Does the Bible Approve of Gay Marriage?


I am often asked to quote from the Bible a verse where God clearly approves of gay marriage. Matthew 19:1-6 is quoted by anti-gays as CLEAR evidence that God (Jesus) created male and female to be heterosexual ONLY, when, in reality, it is the only way humanity could multiply. They “poo-poo” Matthew 19:10-12 as evidence that Eunuchs were homosexual and IF they were they were not given to be married.  They ignore the last verse, “he who is able to receive this, let him receive it”, for they cannot “receive” this.  They poo-poo the account in Matthew 8:5-13 about the healing of the Roman centurion’s servant, for that would be evidence of God’s approval of gay love. Nor do they talk about the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch, by Phillip (Acts 8:26-39), who was not a castrated man because under Jewish law one did not baptize a castrated man (this changed after Saul became Paul in the next chapter of Acts). Nor do they rely on Galatians 3: 28-29 -“In Christ there is no male nor female.” They tell me I “pick & choose” verses to suit my belief. Well, isn’t that “the pot calling the kettle black?” I guess it’s allowed, for anti-gay people know the meaning of the Bible better than others. (give me a break). Bottom line is, gay marriage was not on the radar in bible days so was not given specific mention.  Much like our modern day radar does not pick up every plane that passes, neither do anti-gay people “pick up” on what Jesus was talking about in Matthew.

Advertisements

30 Responses to “Does the Bible Approve of Gay Marriage?”

  1. Aaron Saltzer Says:

    How do you know same-sex marriage didn’t exist in biblical times? Also, the same-sex relationships you mention that are in The Bible weren’t necessarily sexual or romantic, considering either it wouldn’t have made sense or the way the culture was rejected that suspicion.

    Like

  2. adamross616 Says:

    Your comment/question is exactly what my Post is addressing.

    Like

  3. Aaron Saltzer Says:

    But you said, “Bottom line is, gay marriage was not on the radar in bible days; therefore needed no specific verse.” If all everyone knew was heterosexual marriages and relationships, and other marriages did exist, and Jesus approved of them, there would need to be a specific verse to tell us that. I’ve heard someone say that Matthew 19:11-12 might open the door for polygamy. It could open the door for other marriages that The Bible doesn’t specifically read against. Btw, I did not receive your message in my email like I requested again.

    Like

  4. adamross616 Says:

    Gay marriage was not on the HUMAN radar, but it was on Jesus’ because He knows everything and said nothing specific to condemn it, morally speaking, for it wasn’t on the human radar, legally, as it is today. In my original post I admit there is no specific mention of gay marriage, nor is there any specific condemnation of gay marriage. Got to reread my original Post to see that I am stating, confidently, that there are references to gay love being approved of by Jesus/God. As for polygamy, thought it was allowed for a time, the very fact that God created us to be “paired in two’s” negates polygamy as a moral union. And the pairs were created male and female “in the beginning” or we wouldn’t be here now. This in no way condemns same gender pairs in a marital union. Jesus knows all – past, present and future.

    Like

    • Aaron Saltzer Says:

      First off, thank you for fixing the problem. Second, where in The Bible does it say that God created us to “be in twos”? Also, What do you mean by “gay love”? There’s a different between two men or two women who love each other, with God’s love or in a non-romantic way, than two women or two men who love each other in a romantic way. I’d suggest watching “Anne of Green Gables”, at least for a better outlook of David and Jonathan’s or Ruth and Naomi’s relationship. That movie proves that two men or two women can love each other and have a close relationship without it being sexual or romantic. I don’t think God has a problem with that. How do you know same-sex marriage was illegal in Biblical times?

      Like

  5. adamross616 Says:

    1) Read Genesis 1 — pairs are the only thing mentioned.
    2) Gay Love — I am talking about a romantic, mutually loving, committed, monogamous union (marriage). Never saw “Anne of Green Gables” so cannot relate to the book/movie. You know me, Aaron – you know I agree that two men or two women can love each other without it being sexual. As a lesbian, I’ve had loving relationships with both women and men, non of which were sexual. In my Post I’m talking about gay love – gay marriage.
    3) Not even sure heterosexual marriage was “legal” in biblical times. Did the man and woman have to get a licence to marry as we do in modern times? Marriage in bible times, especially in the Old Testament, but also in the New, was different than in modern times. Most biblical marriages were not based on mutual love, but on economy – most were arranged. As for same-sex marriage — nothing specifically mentioned, but it was not what people of bible times were thinking. Same gender sexual behavior was perceived to be lustful and excessive or cultic. Gay loving unions/marriage was under the “radar” of the intellect of bible days.

