people. Think about what you wish for. Someone might just want persecution of Mormons "re-legalized."

      Brian

    • Rodric29 profile image

      Rodric Johnson 2 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      I am reposting this. I never got a response from anyone:

      It has been a while since I stopped by I read the article again and I assume that you have changed it or my intelligence has decreased so much that I cannot see what I pointed out before. I see a more assertive undertone in you're here and I am already forming my counters to your research. I voted it up again, but again I disagree with you premise that marriage was not between men and women.

      Since I am not a traditional Christian, a Mormon, I agree with you that the church, the Catholic church or the Greek church, I assume that you are referencing one of the big bishoprics after the apostles, may have couple men together. I have several explanation for those prayers and interpretatons that could explain the unions since in our church we have those same unions between the sexes called missionaries. The go out two my two for 18 months to two years.

      Also, the apostles in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are sealed in a lifelong brotherhood until death and even after. The church to which you refer could have coupled holy men together as ambassadors of Christ for life.

      Another view is, just as ancient Israel backslid, the church could have backslid and allowed practices that were not authorized by Christ for a time before it was realized.

      The Bible is very explicit about its commandment for men and women to multiply and replenish the earth, the purpose of marriage besides a man cleaving or connecting with a woman. There is no place in the cannon, the Bible that states that the command given to Adam and Eve was revoked by Christ or anyone else.

      I currently and reading the Old Testament. Deuteronomy is very clear that men are not to lie with men. It did not say anything about women but most understand it to be the case also. Even in the New Testament Christ again reaffirms marriage as the act of two people, a man and a woman united with each other and no one else--one woman and one man. There is no sign of polyandry there. There is much evidence of polygamy in the Bible, but that is another story.

      Now, I have not provided any source because I want to see where this disucssion will go first before I start tying to show examples from the Bible.

      Let it be known, I do not base my faith on any book. I use them as tools. I use the Bible as one tool and I have many others that assist me to back my beliefs. My beliefs are based on my experience with my faith.

      Knowing that, it makes it easier to see where I am coming from so it is easier to argue with me. Also, because I believe in modern prophets and revelations I am very open to change. I doubt same - gender marriage will ever be sanctioned by God because of what he has revealed, but I am not going to say I know, because in Mormon history it is alleged that men have been sealed to other men as servants forever. Generally speaking, sealed means marriage in a temple for time and eternity.

      For broader Christianity this is an interesting and eyebrow raising article, voted up!

      Oh, and by the way, I live by most of those laws that you posted on the board. In fact, most faithful LDS Christians do. They are not requirements to be considered good in the church, most of those things are.

      Oh, remember LDS Christians believe God still talks to prophets so some things like eating shellfish or pork are no longer issues since Christ and new health codes exist.

    • Rodric29 profile image

      Rodric Johnson 2 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      I am Mormon; I don't drink coffee!

      It is fine that you think my religion is flawed. I think it is perfect. It teaches me to love ALL people though I often fall short of that goal.

      I love my country. I love my fellow Americans. I would not want Selma to happen to any group. I do not consider marriage a civil right. It is a religious institution that the government decided to get gain in my issuing licenses.

      An amendment to the US Constitution could change all that has happened and I would support it.

      I have read the Bible and the reports and essays that claim that it does not teach about homosexuality. I have agreed to disagree about that, but I did consider all the perspectives.

      The book you mention proves only that people will try really hard to make religion fit their lifestyle. The only proof can come from God.

      I mentioned that Jesus is alive. When will you ask Him if it okay for two people of the same gender are considered acceptable to His plan of happiness.

      You know what I believe. If you want to know what God thinks, ask Him. Unless you don't believe in God that way. Either way I cannot and will not condemn you or anyone else.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Rodric,

      Your "religious" beliefs, flawed as they may be, are choices that you freely make, but those "religious" choices should not have any influence on the civil rights of fellow human beings. I may personally feel that your Mormon "cult" ( a view held by millions) is against God and an abomination, but I will still defend your right to choose that religion.

