• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Lesbians allowed in marriage?

M

MemeFan

Seasoned Member
Male
I'm certain many are thinking not again this topic. I have come to conclusion that actually theology here doesn't matter.

Since theology is based on single verse from Romans and this isn't enough to develop any "proper theology", key reason must be something else.

That something else is man's reproductive strategy. Either man considers action between ladies good for his reproductive success or not. This is exactly why there is divide between go-go guys and sceptics.

Think, if you ask sceptic why is he against *ahem? Well, we don't think consciousnessly about reproductive strategy, so any reasoning we use hides this reality from us.

Think a little. When a man sees pretty woman, what is he thinking? Pretty, nice, good hair. Certainly not good woman to be impregnated asap. So, there is part of our motivation hidden from consciousness.

Return to our sceptic. Easiest way to stop discussion and not to explain more is by making it into regilious taboo. And here infamous verse saves the day.

Yes, Bible is justification for what sceptic really wants do. Btw, go-go guy is ... the same. He wants action and sees no ban into that infamous verse.
 
Last edited:
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Thoughts. Verse 26 - What is the natural use for women? Bible doesn't say. What is against nature for women? Bible doesn't say. It's very vague. There is no women with women verse, even here. There are many men with men verses. Verse 27 says "burned in lust one toward another. Verse 26 doesn't say that. Why? Also, verse 27 clearly says "men with men". Why doesn't verse 26 talking about women say women with women? And what exactly is against natural use for a woman? It just does not say, so we are left to try to figure out what that means, and I have heard several different explanations as to what women changing the natural use means. Natural use of what exactly?

This is the only verse in scripture that mentions women in this fashion. Did God forget about it in his laws. Did he forget to condemn a vile and wicked practice for thousands of years. Did he forget to tell Moses to write it down? He is very adamant about men with men, did it just slip his mind? Why isn't it there.

OK, personal opinion time. Women with women isn't really "sex". No male genitalia is involved, therefore no penetration from a male, therefore no true sex. For this reason and because it's not mentioned in scripture (women with women), I don't believe it is sin. I used to believe differently, but have changed my view after taking a good look at it.

Having said that, I don't believe two women can marry. Who is the head? Who is in charge? Who does the woman fall under? Who is there authority? How can one woman be the head of another woman (they can't) There's no man so it isn't a true marriage.

Now as for women/women "sex", that's kind of a gray area, and I think if that is to be done, it should be done under the authority of a man in a plural marriage setting only after he has considered the scripture and has provided his blessing for it in the confines of his marriages. Can I 100 percent point to a scripture on that? Not really But, understanding how God's makeup of how a family should be run, that is my best guess as to how sex between women should happen. With the permission of the head of the family.

OK, what is wrong with my thought process? Poke holes in it.
 
NBTX11 said:
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Thoughts. Verse 26 - What is the natural use for women? Bible doesn't say. What is against nature for women? Bible doesn't say. It's very vague. There is no women with women verse, even here. There are many men with men verses. Verse 27 says "burned in lust one toward another. Verse 26 doesn't say that. Why? Also, verse 27 clearly says "men with men". Why doesn't verse 26 talking about women say women with women? And what exactly is against natural use for a woman? It just does not say, so we are left to try to figure out what that means, and I have heard several different explanations as to what women changing the natural use means. Natural use of what exactly?

This is the only verse in scripture that mentions women in this fashion. Did God forget about it in his laws. Did he forget to condemn a vile and wicked practice for thousands of years. Did he forget to tell Moses to write it down? He is very adamant about men with men, did it just slip his mind? Why isn't it there.

OK, personal opinion time. Women with women isn't really "sex". No male genitalia is involved, therefore no penetration from a male, therefore no true sex. For this reason and because it's not mentioned in scripture (women with women), I don't believe it is sin. I used to believe differently, but have changed my view after taking a good look at it.

Having said that, I don't believe two women can marry. Who is the head? Who is in charge? Who does the woman fall under? Who is there authority? How can one woman be the head of another woman (they can't) There's no man so it isn't a true marriage.

Now as for women/women "sex", that's kind of a gray area, and I think if that is to be done, it should be done under the authority of a man in a plural marriage setting only after he has considered the scripture and has provided his blessing for it in the confines of his marriages. Can I 100 percent point to a scripture on that? Not really But, understanding how God's makeup of how a family should be run, that is my best guess as to how sex between women should happen. With the permission of the head of the family.

OK, what is wrong with my thought process? Poke holes in it.
Click to expand...
I don’t have any disagreements with any of this.
 
