Biblical Definition of Marriage (Video)

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Angrist

I'm anti gay marriage, like I am anti homosexuality, just like I am anti pre-marital sex.
And that's just like I am anti killing, anti lying, and anti everything else the bible condemns.

The bible is pretty clear on all those things, the question is if you accept it as an authority.

Does the Bible really directly forbid pre-marital sex? If I recall the Bible forbids "sexual immorality," but this is a rather broad term that you could attach several different connotations to... not trying to make this into an enormous religious debate, just curious.

[Angrist]

Originally Posted by Bond

Does the Bible really directly forbid pre-marital sex? If I recall the Bible forbids "sexual immorality," but this is a rather broad term that you could attach several different connotations to... not trying to make this into an enormous religious debate, just curious.

Interesting question, I did some research.
Yes, it's called fornication and it's always been forbidden in the bible.

The Hebrew word for it was zanah.

When Israelites got married, they needed to be virgins. After diner, they went inside and had sex for the first time (see for example Psalm 19:5).
As a proof of the woman's virginity, they needed to use a cloth to save blood traces. This could then be shown to proof she was a virgin (in case the man would start hating her and lie that she hadn't been a virgin). See Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

If people had broken the law by having sex before getting married, they didn't need to die, but they did have to get married. For life.

The Greek word for it was porneia. Jesus mentioned it among murder, stealing, etc. (for example Matthew 15:19,20). Acts 15:19,20 says: Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
It's mentioned way more often than this.

So to answer your question, yes, the bible is pretty direct about it.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Angrist

When Israelites got married, they needed to be virgins. After diner, they went inside and had sex for the first time (see for example Psalm 19:5). As a proof of the woman's virginity, they needed to use a cloth to save blood traces. This could then be shown to proof she was a virgin (in case the man would start hating her and lie that she hadn't been a virgin). See Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

This doesn't strike you as being sexist, or at least being written by a bunch of guys 3000 years ago in a country that basically oppresses women? I mean, where is the male virginity test. Are we just going by personal testimony that the males are virgin? Why does the male need to get a blood sample. Also, not to bring science into religious discussion () but the hymen often is broken before any sexual encounter just from physical activity or doing things like horseback riding. It can break from just normal physical activity.

[Angrist]

Pff, when did this get an everybody-against-Angrist thread?
I'm the only one to actually show my sources, and I get flamed. At least that's how it seems to me.

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

This doesn't strike you as being sexist, or at least being written by a bunch of guys 3000 years ago in a country that basically oppresses women? I mean, where is the male virginity test. Are we just going by personal testimony that the males are virgin? Why does the male need to get a blood sample. Also, not to bring science into religious discussion () but the hymen often is broken before any sexual encounter just from physical activity or doing things like horseback riding. It can break from just normal physical activity.

If you read my post carefully, you would have found out that it was a way to protect women. Men could easily lie about their woman's virginity, that's why they got proof. You should read that bible passage, it's very clear.

Originally Posted by Typhoid

However, it's when that comfort you have takes away from the rights of other people. When it makes people judge others without even knowing them, meeting them, or even knowing anything about them in the first place.

Did you read my other post? I clearly stated that everybody's free to do as he wants. Please stop accusing me (and others) of things we don't do.

Dylan, I don't really know what you're trying to tell me.

Originally Posted by Dylflon

... look at each rule we still uphold as opposed to the countless ones that we do not.

So because most people don't care about the instructions in the bible, neither should I?

I hope you understand the difference between the 'old' and the 'new' 'testament'. The 'new' one is for Christians. If you're talking about rules like eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, that's the old testament.
The old one's not useless, we can learn a lot from it, but we don't have to follow its rules anymore.
And I'll have you know I take the new testament pretty serious.

Again: I don't think homosexuality is any worse than having sex before/outside marriage. And even then, it's up to those people to make up their mind.
It's a reason why I'm politically neutral. I don't vote. Never have, never will. (And I know people always find arguments why that's a bad thing.)

Now I remember why I never took part in religious discussions anymore. Count me out of this one, before I get frustrated. (And I know how terribly tempting it is to make 1 last argument... but it never ends that way.)

[Dylflon]

I'm not attempting to flame you or anything.

Being the one person on a side of an argument will make you the person the other side will try to present their thoughts or evidence to.

But if you have to bow out because you don't wish to discuss your opinions or you don't want to read something someone might believe that contrasts your views, that's fine.

My interest more lies in how the opposing of homosexuals (I believe) transcends the status of rule into the status of prejudice, rather than which Biblical rules we should still be following.

I know if you keep up the discourse, it will most likely ruffle your feathers (as your arguments will mine), but I'm slightly disappointed that you will be making yourself unavailable as a member of this discourse since you're probably the most conservative religious figure on the boards and would provide opinions that would otherwise not show up here.

