So about those gay people...

And yet many, if not most, married people have no problem being monogamous once they marry, no matter how many partners they've had before.

The connection I have with my wife is greater than any other I've had, put together. It would be that way no matter what I had done before.

Satan invented Darwinism to confuse the faithful.

Sure.

And you'll never know the way it could have been if neither of you had ever been with anyone else, either.

So what's the line on blowjobs?

Tell that to Lilith.

It's not sex according to Bill Clinton.

No U.

Make sure you record some squawks and squeeks and "share her answer with us" when you do.

Things that also make apostle feel confused: Big Black Penises.

Anyways, bringing god into a discussion about sex is pretty creepy and kind of makes you look crazy to boot. So good luck with all that I guess, religious people.

To not expect religion and sex to come up in a gay marriage thread is pretty naive.

I call Bullshit, as Flow was my first.

I can't conceive of how it would be different. It's not like I'd love her 2% extra for being a virgin.

If one is consistant in applying cultural context to the things said in the bible, there's an argument to be made that the "rules of marriage" that were supposedly according to God were both culturally influenced and culturally sensitive.

I have almost no time right now to get deep into these weeds but a couple of exampls I hope will serve to illustrate the point:

1. David was "a man after God's own heart" and nothing was said to him in the negative about the fact that he had multiple wives. even the place where he failed was in that he committed murder by proxy to get the new wife he added to the stable, not that he had more than one.

2. In looking at things like the Law of Moses, you have to remember that the rules were given within the context of the demands of that time and place and culture, and most of them are not considered to have universal application.

if this was true in the OT, and if we apply similar reasoning in the NT (say, in how we understand the remarks about slavery) then why would we not likewise understand that the comments regarding the only proper and godly sexual activity, or marriage, would likewise reflect the culture and context of the author and audience to whom it was first applied?

If it's all culture sensitive, then, given how much our culture has changed, it's all obsolete, and we should expect to receive a NEW-new testament.

Given that (excluding of course, Mormonism, and Islam) that we didn't get one, let's...just go ahead, and go with science, and law.

^^^
In that view, everything is up for grabs. So what's the point in the text in the first place?

Absolutely. The problem, of course, is where to stop. Most Christians consider the Bible to be divinely intended as some kind of guidance for behaviour (though that is by far not its only function for most). How much is left? How do you tell what is left?

If I were bound to a religious interpretation, I think I'd go with your first two points instead. Marriage, specifically, is malleable throughout the Bible, so it might well be changeable again. The point about general cultural relativity is well taken, but I don't see it leading to any straightforward hermeneutical practice.

Yeah, not like those 2 billion+ Muslims take it seriously :/

Seriously... you just endorsed the Koran in the field of bible based dogmas.

How do you figure?

With Diacanu here (shockingly): How do you reason that?

Of the major Abrahamic religions, Islam and Mormonism are the only two that have received a 'NEW-New Testament', the Koran, and Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants, respectively. Dickynoo's not endorsing either (Hell will freeze over twice before that happens!), just pointing out that those two religions have stuff beyond the Bible's New Testament.

WHAT? Then why does the Bible brag about Solomon having about 700 concubines?

Actually, it isn't bragging. Ultimately, Solomon is seen as a King who started out well, and then gave his life over to ungodly things. Solomon is a failure in the end.

Getting back to Lilith, though. Adam has a wife, she refuses to be subservient to him, so he sets her aside (or she walks, depending on the version), and not only does God give him a new model, but lets him stay in Eden after the divorce. And we all know how the new model turned out.

How does that fit into the "one man, one woman" myth?

^Remember though: It's not in the Bible, ergo, it never happened.

True. I still get a kick out of Adam and Eve's sons all having wives. Were they all the McRib version, or were there, yanno, other humans on the planet at the same time? Maybe hanging with the dinosaurs, so they missed roll-call?

Now my memory of early Genesis is somewhat hazy (and I don't want to crack my Bible open or take the time to go find Robert Crumb's graphic novel of Genesis), but I recall that only boys are mentioned as Adam's son... kinda ruling out sisters for wives (squick factor aside)... leaving only...

We don't get a full accounting of Adam and Eve's progeny. They only talk about Cain, Abel and Seth but they had hundreds of sons and daughters. (Gen 5:4)

Sure they did. That makes sense. Life expectancy was probably 30-35 at best and Eve was popping out 10 kids every 9 months. Obvious.

DAMN! Was Octomom taking notes?

IIRC, life expectancy before the Flood was in the 900's. Then God said, yeah, not so much.