Things that make you say “HMMMM”…..
When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property. (Exodus 21:20-21)
If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. (Lev 20:13)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, (1Co 6:9)
Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)
For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, (Rom 1:26)
Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1Tim. 6:1-5)
realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers — in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching.
(1Ti 1:9-10)
The Freedom which Christianity gives, is a Freedom from the Bondage of Sin and Satan, and from the Dominion of Men’s Lusts and Passions and inordinate Desires; but as to their outward Condition, whatever that was before, whether bond or free, their being baptized, and becoming Christians, makes no manner of Change in it.
Day in and day out, America is getting bombarded with ‘pro-gay’ propaganda. It’s relentless. You can’t open a newspaper or magazine, listen to the radio, or turn on the television without someone, somewhere pounding the ‘glories of gayness’ into your brain.
There can be no doubt that such doctrines, from such a source, will produce the best of consequences in our mixed population, and tend to make our servants not only more contented with their lot, but more useful to their owners. The great piety and learning of Doctor FURMAN, his long established character with the religious of every denomination throughout our State, will at once command the respectful attention of every reader.
The male-female union, introduced in Genesis, is the only model of sexual behavior consistently praised in both Old and New Testaments. While other forms of behavior (polygamy and the use of concubines, for example) are introduced and even allowed in the Old Testament, a monogamous relation between husband and wife is the standard upheld as the ideal within scripture. While the old phrase, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” seems flippant, it is a fair assessment of created intent: whereas heterosexuality is commended throughout the Bible, not once is a homosexual relationship mentioned in anything but negative terms.
Before we conclude slavery to be a thing hateful to God, and a great sin in his sight, it is proper that we should search the records he has given us, with care, to see in what light he has looked upon it, and find the warrant for concluding, that we shall honor him by efforts to abolish it; which efforts, in their consequences, may involve the indiscriminate slaughter of the innocent and the guilty, the master and the servant. We all believe him to be a Being who is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.
There are cases on record where a marriage license was issued to persons of the same sex. I recall one such incident in Phoenix, Arizona. A marriage license was issued in the Maricopa County clerk’s office to two men 39 and 21 years old respectively. The two men are reported to have “married” in a private ceremony.
However, to call a union of two persons of the same sex a “marriage” is a misnomer. In the Bible, marriage is a divinely ordered institution designed to form a permanent union between one man and one woman for one purpose (among others) of procreating or propagating the human race. That was God’s order in the first of such unions (Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:24; Matthew 19:5). If, in His original creation of humans, God had created two persons of the same sex, there would not be a human race in existence today. The whole idea of two persons of the same sex marrying is absurd, unsound, ridiculously unreasonable, stupid. A clergyman might bless a homosexual marriage but God won’t.
In the New-Testament, the Gospel History, or representation of facts, presents us a view correspondent with that, which is furnished by other authentic ancient histories of the state of the world at the commencement of Christianity. The powerful Romans had succeeded, in empire, the polished Greeks; and under both empires, the countries they possessed and governed were full of slaves. Many of these with their masters, were converted to the Christian Faith, and received, together with them into the Christian Church, while it was yet under the ministry of the inspired Apostles. In things purely spiritual, they appear to have enjoyed equal privileges; but their relationship, as masters and slaves, was not dissolved. Their respective duties are strictly enjoined. The masters are not required to emancipate their slaves; but to give them the things that are just and equal, forbearing threatening; and to remember, they also have a master in Heaven. The “servants under the yoke” *[upo zugon Douloi: bond-servants, or slaves. Doulos, is the proper term for slaves; it is here in the plural and rendered more expressive by being connected with yoke—UNDER THE YOKE.] (bond-servants or slaves) mentioned by Paul to Timothy, as having “believing masters,” are not authorized by him to demand of them emancipation, or to employ violent means to obtain it; but are directed to “account their masters worthy of all honour,” and “not to despise them, because they were brethren” in religion; “but the rather to do them service, because they were faithful and beloved partakers of the Christian benefit.” Similar directions are given by him in other places, and by other Apostles. And it gives great weight to the argument, that in this place, Paul follows his directions concerning servants with a charge to Timothy, as an Evangelist, to teach and exhort men to observe this doctrine.
The Bible is very clear about its condemnation of homosexual conduct. Both the Old and New Testaments speak with one voice on this subject. In spite of the publicity given to pro-gay theologians in recent years, serious and consistent exegetical study still allows no other interpretation.