But I see how it's easy to feel like you've taken on the role of punching bag when others don't take your side.

[Professor S]

Dyflon, the correct response to ridicule or hateful/ignorant speech is not more hateful/ignorant speech. When we "respond in kind" we simply keep the cycle of unreasoning attacks going instead of talking to each other like human beings. Also, arguments based on ridicule do more damage because they attract the ignorant and emphasize ignorance, rather than promoting learned responses and socratic methodology.

Also, there are a lot of arguments aginst gay marriage that are not religious based, but socially based. Basically they view traditional (one man/one woman) marriage/family as the foundation of civilization, and are concerned that to alter the traditional form of marriage may undermine that foundation. While there is history of success with oneman/one woman, thats an argument FOR traditional marriage, not against gay marriage. Their concerns are mainly based on conjecture based on "what might happen" and "society acceptance vs. governmental acceptance". It's an interesting and I think considerable argument when it comes to public policy, much more so than a biblical one that is ruled out because of theocratic implications, but in the end not the correct one, IMO.

But thats just my opinion of a social contract. My view is that social laws should be up to the states to decide as they are the best way to determine what their community wishes to recognize or not recognize.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Also, there are a lot of arguments aginst gay marriage that are not religious based, but socially based. Basically they view traditional (one man/one woman) marriage/family as the foundation of civilization, and are concerned that to alter the traditional form of marriage may undermine that foundation. While there is hostory of success with oneman/one woman, thats an argument FOR traditional marriage, not against gay marriage. Their concerns are mainly based on conjecture based on "what might happen" and "society acceptance vs. governmental acceptance". It's an interesting and I think considerable argument when it comes to public policy, much more so than a biblical one that is ruled out because of theocratic implications, but in the end not the correct one, IMO.

What would happen if we allowed homosexual marriage? It wouldn't infringe of the rights of heterosexual marriage....gay couples could adopt kids desperately in need of families...it would stimulate the economy....

I can't really think of any cons.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

What would happen if we allowed homosexual marriage? It wouldn't infringe of the rights of heterosexual marriage....gay couples could adopt kids desperately in need of families...it would stimulate the economy....

I can't really think of any cons.

The arguments revolve around gender confusion, devaluing man/woman marriage more than it's already been devalued, and much of it is based on the belief that sexuality is more based on choice than a inherent state of being.

There is some truth to the choice aspect and some data to back it up, but not for the majority of homosexuals. Most homos identify as being strictly homos. They are as they were born. Because quite honestly, if you realy had a choice why would you choose to be gay considering how they've been treated in the world?

Also, I think if sexuality is really a choice, we would see more fluxuations in the percentages of those who identify as gay, increasing as it has become more acceptable over time (some even think fashionable) and I haven't seen that in any data over the last 30-40 years.

EDIT: This is a pretty good debate on the subject from both sides, with the ever too rare reasoned response in opposition. A response I disagree with, but respect.

[Dylflon]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Dyflon, the correct response to ridicule or hateful/ignorant speech is not more hateful/ignorant speech. When we "respond in kind" we simply keep the cycle of unreasoning attacks going instead of talking to each other like human beings. Also, arguments based on ridicule do more damage because they attract the ignorant and emphasize ignorance, rather than promoting learned responses and socratic methodology.

Also, there are a lot of arguments aginst gay marriage that are not religious based, but socially based. Basically they view traditional (one man/one woman) marriage/family as the foundation of civilization, and are concerned that to alter the traditional form of marriage may undermine that foundation. While there is hostory of success with oneman/one woman, thats an argument FOR traditional marriage, not against gay marriage. Their concerns are mainly based on conjecture based on "what might happen" and "society acceptance vs. governmental acceptance". It's an interesting and I think considerable argument when it comes to public policy, much more so than a biblical one that is ruled out because of theocratic implications, but in the end not the correct one, IMO.

I feel like you're confusing satire with hateful and ignorant speech. And I don't mean this as a dig at you, but you've never seemed all that down with satire in my opinion. I agree with your points about the proper way to argue things but I feel that an absurdist approach to an absurd argument is sometimes necessary if only to make you laugh at the absurdity of it all. In essence, if people can gay-bash, light-hearted biblical fun-poking should also exist within our realm of discourse. I wouldn't use that video in any serious argument, and I don't think it's the serious argument that they're going for. And I feel like you're a wise enough person to not see it as a threat to reasoned argument.

The one man/one woman family societal stability argument can be seen as equally ludicrous as the biblical argument. The nuclear family is an invention of the 50's and 60's and it wasn't until then that this was talked about as "the traditional family unit".

Now, don't think I'm arguing that this model hasn't been the norm for centuries, because it has.