      To point out one of your errors, polls show that the majority of Americans SUPPORT gay marriage, not the other way around. Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend. Tolerance and unity is in, prejudice and bigotry are out.

      Brian

      P.S. Take the time to read the book, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." It is the first book to absolutely prove with irrefutable and verifiable fact what the title states. Either you will read it to learn the truth, or you will argue your prejudices without any attempt to genuinely learn. The choice is yours. People who claimed the Earth was flat did the same.

    • Rodric29 profile image

      Rodric Johnson 2 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      I suppose my comments will not be welcomed in this leg of the discussion. You all see to forget that Jesus is not dead. He lives. Has anyone sought what He has to say about all of this?

      I am a Christian and believe in modern revelation. I attend The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter=day Saints (Mormons). God's laws have not changed just because they are not endorsed by mortal governments.

      So, Gay people marry now. That means nothing to the law that marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. It is God's law. The government endorses sin, so what. That is nothing new. That also does not mean that it is okay mistreat Gay people because of the type of sin they commit. The rest of us commit sin and noone is discriminating against us for our lie or fornication.

      I don't need to express my opinion of another person's life unless I am asked to explain why I believe a certain way by that person. It is otherwise unwanted. I can live with that. I have friends and relatives who are not married but still have sexual relations. I don't feel a need to throw that in their faces--even if some of them claim to be Christian!

      What I do feel a need to do is uphold all of our rights to have differing opinions. It is what makes this nation great. Once we start limiting on group, we limit ourselves as a whole, though I would vote for marriage between a man and a woman if given the choice again because it is what I know to be correct.

      I do not personally believe the government should be trusted to protect voting rights any more since it took away our voting rights by overturning all bans voted for enforced by the majority. People forget that the majority of US citizens are against same-gender marriage.

      Now that LGBT has this privledge, until it is taken away by an amendment, I will uphold the law as long as it does not try to force my church to disavow its teachings because of it.

    • Rodric29 profile image

      Rodric Johnson 2 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      I suppose my comments will not be welcomed in this leg of the discussion. You all see to forget that Jesus is not dead. He lives. Has anyone sought what He has to say about all of this?

      I am a Christian and believe in modern revelation. I attend The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter=day Saints (Mormons). God's laws have not changed just because they are not endorsed by mortal governments.

      So, Gay people marry now. That means nothing to the law that marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. It is God's law. The government endorses sin, so what. That is nothing new. That also does not mean that it is okay mistreat Gay people because of the type of sin they commit. The rest of us commit sin and noone is discriminating against us for our lie or fornication.

      I don't need to express my opinion of another person's life unless I am asked to explain why I believe a certain way by that person. It is otherwise unwanted. I can live with that. I have friends and relatives who are not married but still have sexual relations. I don't feel a need to throw that in their faces--even if some of them claim to be Christian!

      What I do feel a need to do is uphold all of our rights to have differing opinions. It is what makes this nation great. Once we start limiting on group, we limit ourselves as a whole, though I would vote for marriage between a man and a woman if given the choice again because it is what I know to be correct.

      I do not personally believe the government should be trusted to protect voting rights any more since it took away our voting rights by overturning all bans voted for enforced by the majority. People forget that the majority of US citizens are against same-gender marriage.

      Now that LGBT has this privledge, until it is taken away by an amendment, I will uphold the law as long as it does not try to force my church to disavow its teachings because of it.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      William,

      The answer is very simple. Jesus was asked a question about divorce, not about sexual orientation. The question concerned property rights, which in those days, was what a wife was. Jesus, in his answer, is elevating the role of the woman, from equal to cattle, to worthy of love and respect. The discussion most assuredly had absolutely nothing to do with sexuality, and even with the most distorted and perverted interpretation is never a commentary on homosexuality, nor even heterosexuality, for that matter.

      Brian

    • William Dugat profile image

      William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

      And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

      2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

      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?

