He stated regarding the Genesis account that it “outline[s] God’s design and intention for sexuality.” I find this statement incredible in light of the fact that the Old Testament Law of Moses bases its sexual ethic on this very passage - and that very law treats women as the property of men and says absolutely not one word proscribing polygamy, but, on the contrary, has specific laws that ensure it. The fact is the early Jews saw absolutley no contradiction between polygamy and the Genesis account. They simply believed a man could be one flesh with many women. After all, the acquisition of more wives was just a way of getting rich since they saw marriage as the accumulation of more property - for that is what women were looked at as. This law is the same law, I should point out, that supposedly was given to Moses by God, the same Moses who was given that very same creation narrative (I am assuming a conservative position on the authorship of the first five books for sake of argument)! Why didn’t God tell Moses that the law as he was writing it was contrary to His intent for men and women as He had already laid out in Genesis 1 and 2? Seems perfectly reasonable, do you not think? Could Moses have forgotten by the time he got to Leviticus and Deuteronomy? I highly doubt it. Or, if you are going to assume verbal-plenary inspiration, how did Moses not KNOW this and incorporate it into the Old Testament law?

He also noted that we should take heed to the “the way the OT law functions to restrain these distortions.” This is laughable. The OT law enshrines patristic hegemony, the use and exchange of women as property, polygamous relationships, levirate marriage, and the condemnation of natural mentraul and seminal discharges! If I wanted to determine sexual ethics, the LAST place I would go would be the OT law. The OT law represents the understanding of God as had by the people of that time, just like our creeds and theologies and ethics reflect our understanding of God. They sought to the best of their knowledge to apply what they believed to be true about God. There is a progression to the revelation of God that we get. Today, we go by the law of Christ and that is the law of love. If I am loving someone then I am fulfilling the only law that matters (Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:6). Homosexuals in loving, committed relationships are doing the very same.

I would be highly cautious about basing our ideas about God’s intent for sexuality on the ideas of the same people who believed God told them to go in and commit genocide against people of another religion including young children and babies who could hardly have been seen as guilty of their culture’s sins. Recognize the OT for what it is: pre-Christ people’s understanding of God. And then stick to Christ’s heart as the revelation of God that we should be guiding our lives by.

P.S. - Besides all this, the stated reason for God creating Eve in Genesis is so that Adam wouldn’t be lonely. In other words, the first thought for marriage is companionship - even in their world! Gays and lesbians most certainly have a need for companionship as much as their heterosexual friends and family do.

Good post - some very interesting points there. It’s nice to hear some new opinions/new takes on the issue.

(that was a bit boring, wasn’t it!!! Oh well)

Ah, ok, I can understand that one. I still think that a bit of dependence on your partner is a good thing - if you truly didn’t feel like you needed them (to be happy or whatever), why would you still be with them?

With the dependence thing, I’d like to differentiate between legitimate interdependence, where partners enjoy each other and structure their lives around each other, and a pathological dependence, where one partner consistently uses their relationship to shield them from facing reality, so they don’t have to deal with challenges, can escape from responsibility, and consequently deny themselves the opportunity to grow [Growth being the key end goal, hence being dependent on something one actually can't do isn't a bad thing, as being left to fail wouldn't be beneficial. Also the occasional break from things is fine, so long as it's not consistent, and not used as an escape from responsibility].

Lastly, I just want to clarify, I’m not saying that the relationships I see are like this, I’m just clarifying for myself what is good and isn’t.

Maybe its possible to overthink things?

Sometimes we’re stronger because we are dependent on someone else.

I agree that we shouldn’t ever hold our partner to be the most important thing in the world, but its ok to feel that way about them sometimes. Love is an emotion, as well as whatever else it is.

Kris