However, it hasn't been until recent centuries that polygamy has been outlawed and historically, polygamist marriages have been present all over the place (including the Bible). So it hasn't always been just one man/one woman.


The insecurity that a union between two members of the same sex could undermine the foundation of society just plain sounds silly. Think about it for a moment. Let's take our current society for example:

Now, imagine we live in a world exactly how it is. Except: gays can now marry. Let's follow the subsequent sequence of events.

1. Two dudes get married.
2. They continue living their lives as normal, having as much homosex as they please within the confines of their own private domestic life.
3. They open a bank account together and pool their incomes (not saying that they can't do this already)
4. They buy a house together and both get their names on the mortgage.
5. They live in their home together, enjoying the governmental advantages that hetero couples enjoy.
6. When one of them gets sick, the other visits their spouse in the hospital because they are family: which is the only thing they've even wished to be and thank God for gay marriage allowing that.

Alternate course: they have marriage troubles like everyone else at one point get divorced and look for love elsewhere.

So what here has toppled society?

I am going to sum up that foundation argument in three steps:

Step 1: Gays get married
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Society crumbles

Nothing in gay marriage inherently challenges societal stability.

While there is hostory of success with oneman/one woman, thats an argument FOR traditional marriage, not against gay marriage.

You're wrong here. In any argument that argues there is only one way things should be done, it's both an argument for that thing and an argument against the other.

Ex: Only white people should be allowed to exist because historically white people have the best civilization and it's been proven that they are the best kind of people.

Not only is that an argument based on no factual evidence (much like there is no evidence that gay marriage could not work) but it is discriminatory against other races.

But! It's okay. It's only an argument for why white people are better, not against any other type of people.

It doesn't matter that the one man/one woman marriage works historically. That's not the issue. Who cares if it works? It will keep going. Nothing is challenging that institution. The issue is about letting people who aren't fortunate enough to be born straight (irony), enjoy the same basic benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.

I don't feel like that is a valid argument to discount gay marriage.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

I feel like you're confusing satire with hateful and ignorant speech.

I think today most satirists have used satire as a means to propogate hateful and ignorant speech in order to get away with saying hateful and ignorant things. When you can laugh it off as "comedy", no one can call you out on your misinformation. Anyon who calls out the "satirist" is then accused of not having a sense of humor and their argument is dismissed.

To me, true satire is Orwell and Huxley who were both intellectually honest and creative, not some biased, spiteful bitch on YouTube who only has one goal: destroy the other side through ridicule and dismiss it as comedy.

You should Google the 13 Rules for Radicals, though. I think it helps explain where my side of the argument is coming from. I think there are a lot of those ideals hiding in today's version of "satire"

Step 1: Gays get married
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Society crumbles

Nothing in gay marriage inherently challenges societal stability.

I agree. I simply am willing to consider and respect the opposing view that has respect for mine. I'd encourage you to watch the video I posted if you haven't already. It's an example of respectful opposition.

You're wrong here. In any argument that argues there is only one way things should be done, it's both an argument for that thing and an argument against the other.

I know, we agree completey. Thats exactly what I was pointing out. The fact that there is history that one man/one woman marriage has been successful does not conclude that gay marriage would be unsuccessful. It's never been tried so we don't know, and I'm not willing keep people from marrying based on an argument that uses the unknown as it's foundation. Thats the main reason why I am for gay marriage and would vote for it in my state.

[Dylflon]

Thoughts on the Prager argument as I watch it:

I find that too often people hide behind the word marriage as a way to deny gays the right to union. It wouldn't alter the world in any way to change the definition to 'a union between two people'.

And nobody would EVER have to ask a child if they were going to marry a boy or a girl. That doesn't make sense. Most kids aren't even aware of their sexual orientation at a young age (though there are some who are).

Oh man...this guy is sexist too...but then his sex argument doesn't make sense. All he's saying is men and women are different. But what does that matter?


Prager's arguments didn't make any sense and didn't address the issue of equality. However he established in the end that men should be allowed to exclude women and vise versa. So I don't feel he argued anything intelligible.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Angrist

If you read my post carefully, you would have found out that it was a way to protect women. Men could easily lie about their woman's virginity, that's why they got proof. You should read that bible passage, it's very clear.

I don't know how this protects the women. There is this underlying obsession with Virginity and Purity throughout the Bible and post-Christ literature and the punishments for not being pure are often barbaric (especially in Islamic nations). Most of this is directed at the women by the way. I don't know about you but I wouldn't stop loving someone if I found out their hymen wasn't intact or if they had past sexual encounters.

By the way I'm not picking on you or flaming you. I respect your beliefs and your right to practice them. I wish you luck on your quest to find a woman with her hymen intact.