      6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

      7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

      8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. - Matthew 19:1-8

      There is a new testament scripture right there that proves homosexuality is a sin. I am not prejudiced, I follow the bible. I am a baptist, I go to church every Sunday and Wednesday, I am saved and baptized, and I participate in community volunteer work on a regular basis. I am by no means prejudiced. Do not tell me my sin before correcting your own. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." You are not without sin nor will you ever will be. I don't need to see the word "condemnation" specifically. I know it is a sin, and it is said on multiple occasions that it is.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      William,

      If you read the book that I recommended, you would see that homosexuality is NEVER condemned in the Bible...anywhere...anytime...period. But, you would rather cling to your prejudice than study to learn the truth. It is easier for you to live in judgment of those who are different from you and to condemn them simply because of their being different, rather than learn that your prejudice is a sin.

      Leviticus 18:22 does not say men shall not have sex with one another, nor does it say that such action is an abomination. It begins with the words "vet zachar," which means "and with a zachar." The entire chapter is a discussion of the worship practices in the temple of Molech, and these worship practices revolved around the fertility rituals that involved sex of all forms. One of the referenced activities was men engaging in ritual sex with the male temple prostitutes using the zachar, a penis replica. The word that is often mistranslated "abomination" is "toevah," which means "ritually impure." To become ritually impure, such as from touching a dead body, meant that the person who was toevah had to bathe in the mikvah, the ritual cleansing pool in front of the temple, before being permitted to enter. Toevah never meant condemned to hell.

      Read the book, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." The full and complete explanation is contained therein.

      Brian

    • William Dugat profile image

      William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

      If you saw the site I tagged, you would know that the rule of Leviticus ended upon Christ's crucifixion. None of it matters. The bible calls homosexuality "detestable" on multiple occasions. Old and New testament. And as for Galatians 5:14, I never declared hatred for anyone. I only have said that I'm against homosexuality. Do not tell me to love thy neighbor as thyself. I can guarantee 100% that you do not do that. No one on Earth does. It's impossible for us, as doing so would require a sinless nature. We are ALL sinful.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      William Dugat,

      You remind me of the pharisees. You virtually brag about following the edicts of Leviticus (foolish in the light of Christ's teachings), especially when you say that you do not wear mixed fabrics (please!). Even Christ wore mixed fabrics. Thus, my remark about sacrificing bulls. Either you follow ALL of Leviticus, or NONE!

      You remind me of the sermon a Pentecostal preacher preached. He told the congregation, "My sermon today is in three parts: one, there are souls going to Hell; two, there are those of you who don't give a damn; and three, there are more of you concerned that I just said 'damn' than there are concerned about those souls going to Hell."

      You could use a little more of Galatians 5:14 and a little less self-righteous arrogance.

      Brian

      P.S. Read the book, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." It proves with irrefutable and verifiable fact what the title declares.

    • gregspalmer profile image

      Gregory S Palmer 2 years ago from North Richland Hills

      Christians are commanded to put the rights, and needs of others before themselves. What MANY CHRISTIAN DON'T KNOW IS THE BARNA REPORT has conclusively studied and the reports suggests that AMERICAN CHRISTIANS don't live anything like Christ. Even Gandhi stated "I highly admire your Christ but cannot condone the behavior of his followers" speaking primarily about the Western Christian "Jesus is my personal erred boy that wants to make me rich and take all my suffering away" is thought by the largest Churches and simply is not true. Paul says in our sufferings we learn of Christs love.

      "We search dozens of Churches and just "Have Got to" find a Church that Teaches riches and comforts to the "Gentile" in order to like it. Hogwash 3rd world countries have Christians modeling Christ, Developed cultures have very few "Good Samaritans" (one in 10 in the States highly suggests there is little to no Christ like lifestyles or TRUE Christian behavior" That's about 11% in the states. Christians in the "Bible Belt" are more likely to divorce than non Christians and if remarried Christians are 300% more likely to divorce again, than their unbelieving (Heterosexual) "God Killing Agnostics" WHY?