Those who take seriously the authority of God’s Word should be aware that perhaps no subject poses a greater threat to the place of Scripture in our world today. If the world (and too often, even the church) can be convinced that we can ignore what the Bible teaches about homosexuality, then every other teaching of Scripture can be rationalized. Rejecting its teachings means confidence in the Bible as the inspired Word of God will be seriously eroded.
…Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties… I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction…
All modern philosophy converges to a single point — the overthrow of all government, the substitution of the untrammelled “Sovereignty of the Individual,” for the Sovereignty of Society, and the inauguration of anarchy. First domestic slavery, next religious institutions, then separate property, then political government, and, finally, family government and family relations, are to be swept away. This is the distinctly avowed programme of all able abolitionists and socialists; and towards this end the doctrines and the practices of the weakest and most timid among them tend.
If same-sex relationships acquire marital-type status in the law, several things will occur:
* Businesses that decline to recognize non-marital relationships will increasingly be punished through loss of contracts and even legal action. This is already occurring in San Francisco and in Canada.
* Other groups, such as bisexuals and polygamists, will demand the right to redefine marriage to suit their own proclivities. Once the standard of one-man, one-woman marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point.
* As society rewards homosexual behavior, more young people will be encouraged to experiment and more will be discouraged from overcoming homosexual desires.
* Popular understanding of what marriage is and what it requires will undergo change. Homosexual relationships, which usually lack both permanence and fidelity, are unlikely to change to fit the traditional model of lifelong, faithful marriage. Instead, society’s expectations of marriage will change in response to the homosexual model, thus leading to a further weakening of the institution of marriage. Some homosexual activists have acknowledged that they intend to use marriage mainly as a way to radically shift society’s entire conception of sexual morality. See appendix.
Conclusion
“Marriage” for same-sex couples (or the counterfeit equivalent under pseudonyms such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships”) is being promoted as an extension of tolerance, equality, and civil rights. But they are really wedges designed to overturn traditional sexual morality and to win official affirmation, celebration, subsidization and solemnization of behavior that is harmful to the people who engage in it and to society, and that is still viewed as morally wrong by a majority of the American public.
For the well-being of children and of society, we must not allow the creation of government-imposed counterfeit “marriage” by any name. Marriage is civilization’s primary institution, and we tamper with it at our own peril.
As you may have noted, I have not added much commentary to this, other than a few bolds and italics. I’d love to hear your gut reactions to this post…



Hey Jamie,
I have often meditated on the paradox of “not one dot” disappearing from the law and “Your righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees” as worthy explanations as to why one must “hate the sin but not the sinner.” I know these phrases, as the ones you have included above, are often taken as “cultural christianese/propoganda” as an excuse to be unkind an judgmental.
A post that will appear on my blog soon will describe how I believe that anyone (including myself) - by nature - gravitates towards infidelity and homosexuality (I am not offering a ruling here on the “rightness” or “wrongness” of any particular behavior) and - therefore - it is “going the extra mile” to abstain from infidelity or homosexuality. That being said, and knowing that whether “evidence” “proves” one sort of “behavior” more advantageous than another, I still maintain that there is no reason to be a christian unless there is some tangible “benefit” at the core of ones being which often will result in even slight “changes” in one’s life, emotions, behavior, etc. (though, as we all know, Christians can be some of the meanest people we know). Nevertheless, the message of a “new life” in christ is useless unless there is some sort of personal “inner-spirit” benefit and escape from the “pull” of sin - with regard to sex - always a tricky issue, because the “heavens and hells” so to speak are not very far apart with regard to sexuality. Christians enjoy sex, yet refrain from - arguable - more thrilling sex due to what folks perceive of some sort of “useless,” “irrelevant” moral code.
So I guess the sum of this rambling is that it may not be unreasonable to hold to the idea that “marriage” between a man and a woman is a “core value” of society. Some animals, for example, mate for life, and it could be argued that having multiple sexually partners outside of marriage could more strongly drive thrills, passions, and jealousies to a “less manageable” level.
I forget if you are the one who forwarded the “Fundamentalists should not be allowed to marry” parody (I also recognized some of the “you will be persecuted because” lists in your last posts - I know stuff travels all over the net) - which was a good ironic satire, but I still think it is an uninformed view to assume that anyone who is “anti-gay marriage” would be pro-slavery. If I were to wager a guess, though I could be wrong, for example, I believe Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have been anti-war - as he was with the vietnam war - but also anti-abortion (violence done to the womb/fetus) and anti-gay marriage. However, I agree with you that, if this would have been the case, Dr. King would have treated homosexuals (whether they wanted to marry or not) more with kindness like he treated other sinners and less with stoning - while still maintaining vigil against everyone’s internal and eternal battle with sin.