V27 "... and likewise..." is the tie-in here. We look back again with sanitized glasses to view something Paul thought was so obvious that he left off the details. Rampant lesbianism is the norm in many of our cities today and yet we scratch our collective noggins as to the nature and genesis of it? I guess we would have to get to the practice and then declare the inappropriateness of it. The "vile" nature points to the ungodliness of it. Not all woman to woman contact is lesbian contact.
IMHO women need women to love and lean on. Women NEED women to have babies carefully and beautifully delivered. Now to be sure, a male OBGYN Dr is worth his weight in gold but I still have a bit of an issue with him studying my wife's necessary parts. Now both my wives have had terrific male Docs. Both trusted them alot, so I went along. Funny part is the female OBGYN were NOT very kind and compassionate. That one I couldn't figure out.
 
For me in my opinion, God laid out all sexual sin in explicit details. Never once does God lay out a prohibition on women with women. I do believe as aforementioned that it should be under the headship of a man in plural marriage. Can I point to scripture that says women with women is not sin? No not with 100 percent certainty. Can I point to scripture that says it is sin? No not with 100 percent certainty. When the scripture has a grey area I believe this is where you have to let the Holy Spirit guide you as to what’s right for your family.
 
ASyers41 said:
God laid out all sexual sin in explicit details. Never once does God lay out a prohibition on women with women.
Click to expand...
Yes. So, my question is, since He could be clear and explicit about so many things sexual, why couldn't He say polygyny is wrong or more than one wife in bed at a time with their man is wrong? If people are going to add polygyny and two (or more) women together as being wrong, then they'll have to accept the Mormons saying it's wrong to drink coffee, and the JW's that celebrating birthdays is also wrong. All that does is open the door to a free-for-all, add-whatever-you-want type of eisegetical approach to Bible interpretation. And that never goes well.
 
Maddog said:
V27 "... and likewise..." is the tie-in here. We look back again with sanitized glasses to view something Paul thought was so obvious that he left off the details. Rampant lesbianism is the norm in many of our cities today and yet we scratch our collective noggins as to the nature and genesis of it? I guess we would have to get to the practice and then declare the inappropriateness of it. The "vile" nature points to the ungodliness of it. Not all woman to woman contact is lesbian contact.
IMHO women need women to love and lean on. Women NEED women to have babies carefully and beautifully delivered. Now to be sure, a male OBGYN Dr is worth his weight in gold but I still have a bit of an issue with him studying my wife's necessary parts. Now both my wives have had terrific male Docs. Both trusted them alot, so I went along. Funny part is the female OBGYN were NOT very kind and compassionate. That one I couldn't figure out.
Click to expand...
Berean patriot did an article that brought out details in the Greek that don't come through in translation. I believe the women Paul was talking about exchanged reproductive relations with men for what gay men call sex, to avoid conception in a culture where divorce was common and they lacked the marital security the Israelite culture (including polygyny) provided.

There is no law in the bible that forbids contact of really any kind between women.

I believe lesbianism (as we see it today) is a symptom of a culture where men have lost their masculinity. When men are manly and RESPONSIBLE women are attracted to them.

Edited to add that I agree, any intimate relationship should happen in the contect of marriage where there is commitment between the people.
 
MemeFan said:
I'm certain many are thinking not again this topic. I have come to conclusion that actually theology here doesn't matter.

Since theology is based on single verse from Romans and this isn't enough to develop any "proper theology", key reason must be something else.

That something else is man's reproductive strategy. Either man considers action between ladies good for his reproductive success or not. This is exactly why there is divide between go-go guys and sceptics.

Think, if you ask sceptic why is he against *ahem? Well, we don't think consciousnessly about reproductive strategy, so any reasoning we use hides this reality from us.

Think a little. When a man sees pretty woman, what is he thinking? Pretty, nice, good hair. Certainly not good woman to be impregnated asap. So, there is part of our motivation hidden from consciousness.
Click to expand...

I think about reproductive strategy.
Being the sort of nerd who mentions that sort of an idea it turns out is a turn off to woman you are just getting to know. Ugh

Anyway. Why would anyone think it was a good reproductive strategy to have kids with someone who arguably has an inborn set of crossed mental wires and by extension may pass on a maladaptive path to your children?

Leaving the reproductive strategy aside for the moment, how would this work from a practical standpoint?
I don't see it as a notion worth significant consideration as I simply don't see it as a scenario which would be anything but an extreme outlier relationship. Now consider us who do or have practiced polygamy...we in the western world are such extreme outliers to be considered the last taboo practicers in a world or sickening open degeneracy.
So now we should double down on the lottery like aspect (save for the winning ticket likely giving you and angry short hared kewpie doll that is averse to being boinked) in that the odds are astronomical.
Don't see the point.

I know a lot of guys who like the idea of polygamy like the idea of watching and joining wives in shenanigans. Don't really think think it needs to be a big motivating factor vs kids and family.
 
paterfamilias said:
I think about reproductive strategy.
Being the sort of nerd who mentions that sort of an idea it turns out is a turn off to woman you are just getting to know. Ugh

Anyway. Why would anyone think it was a good reproductive strategy to have kids with someone who arguably has an inborn set of crossed mental wires and by extension may pass on a maladaptive path to your children?
Click to expand...
Some motivating factors are unconsious.You aren't going to tell women you think she would be nice for your reproductive strategy.

Same as why people speak less about money in job interview. Yes, it's very important, yes, there are other factors maybe more important that money and yes, people don't being talked other people who are obssessed with money.

paterfamilias said:
Leaving the reproductive strategy aside for the moment, how would this work from a practical standpoint?
I don't see it as a notion worth significant consideration as I simply don't see it as a scenario which would be anything but an extreme outlier relationship. Now consider us who do or have practiced polygamy...we in the western world are such extreme outliers to be considered the last taboo practicers in a world or sickening open degeneracy.
So now we should double down on the lottery like aspect (save for the winning ticket likely giving you and angry short hared kewpie doll that is averse to being boinked) in that the odds are astronomical.
Don't see the point.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt West is currently practicing some sort of polygyny. What is issue isn't existence, but not-existence of permanence of such relationships.

Not that hard to find threesome testimonies, what is hard is finding menage a trois testimony.

paterfamilias said:
I know a lot of guys who like the idea of polygamy like the idea of watching and joining wives in shenanigans. Don't really think think it needs to be a big motivating factor vs kids and family.
Click to expand...
It doesn't. But if it's powerful glue for wives bonding then it matters.
 
Joleneakamama said:
Berean patriot did an article that brought out details in the Greek that don't come through in translation. I believe the women Paul was talking about exchanged reproductive relations with men for what gay men call sex, to avoid conception in a culture where divorce was common and they lacked the marital security the Israelite culture (including polygyny) provided.

There is no law in the bible that forbids contact of really any kind between women.

I believe lesbianism (as we see it today) is a symptom of a culture where men have lost their masculinity. When men are manly and RESPONSIBLE women are attracted to them.

Edited to add that I agree, any intimate relationship should happen in the contect of marriage where there is commitment between the people.
Click to expand...
This is the best take I’ve ever heard on this topic.
 
The problem is to say that Paul is talking about anal sex between men and women, when Moses doesn't forbid that either.
 
MemeFan said:
Some motivating factors are unconsious.You aren't going to tell women you think she would be nice for your reproductive strategy.

Same as why people speak less about money in job interview. Yes, it's very important, yes, there are other factors maybe more important that money and yes, people don't being talked other people who are obssessed with money.



I don't doubt West is currently practicing some sort of polygyny. What is issue isn't existence, but not-existence of permanence of such relationships.

Not that hard to find threesome testimonies, what is hard is finding menage a trois testimony.


It doesn't. But if it's powerful glue for wives bonding then it matters.
Click to expand...


- I thought I was clear. Yes...I do and or have discussed that sort of thing with women in the past and was expressing the notion that it was in of itself not good for a reproductive strategy as being someone too outside of the life experience of people who think in terms of their playlists, binge watching some TV show and signaling the latest fake cultural virtue when has been most recently uploaded to their exceptionally plastic brains... IE you can't speak openly and be honest with the average modern woman if you wish to potentially partner with then. Well...at least I bloody well can't.

- Hard disagree on the money. Then I take a different tact in interviews. I quiz them and make it clear that I am here to be sold, not to sell myself. Dropping the money question as an apparent aside while already discussing another topic is good for taking them off guard. No direct answer equals thanking them for their time and stop wasting your own. Beung confident in your ability and worth goes a long way

- know the biblical take with respect to Intercourse equals marriage and broadly I agree. The culture however not only doesn't recognize this notion but clearly has contempt for it. Till things change we have to live in the real world as opposed to an ideal world. I would not call having threesomes on occasion with that crazy girl one dates in college who liked to rope in a sorority sister or friend now and them polygamy. Or any variation of whatever fantasy trope guys have in their mind.
No ceremonies then no marriage. No commitment on the part of all parties then no marriage. No intention of polygamy then no polygamy.

- won't comment on stories to be told as I am one of the ones who not just isn't telling stories but who will neither confirm or deny claims. There are certainly stories which could be told and testimonials which could be presented...just not by me.
 
"Inherent" implies it isnt there but scripture is filled with things referenced as an abomination such as a man laying with a man like he would a woman. Fecal matter on a man's penis ought to tell us an obvious truth. Kinda like "don't put that pistol up against your noggin." Penetration by a man there is hard on the anal sphincter muscle and tissue.
If that's what you want, go for it but in my mind it isn't wise. I heard a statement years ago that loosely goes like this, "girls are for babies, boys are for play." One learns alot from greek's history of pedastery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top