      BTW I am not a JEW - I am not promised, riches, land, heritage, and honor ON EARTH etc. If you areent a jew born before Christ then you are not either! The people God chose, the Jews were under the OLD covenant.

      I have been told to Carry the Cross, Burden, shame, humiliation, persecution. Have we "Americans" not turned into the very example of the man who asked Christ how he could enter the gates of heaven?" "___ all you have to the _____ that you own and follow (bear my cross) and you will inherit the kingdom" how sad that man was because he would rather deny the Truth in Christ than not be rich. By the way the blanks weren't sell all you have to the highest bidder, its GIVE all you have to the UNDESERVING POOR).

      I HAVE A BIG GOD, who has a BIG ROD of love, so BRING IT ON. I REJOICE IN LGBT getting married, IF mandatory teachings God our of schools is sticky enforced I REJOICE , can no one see that in doing so God is having mercy (his rod) on us? The Rod is meant more for the "Rich, judgmental, fearing bankruptcy and persecution by gays more that the fear of missing "the mark", and entering the gates that the Gays may put flowers on it or a rainbow!

      Did he curse Adam and Eve out of anger or love? It was a curse of love, knowing they would require faith and guidelines or they would destroy themselves through deception, placing idols before him. (the first thing your mind goes to in the morning is our true God.

      "Do not walk one inch to the left or the right of what I have commanded you today" I assure you the word "Today" is still as relevant and then, we have just found Churches that speak of our inheritance on this earth as the Gift through Christ, but Christ, Paul, Luke, James, (GOD) tells us different. The Church in 3rd world countries are models of Christ, MY Christ wouldn't drop the bomb, shoot the first shot, hate the gay, prostitute, tax collector (violent thief), or lesbians. Neither would he kill people for land and fuel..... HE DIED for GRACE SAVING SALVATION that comes only through WHAT HE does in us , not what we do that's good!

    • William Dugat profile image

      William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

      What many Christians fear, but no one really focuses on, is that this will lead to the loss of religious freedoms. The gay community will never be happy and they will always push for more and more. They are currently pushing to get denial of service to be declared as discrimination. Christian business owners will not be able to deny service to any homosexuals. There goes our rights.

    • gregspalmer profile image

      Gregory S Palmer 2 years ago from North Richland Hills

      Again I read this, I find it slightly more tolerable than many but just a little off. Conservative Christians often feel " If Homosexuality is not illegal then it may become impossible for our Church and Parents to continue to teach them that Gay is the worst thing that could happen to someone".

      https://hubpages.com/relationships/Sanctity-of-Mar...

      Do we not understand our youth sees through our masks we call grace and our supposed tolerance proves by our views it is prejudice. Dads who rate a 3 or 4 (from 1 to 5) in disagreement to interracial marriage have daughters who are more likely to have intercourse with someone that models the race they disproved of MORE SO than a Father that had a 1. (no care at all).

      Christians: "Same sex marriage is going to destroy the family."??

      Same sex marriage being viewed as a cognitive disorder, further degrading the family structure or the devils plan to destroy the world is absurd in debate. These views come from the Legalism view that grossly distorts the fundamentals of Christianity. The few Christians that aggressively speak out against homosexuality by labeling the individual to condemnation is providing a horrible representation of Christ to the world.

      The study of Christ and theology leads to the same conclusion,...

      He did not come to call the righteous (Matthew 9:13; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32).

      He did not come to condemn or judge the world (John 3:17; 12:47).

      He did not come to abolish the law or the prophets (Matthew 5:17).

      He did not come to be served and waited upon (Mark 10:45).

      Overall he did not come in support of those who held legalistic laws, prejudiced views of the sinner and taught we are not to cast a stone! He came in love and service and rebuked the ones who viewed themselves as righteous and condemn others as law breakers! He came to give himself up, let known his Fathers will of unconditional love and acceptance.

      Those who claim to be Christians and accept Christ while speaking out of judgmental, righteous teachings and spread a message that others are not loved or the Father's Will is to hate and punish those who break these laws is leading an inverted ministry.

      The other argument is the nominal Christian who accepts truth is relative to each person and thinks nothing of the act.

      These individuals are the majority of family malfunction and if the Christian belief is accurate, then living in continual sin is the same as never being saved.

      When identifying homosexuality as perpetual sin by the one who lives in it their own perpetual sin makes Christianity not work for either party.

    • William Dugat profile image

      William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

      Hanavee- Did you really find it necessary to bring sarcasm into this and be rude? I'm a Baptist I sacrifice nothing... but "haha" that was oh so very funny. I am trying to keep this civilized and you try to make it a fight. Why?

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      William Dugat,

      How many bulls do you sacrifice each month? And just so you worship on the right day, the Sabbath of the Bible is our current Saturday.

      Brian

    • William Dugat profile image

      William Dugat 2 years ago from Lufkin, Texas

      Danieljohnston- If you are going to elaborate bible verses, I only ask that you do it correctly. Exodus 20:8 does not say "no football on Saturday." The Sabbath day is Sunday, not Saturday. The verse says "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it Holy." That doesn't mean "no football." Basically, what i see it meaning is, don't walk in to church and worship God, then walk out and curse like a sailor. Also, you seem to act like cursing and gossip are normal and OK. Cursing and gossip are known sins, and most Christians try not to do them. But were all sinners. The consumption of lobster and pork, I agree are sins, but are for some reason ignored by the Christian community. My guess is that the consumption of these things does not affect us as much as the marriage of same sex couples. It's simply a "minor vs. major" thing. I personally do not wear cotton-poly blends, but i agree again that this is a sin that is ignored by the people of the Christian community. Another "minor vs. major." Keep in mind though that no one is perfect. Everyone sins, but for same sex marriage, you are deliberately and knowingly sinning. That can't be allowed into society. I would like you to read at least the first paragraph of the link below. It explains why Leviticus is not highly focused on by most Christians. http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Daniel,

      Your article should be required reading for all of those anti-gay bigots who want their bigotries against homosexuals enshrined into law. Every time I hear some bigot spouting that, since time began, marriage has been between one man and one woman, I want to ask them what mushroom they live under.

      You might enjoy reading the book, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." It represents forty years of intense scholarly research and proves with verifiable and irrefutable fact what the title states.

      Great article. Keep up the good work.

      Brian

    • Rodric29 profile image

      Rodric Johnson 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      It has been a while since I stopped by I read the article again and I assume that you have changed it or my intelligence has decreased so much that I cannot see what I pointed out before. I see a more assertive undertone in you're here and I am already forming my counters to your research. I voted it up again, but again I disagree with you premise that marriage was not between men and women.

      Since I am not a traditional Christian, a Mormon, I agree with you that the church, the Catholic church or the Greek church, I assume that you are referencing one of the big bishoprics after the apostles, may have couple men together. I have several explanation for those prayers and interpretatons that could explain the unions since in our church we have those same unions between the sexes called missionaries. The go out two my two for 18 months to two years.

      Also, the apostles in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are sealed in a lifelong brotherhood until death and even after. The church to which you refer could have coupled holy men together as ambassadors of Christ for life.

      Another view is, just as ancient Israel backslid, the church could have backslid and allowed practices that were not authorized by Christ for a time before it was realized.

      The Bible is very explicit about its commandment for men and women to multiply and replenish the earth, the purpose of marriage besides a man cleaving or connecting with a woman. There is no place in the cannon, the Bible that states that the command given to Adam and Eve was revoked by Christ or anyone else.

      I currently and reading the Old Testament. Deuteronomy is very clear that men are not to lie with men. It did not say anything about women but most understand it to be the case also. Even in the New Testament Christ again reaffirms marriage as the act of two people, a man and a woman united with each other and no one else--one woman and one man. There is no sign of polyandry there. There is much evidence of polygamy in the Bible, but that is another story.

      Now, I have not provided any source because I want to see where this disucssion will go first before I start tying to show examples from the Bible.