For example, one could easily quote the following article:
-”Study: Abstinence classes don’t stop sex - By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer -”
But does that mean that Jesus wants us to have sex the way we want or the way he wants (understanding that many used scripture to justify slavery…)?
Jeremiah,
Great thoughts. PLEASE know that I am not assuming that anyone anti-gay marriage is pro-slavery. My intention was simply to show that christians had a lot of “scriptural evidence” to back up slavery, as well as homosexuality=sin. I just am sometimes confused as to whether there is really good scriptural evidence for the amount of focus we put on homosexuality as a sin. Certainly, I’m all for sexual fidelity. I think the scripture is clear on that…besides the fact that infidelity is damaging to the spouse. BUT, is it possible, and that’s what I’m asking…is it possible that homosexual sex within the confines of a marriage (which is not currently allowed), could that be the fidelity that Jesus seeks?
Great discussion,
Hi Jamie,
Sorry if I sound nauseatingly aristotilian in the proposed “logic” that follows but implicit in your comparison of connecting a demonstration of scripture supporting slavery (presentated as an “absolute” evil) with scripture prohibiting homosexual marriage (you are theorizing that prohibiting homosexual marriage is also an “absolute” evil) BY NECESSITY means that you are doing one of two things. You are either connecting two unrelated items in your comparison (which is termed a “false comparison” in logical terms) or you are trying to assert, postulate, or theorize that prohibiting homosexual marriage is a SIMILAR evil to supporting slavery). There are no other options - logically (do I sound like Spock yet?
- to interpret the reason you use these two types of scriptures.
It is a fantastic post and I will respond more later to what seems to be your true question of whether scripture can be rightly interpreted to prohibit homosexual marriage. But you cannot use your statement “PLEASE know that I am not assuming anyone anti-gay marriage is pro-slavery” because you could never use your comparison of two scripture proofs without assuming/theorizing that the scripture proofs are connected in some way. Either you believe the scripture you cited is being using wrongly to endorse the prohibition of homsexual marriage or you are, in effect, presenting a “smoke screen” by presenting two unrelated methods of scripture proof. In short, you either believe the scripture presented agains homosexual marriage is an equivalently dangerous use of scripture as the use which you presented supporting slavery or not. Probably a better and a more detailed description of the theory you are espousing - as opposed to the blanket statement which I postulated “[you] are assuming anyone anti-gay is pro-slavery” would be better translated as “folks who use the scriptures I cited to prohibit homosexual marriage are making the same, similar, or at least as dangerous assumptions as folks who used scripture to support slavery.”
If this is indeed you theory, my only point is that i will theorize later that the issues are different, the method of scripture interpretation is different, and, therefore, I disagree (at least philisophically/logically) with your “theory/presentation” because from my view it compares “apples to oranges” (in both the issue and the method of biblical interpretation).
What is even more exciting about the possible extentions of this post/thread is that I believe we can agree on areas where people pick and choose without any support which scriptures are “time immemorial Christ mandates” and which scritures are “culturally relevant directives.” For example, no one who uses scrpture to support women should not be pastors have every clearly demonstrated to me why - using the way they interpret scripture - women should not all be wearing head coverings in church today.
However, I hope to be able to show my theory as to why I interpret both homosexual marriage and the use of scripture-proofs above differently.
Peace, In Him,
Jeremiah
Jeremiah—
I completely forgive your use of aristotelianism
I think perhaps that I’m not putting one text of the scripture against another as much as I am stating that I think we can be wrong in our interpretation…..and have been historically…I would love to hear your thoughts in both the issue and the method of biblical interpretation on homosexual marriage. I’m always open, but frankly, I’m not convinced at this point, unless you have something new that I haven’t heard yet.
I would not align slavery to a belief that homosexual marriage is not within God’s purview. They ARE two different things….slavery is treating people as property, the other, if wrong, is discrimination. NOT the same thing. I am well aware of that.
I’m simply suggesting that perhaps the christians that believed slavery was a God-ordained institution believed that AS strongly as today’s christians maintain that marriage is only a man/woman institution.
Looking forward to more conversation,
Jamie
Hey Jamie,
Even though it might appear as a “debating point,” in all sincerity, do you have scritures that you look to supporting homsexual marriage, if any? I will post more shortly.
Thanks,
“Jeremiah”
Jeremiah…
I haven’t had time or energy to put into this lately, but would love to hear your scripture support, when you have time
peace,
J