    Like

    • Aaron Saltzer Says:

      I don’t think the animals being paired in twos was set as an example for everyone to follow, otherwise we’d all be marrying the opposite sex, considering the animals were paired male and female. Also, polygamy, as far as I know, was never spoken against in The Bible. Accept to avoid fornication. Even God himself gave David many wives at the same time. So to say that marriages were created to be monogamous, is unbiblical I think.

      Like

  6. adamross616 Says:

    Humans were also paired – male and female. Adam and Eve were heterosexual, but how else could the human and animal race reproduce? There is no clear condemnation of polygamy in the Bible, as there was for incest (Leviticus). One could believe that polygamous marriages are OK in God’s sight, except for one thing that also slips under the human radar — one cannot give ones self completely to more than one wife/husband. God allowed polygamy for a time to multiply the Earth, but when that was no longer necessary, it ended. Sure, a person can fall in love with more than one person at a time, but you will not love each one equally. That breeds competition and jealousy among the multiple spouses which would defeat the purpose of two people “cleaving” to each other. We will have to agree to disagree on this.

    Like

    • Aaron Saltzer Says:

      How can a polygamist not love all of their spouses equally? Unconditional love is what is important when loving someone, which is what is asked of each spouse in wedding ceremonies, not romantic love, which, correct me if I’m wrong, sounds like what you are referencing. I think unconditional love is what is mentioned in The Bible when we are told to love others as God loves us. If you believe strictly in monogamous marriages, that is fine, but I don’t think The Bible agrees with you on this nor do wedding ceremonies that have been performed.

      Like

  7. adamross616 Says:

    Romantic love is part of marriage, although being “in love” is the reason to get married. I’ve never been married to more than one person at a time, but when I was single I fell in love with two women at the same time and had romantic feelings and behavior with both. BUT, I loved one more than the other and ended up with neither. As with non-romantic love, we don’t love all our friends the same. We don’t love our family members to the same degree. This is just a fact of life even though unconditional love is what Jesus/God created, we humans cannot achieve this 100%. I do believe strictly in monogamy, but if you don’t and you believe the Bible agrees with you, I’m not going to debate this issue, though I believe you are wrong.

    Like

    • Aaron Saltzer Says:

      I think with God’s help, we can love everyone the same. Though, obviously, there is a slight difference between romantic or sexual love and unconditional love. Unconditional love is what Jesus refers to in The Bible, I believe. That and to those in need. I think, in some marriages in The Bible, that kind of love was referenced. You might not feel called to polygamy. Some people might not feel they can handle it. I, myself, am a monogamous person, and would not be with someone who is with someone else. But I do support polygamy, since I don’t believe The Bible is against it. Some men and women do have numerous wives, and I’m sure, with the guidance of God, if they’re Christians, they treat and love them all the same.

      Like

  8. Hans Says:

    I dare to say that all those bigots (religious or not) who sprout this “god hates fags” and “homosexuality is a sin” or “homosexuality is unnatural” filth disregard the fact that:
    1) “Who does not love, didn’t recognize GOD, for GOD is LOVE” (1 John 4: 8). That means, that GOD Himself is LOVE and everyone who says that same-sex-relationship are disgusting etc., commits the crime of blasphemy because they do not accept the fact that there is actual LOVE, for GOD is LOVE, which means that LOVE comes from GOD and EVERY loving couple therefor has GOD’s blessing.
    2) Today we know as a scientific fact that over twenty species on earth show recorded homosexual behaviour. But only one of these species (humankind) has individuals who find this unnatural. Where is the unnaturality now. It is with those who cannot accept that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality.

    Like

  9. Aaron Saltzer Says:

    I’ve come to believe that we all have the ability to enter into a marriage with the opposite sex. I don’t believe that Christians who are attracted to the same sex are considered eunuchs, like some people claim, because eunuchs are males who don’t have testes.