      Let it be known, I do not base my faith on any book. I use them as tools. I use the Bible as one tool and I have many others that assist me to back my beliefs. My beliefs are based on my experience with my faith.

      Knowing that, it makes it easier to see where I am coming from so it is easier to argue with me. Also, because I believe in modern prophets and revelations I am very open to change. I doubt same - gender marriage will ever be sanctioned by God because of what he has revealed, but I am not going to say I know, because in Mormon history it is alleged that men have been sealed to other men as servants forever. Generally speaking, sealed means marriage in a temple for time and eternity.

      For broader Christianity this is an interesting and eyebrow raising article, voted up!

      Oh, and by the way, I live by most of those laws that you posted on the board. In fact, most faithful LDS Christians do. They are not requirements to be considered good in the church, most of those things are.

      Oh, remember LDS Christians believe God still talks to prophets so some things like eating shellfish or pork are no longer issues since Christ and new health codes exit.

    • gregspalmer profile image

      Gregory S Palmer 3 years ago from North Richland Hills

      I wrote about this in a different aspect. The argument itself is doing more damage than the result.

    • jreuter profile image

      Jason Reuter 5 years ago from Portland, Oregon

      No worries man, you're a good writer, and you can always edit hubs to your delight. I've got at least ten old hubs sitting in my account folder that I grew to hate so much I can no longer share them with the world. Someday I'll get around to fixing them, I hope...

      Anyway, thanks for your reply, and good luck in your future writing endeavors.

    • Danieljohnston profile image
      Author

      Daniel Johnston 5 years ago from Portland, Oregon

      Actually, I had never seen that Livejournal post. I got most of my information from the sources I posted and was forming my information off of memory and those sites. Unfortunately, I had more I was basing my argument on than what I put down, but I have forgotten the sources... This is bad in both counts of inability to quote and cite these sources, and inability to use them to the best of their ability. 'Feelings' don't turn into good articles. If I had the time, I would rewrite this. It would be a much different article - perhaps splitting into two different ones.

      I feel I was all over the map, did not have the sources I would have liked, and should have taken more time writing this - especially because I didn't really expect as many people to take the time to read it, which I guess is a pleasant surprise on the one hand, but now that I look through the article I am not as happy with it...

    • jreuter profile image

      Jason Reuter 5 years ago from Portland, Oregon

      Hey, a fellow Portlander! Welcome Daniel. I also graduated with a history degree (I think I remember reading that in your profile), and now I'm working on my M.A. in biblical studies at Multnomah seminary. So, yeah, we disagree. But that's ok.

      I really only want to address your assertion of same-sex marriage rites in Christianity, as I'm assuming you've gotten the majority of this information from a recent article floating about the web from "livejournal":

      http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

      My first thought was that in any paper that is posing as a scholarly work, the absence of citations should be the first indicator of how unscholarly the article actually is. Besides this, within the first few paragraphs we see a glaring geographical error concerning the location of Mt. Sinai: It's in Egypt, not Israel. Every first year seminary student knows that, just as they know that the idea of same-sex marriage rites in the early church is a completely unsubstantiated claim.

      Concerning Boswell, he was highly criticized for his work on this subject, as it became apparent to many of his colleagues that the harmonization of his own sexuality with his faith (Roman Catholic) was the driving force behind his "academic" work. Take the time to read Robin Darling Young's review of his book, "Same sex unions in pre-modern Eurpoe," where she describes his "insouciance about historical accuracy would be unacceptable in an undergraduate paper." The full review can be found here, if you're interested:

      http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/gay-mar...

      But to get more specific, look at Boswell's use of Koine Greek. In the article, Boswell is referenced as having discovered two rites which purportedly married two homosexual men together- "The Office of Same-Sex Union" and "The Order for Uniting Two Men." To translate the original Greek as such is a laughably bad job of scholarship, that even I, a second-year Greek student, can recognize this. The Greek word for such rites is "adelphopoieisis," which can be translated as "the making of brothers." (Adelphos=brother, poeion=to make) It is an absurd stretch of the imagination to argue that the early church would have used the word "brother" in the context of a sexual union. The implication of incest would be recognizable and glaring to these Christians, and Greek has a perfectly good word for husband (andros) if Boswell's claims were true.

      It is an anachronistic error of our modern era to read homosexual attraction into such rituals. The Bible often spoke of the love of which Christian brothers had for one another in one breath, and then was clear and unambiguous on the condemnation of homosexual actions in another. Given that the Christian church from its earliest stages to the 13th century (and beyond), took a clear stance on its view of homosexuality, it is simply unreasonable for Boswell to maintain that the church somehow sanctioned gay marriage in any fashion.

      Thanks for your hub, and I look forward to more. You do good work.

    • Rodric29 profile image

      Rodric Johnson 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      You are well on your way. I suggest that you break up you papers and revamp them for hub pages. We are all about originality here. Read some of the tutorials. They really help me.

    • Danieljohnston profile image
      Author

      Daniel Johnston 5 years ago from Portland, Oregon

      Thank you very much. I have about 6 years of papers I am sitting on - not sure how to turn most of them into articles when some are 15-50 page papers - when they turn into articles I'm hoping they can help people who want to know more about history.

    • Rodric29 profile image

      Rodric Johnson 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Amen. You are quick with the draw my good fellow. I am perusing other writings of yours. I believe that you have great potential on hub pages. You are building on your research which is good.

    • Danieljohnston profile image
      Author

      Daniel Johnston 5 years ago from Portland, Oregon

      My problem is, I have had 'neutrality' beaten into my writing style so I try to remain neutral even when it is not really appropriate, so my tone is probably all over the map.

      The intent was that marriage came about of its own in many countries and out of belief systems that had never heard of marriage from a Christian point of view, so it is inherently religionless unless someone makes it so of their own volition.

      The slight criticisms of old laws and diversions from faith were merely an aside rather than really lending to a discussion.

      I probably need to rewrite this, a lot of it was borrowed from old research material I had - the point was to illustrate that tolerance is needed as it has been had before.

      Perhaps a better argument is that there needs to be a complete separation of church and state marriage. A Church Marriage, and then Legal Marriage as has gone on through history without Christian ties.

    • Rodric29 profile image

      Rodric Johnson 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Nice, hub so I voted it up. I completely disagree with you on every thing about marriage. Depending on the audience you are pandering to this article is confusing. Are you trying to convince Christians to accept Same Gender Marriage based on some historical records? If so, your tone is off. Are you trying to show the ridiculous plight of today's fight against same gender marriage and pander to the Gay community? I am not sure who your are attempting to sway or inform.

      I disagree with you approach and will tell you what I think will get your message out.

      1, if you are trying to speak to a Christian, they don't like having their religion referred to as if it stands out of hisotry, to them, to us, Adam and Eve were the first people and all religion is a bastardized version of what Jehovah revealed to Adam. As a Mormon, I believe that all religion is a portion of the Christianity that God revealed to Adam. Adam was a Christian and so was Jesus Christ. The first official church organized by Christ was church full of Jewish Christians.

      2)Sway me by leaving out the things the people in other faiths did. All you have done is support the idea that God loves marriage so much he reveals it to all people. As a Mormon, I believe there was an apostasy in the church that led to the destruction of the original church built upon prophets and apostles with Christ as the chief cornerstone. Your interpretation fo the same sex unions would just be fodder for me to say, "Yeap, they definitely fell away from the truth."

      A better approach would been to reason with us from the "love thy neighbor' approach rather than scold because of the more vocal group of Christians do not display that love in the way that you esteem love should be displayed.

      I assure you, I love my neighbor and so do billions of other people of varying faiths. We express love differently.

      Okay, I am getting out of hand here, I will let this suffice. I love you writing though. I am a fan of yours. Take my counsel as a sign of respect from me and not chastisement. If I dis not think you had anything to offer, I would not have bothered to write.