    Like

  10. adamross616 Says:

    Aaron, I’d do some more research on Eunuchs for they are not what you claim in your comment. There are some good sites which study Eunuchs as stated in the Bible. Might change your mind.

    Like

    • Aaron Saltzer Says:

      I’ve come to realize that the verses you are referring to have been ripped out of context by most gays and at least one anti-gay that I know of. The context of that passage is divorce, not marriage. So it is not for or against same-sex marriage. The mention of eunuchs, at least in that passage, I don’t believe has anything to do with gays.

      Like

  11. adamross616 Says:

    I agree with the 1st part of your comment. As for your belief on Eunuchs, that’s your choice. I do believe Eunuchs in this passage is speaking of homosexuals.

    Like

    • Aaron Saltzer Says:

      Okay. So you believe that those that choose to be eunuchs for heaven are those that choose to be homosexual?

      Like

  12. adamross616 Says:

    Aaron, you are not comprehending my comment or the passage in the Bible. Born Eunuchs are homosexual. Those who choose to be Eunuchs to serve God (Heaven) choose to remain celibate, like Priests in the Roman Catholic Church and that’s not much of a choice — it’s a mandate by the RC Church. They do not choose to be homosexual, because no one chooses their sexual orientation. Homosexuals can be included in the category of Eunuchs who choose to be celibate to serve God (Roman Catholic Priests), but celibacy would be their choice as it would be if one were a heterosexual Eunuch.

    Like

  13. adamross616 Says:

    I am claiming that “Born Eunuchs” ARE homosexuals. No choice in the matter.

    Like

    • Aaron Saltzer Says:

      “Born eunuchs” could also have been males that were born without testes. No one considers that. They jump right to the conclusion that born eunuchs were homosexual.

      Like

  14. adamross616 Says:

    To be born without testes is so very (like 1 in thousands) rare compared to those born with complete genitals who have no sexual interest in the opposite sex and you’re not taking into consideration females. This mention of “born eunuchs” IS speaking of males & females who have no sexual attraction for the opposite gender; therefore, it is speaking of homosexuals.

    Like

    • Aaron Saltzer Says:

      I’d suggest looking eunuch up in a medical dictionary. It is a male whose testes have been removed or have never developed. It has nothing to do with women or one’s sexuality.

      Like

    • Aaron Saltzer Says:

      So, at least what I believe, is that the born eunuchs are talking about males whose testes never developed.

      Like

  15. adamross616 Says:

    Believe what you want, Aaron. Bottom line is, anyone who proclaims Christ as Lord and Savior IS SAVED- gay or straight. We could debate this Eunuch issue forever without either of us changing our minds. If you find peace with your definition of Eunuch, that’s fine with me.

    Like

    • Aaron Saltzer Says:

      You can also consider that there is no proof of a homosexual gene. I’ve heard people say that there are similarities between a gay male’s brain and a straight female’s, and likewise between a straight male and lesbian, but I’ve never seen evidence for that. So I don’t believe anyone’s born homosexual. We disagree clearly on this, which is obviously nothing new. I believe there may have been eunuchs who were same-sex attracted, but I don’t think they all were.

      Like

  16. adamross616 Says:

    There’s no proof of a “straight gene” either. Science will not figure this out; it will remain a mystery. Lot more to all our human traits than just genes. DNA possibilities are endless. Plus, one does not know what goes on in the womb — lots of factors there, too. We humans will never figure out the wonderful creation God has made. Find peace with God and peace with self will follow.

    Like

    • Aaron Saltzer Says:

      Are you trying to say that our sexuality defines us?

      Like

    • Aaron Saltzer Says:

      The fact is, we were all created male and female with some of us born unisex, which God speaks of in his reference to eunuchs. Deuteronomy 22:5 and Romans 1:26-27 shows how God feels about those desiring or wearing something that is contrary to the way they are made.

      Like

  17. adamross616 Says:

    Our sexuality does not define us. It is but one facet of our total being. As for your other comment, you are a bit mixed up but as long as you’re happy with who you are, I’m fine with your beliefs.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: