To avoid derailing another thread

[Nikud]

Romans 1:26-27. And on close reading you find that that single proof-text is actually able to be interpreted several ways.

Really, let me guess temple prostitution not mentioned, beastiality not mentioned, deciding to be celibate...see Paul, the fact that a man is not involved (biblical sanctioning of polyamory) not mentioned, a shameful passion for show tunes not mentioned.

Romans 1:26-27

18 For the wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. In unrighteousness they suppress the truth, 19 because what can be known about G-d is plain to them—for G-d has shown it to them. 20 His invisible attributes—His eternal power and His divine nature—have been clearly seen ever since the creation of the world, being understood through the things that have been made. So people are without excuse— 21 for even though they knew G-d, they did not glorify Him as G-d or give Him thanks. Instead, their thinking became futile, and their senseless hearts were made dark. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools. 23 They exchanged the glory of the immortal G-d for an image in the form of mortal man and birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things.

(This is speaking of idolatry and Apostasy)

24 Therefore G-d gave them over in the evil desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies with one another. 25 They traded the truth of G-d for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. [Cause for the up coming effect] 26 For this reason G-d gave them up to shameful passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for what is against nature. 27 Likewise the men abandoned natural relations with women and were burning with passion toward one another—men committing shameful acts with other men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

(where in this is there interpretation for anything but homesexuality)

28 And just as they did not see fit to recognize G-d, G-d gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what is not fitting. 29 They became filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, G-d-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents. 31 They are foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know G-d’s righteous decree—that those who practice such things deserve death—they not only do them but also approve of others who practice the same.

(This is about the depravity of humans with out G-d)

Leviticus 20 is full of extremely gender-specific commands. Every verse clearly talks about men and women using different words. When something is to be forbidden for both, such as bestiality only two verses later, this is explicitly stated to ensure there is no misunderstanding (v15-16). To take this list of precisely stated gender-specific instructions, and pluck one out of the middle of it (v13) and assume that the gender-specificity does not actually apply for that particular verse and this one just happens to apply to both, is not accurate exegesis. It is interpreting the passage to fit a preconception of what our emotions / upbringing tell us must be correct.

So your saying Leviticus 20 is full of gender specific instructions and they can't be applied to the opposite?


Leviticus 20

20 Adonai spoke to Moses saying:

2 “Moreover, you are to tell Bnei-Yisrael: Anyone from Bnei-Yisrael or from the outsiders dwelling in Israel, who gives any of his children to Molech, shall surely be put to death. The people of the land are to stone him with rocks.

3 I also will set My face against such a person and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given his children to Molech, defiling My Sanctuary and profaning My holy Name.

Is directed at a man is it ok for a woman to give her child to Molech, child sacrifice one of tge strongest cases against abortion.

4 But if the people of the land all hide their eyes from that person, when he gives of his seed to Molech, and do not put him to death,

5 then I will set My face against that man and against his family, and will cut him off, along with all who play the prostitute after him with Molech, from among their people.

This is directed to everyone

6 “The soul that turns to mediums or to soothsayers, prostituting himself with them, I will set My face against that soul and will cut him off from among his people.

Directive is to a man, so is it then ok for a woman to turn to mediums or to soothsayers, prostituting herself with them?

7 So consecrate yourselves and be holy, for I am Adonaiyour
G-d.

Directed at both

8 You are to keep My statutes, and do them. I am Adonai who sanctifies you.

Directed at both

9 “Any man who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or mother, and his blood should be on him.

Any woman who curses her father or mother shall surely be put to death. Sounds biblically acurate to honor your mother and father but if you say it doesn't apply because it's gender specific then women can do it.

10 “The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

The woman who commits adultery (in this case would mean she is married because of the use of Adultery) with another woman's husband...once again sounds biblically sound to me but ok she doesn't get stoned


11 “If a man lies with his father’s wife, and has uncovered his father’s nakedness, both of them shall surely be put to death, and their blood shall be on them.

If a woman lies with her mother's husband, I thought there was biblical prohibition agains father daughter incest, I guess I was wrong.

12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed a perversion, and their blood shall be on them.

If a woman lies with her son-in-law, once again I thought there was biblical prohibition, am I wrong?

13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination, and they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be on them.

Still can't apply the opposite lets keep looking at others.

14 If a man takes a wife and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire—both he and they, so that there may be no wickedness among you.

If a woman takes a husband and his father, it is wickedness. Gender specific, so it dosn't apply right? Wouldn't this be PolyAndry? Then is PolyAndry sanctioned?

15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you are to kill the animal.

Is it possible Something's are so vile that that G-d had to make sure it was clear?

16 If a woman approaches any animal, and lies down with it, you are to kill the woman and the animal. They shall surely be put to death, and their blood shall be on them.

I know it's not cannon but it's mentioned in both the Tanahk and the Goespels, the book of Enoch alludes to human/animal hybrids. Reason enough to be absolutely clear.

17 If a man takes his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and sees her nakedness, and she his, it is a shameful thing. They are to be cut off in the sight of the children of their people, for he has uncovered his sister’s nakedness, and will bear his iniquity.

If a woman takes her brother, her mothers son, or her fathers son, once again I thought there was biblical prohibition

18 If a man lies with a woman during her niddah and exposes her nakedness, he has exposed her flow and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them are to be cut off from among their people.

If a woman lies with a man during her niddah and exposes her nakedness, says the exact same thing

19 You are not to uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, or your father’s sister, for the one who does that has made his close relative naked, and will bear his iniquity.

Scripture never forbids woman from marring Uncles.

20 If a man lies with his aunt, he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness. They shall bear their sin, and die childless.

Scripture never forbids woman from marring Uncles.

21 If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an impurity. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness, and they will be childless.

There's an exception here to make it justified Levite marriage just like it would be unjustifiable If a woman marrys her sister’s husband as a rival.

That being said plain word gender switch is not applical.

22 “Now you are to keep all My statutes and all My ordinances and do them, so that the land where I am bringing you to dwell will not vomit you out.

No distinction

23 You are not to walk in the ways of the nation which I am casting out before you, for they did all these things and therefore I abhorred them.

No distinction

24 But I have said to you, ‘You will inherit their land and I will give it to you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey.’ I am Adonai your G-d, who has set you apart from the peoples.

25 “Also you are to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean. And you are not to make your souls detestable by an animal or by a bird, or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart as unclean for you.

No distinction

26 You are to be holy to Me, for I, Adonai, am holy, and have set you apart from the peoples, so that you would be Mine.

27 “A man or a woman who is a medium or is a soothsayer shall surely be put to death. They shall stone them with rocks, and their blood shall be on them

So vile (trafficking with spirits) that there had to be an instruction against consorting those who did as well as being one. Possibly why G-d made it absolutely clear that it's not tolerated for men or women.

How many of those gender specific instructions were not biblical when the gender was switched 3, 2 if you apply the Levite exception and the as a rival prohibition.

 

[Joleneakamama]

(where in this is there interpretation for anything but homesexuality)

I have given this some study and thought over the years. I don't read Hebrew or Greek, but have looked up some of the words used in Romans 126.
If you keep in mind that God did specifically forbid what homosexual men do with each other, (Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind) and also keep in mind they were not to add to or take away from His laws, the absence of the equivalent verse in the old testament is significant. God did specifically forbid women commiting beastiality, so He didn't forget to legislate all "shameful passions" relating to women.
I find it problematic that lesbianism is not described in this verse and yet everyone thinks that is what it is discussing.
Look up the word translated "natural" and it means instinctive, look up the word translated "nature" and it means germination or other words relating to reproduction. Exchanged the natural (instinctive) use for that which is against nature (conception). If you think backward from "likewise the men" in verse 27 to the act that was decreed by God a capital crime and apply it to women, you arrive at women having unnatural relations, probably with their husbands, like homosexual men do.
It is hard to fathom (Even their women! ) when the natural procreative alternative to the "shameful act" is SO CLOSE!!!

In the patriarchal culture that Moses spoke to, back in the day when "Choose you this day whom ye will serve but as for me AND MY HOUSE we will serve YHWH" was written it was understood that the man answered for what his wife did, so YHWH prohibited the women from sacrificing children, and many other sinful acts by prohibiting the man. In far too many cases now days the man fathers a child with a woman who has not agreed to him being in authority over her, and he has no recourse if she chooses to murder his child. This is preventable....men shouldn't make whores of their daughters, or other men's daughters either.

This is just my take on it trying to consider the culture, the prohibition on adding or taking away from the law, and what is not said. Paul didn't say the women left their husbands for their girlfriends or that they even had girlfriends.

Besides, everyone back in Paul's day seemed to know....the woman was made for the MAN!

 

[eye4them]

Keven* Kevin, I'm sorry, I couldn't determine for sure which side of this topic you're on, or what exactly your points are.. so if what I say here is nonsensical relative to your point(s); please accept my apologies. These are my thoughts and conjectures. I could be wrong.

(where in this is there interpretation for anything but homesexuality)

I don't see that "homosexuality" is anywhere condemned.

We know that "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" (1Jo 3:4), and that "where no law is, there is no transgression." (Rom 4:15), and that "sin is not imputed when there is no law." (Rom 5:13). These verses seem to rule out things being called sin ex post facto, and sin being defined according to the opinions of men.

One of the troubles I see with looking at Romans 1:26 as an argument against lesbianism is that whatever the women did wrong, was wrong before Paul spoke (for he spoke of events that already took place), therefore Rom 1:26 cannot be where we learn that lesbianism is "wrong" (unless its an ex post facto law). But since Rom 1:26 was the only place that *arguably* spoke against lesbianism, what's left with which to argue against lesbianism?

As for Lev 20:13, there are two ways that a man can lay with a woman. One of those ways is possible with another man; and it's prohibited. Whereas two women cannot do either of these; women are simply not physically equipped to do it (save perhaps a hermaphrodite). So even if one were to reverse the gender labels on v13 and apply it to women, no woman is physically capable of transgressing such a command.

Exclusive lesbianism seems likely to be non-participation in the multiply mandate, and rejection to be ruled over by a man (Gen 3:16). A man's bisexual ("lesbian") wives, the mothers of his children, taking a roll in the hay... seems quite lawful.

*edit; I misspelled Kevin's name. My apologies to all.

 

[Nikud]

Look up the word translated "natural" and it means instinctive, look up the word translated "nature" and it means germination or other words relating to reproduction. Exchanged the natural (instinctive) use for that which is against nature (conception). If you think backward from "likewise the men" in verse 27 to the act that was decreed by God a capital crime and apply it to women, you arrive at women having unnatural relations, probably with their husbands, like homosexual men do.
It is hard to fathom (Even their women! ) when the natural procreative alternative to the "shameful act" is SO CLOSE!!!

Here's an Issue that arises with that explaination. It if natural means to have sex that can produce offspring. Then it is unatural for a woman to have sex with her husband when there is no chance of conception. No sex after menopause, barren, and it's only ok for 5-6 days a month other than that it's not?

 

[andrew]

As for Lev 20:13, there are two ways that a man can lay with a woman. One of those ways is possible with another man; and it's prohibited.

Not following you. Lev 20:13 prohibits lying with a man as he lieth with a woman. It does not prohibit lying with a woman in the way he might lie with a man.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Here's an Issue that arises with that explaination. It if natural means to have sex that can produce offspring. Then it is unatural for a woman to have sex with her husband when there is no chance of conception. No sex after menopause, barren, and it's only ok for 5-6 days a month other than that it's not?

Not an issue really. Exchanged means at that time.
I have long seen the verses that tell us a woman quit bearing children as a tacit (unspoken) acknowledgement that sexual relations continued. There were only certain times when intimacy was forbidden, other then that it was ok.

 

[FollowingHim]

Please note that my only point is that this is not an issue to get worked up about. If the law is not explicit, and Yeshua never mentioned it, it's not something for us to get emotive about. Sure we can have opinions, but there are other matters more worth our energy debating.

Or to put it another way:

Moses ben Maimon (1135‑1204) (known as Maimonides or Rambam) clarified the halakhic position in his code, the Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 21:8). He wrote:

“For women to play around with one another is forbidden and belongs to ‘the practices of the Egyptians’ concerning which we have been warned, ‘You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt’…But though such conduct is forbidden, it is not punishable by lashing since there is no specific prohibition against it and in any case no sexual intercourse takes place at all. Consequently, such women are not forbidden to the priesthood on account of unchastity, nor is a woman prohibited to her husband because of it, since this does not constitute unchastity. But it is appropriate to flog such women since they have done a forbidden thing. A man should be particularly strict with his wife in this matter, and should prevent women known to indulge in such practices from visiting her, and her from going to visit them.”

The Rambam is extremely clear on this point. He states clearly that scripture does not issue any specific prohibition against it. However, he also states that, in his opinion, this falls under the general category of "the practices of the Egyptians" and is therefore to be forbidden.

This is placing a wide hedge around a questionable activity, avoiding something just in case it is sin, because it might be. That is an entirely reasonable, conservative position to take when deciding how you should behave as an individual. "For whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23).

It is very important to acknowledge that the Rambam did not just state it was wrong, he was careful to clarify that scripture did not specifically prohibit it. Just as Paul is careful to distinguish between the words of God and his own opinion. If the prohibition against male homosexuality applied to women also, then scripture would specifically prohibit it, and the Rambam would cite this. The fact that he does not, and rather says the exact opposite, is very important to keep in mind.

If in doubt, it is far better to assume something is sin, than to assume it is not sin - better to avoid something you didn't need to avoid, than do something that turns out later to have been sinful.

...this wisdom you shared is the heart of Rabbinical thinking putting a hedge around G-d's teaching ... just in case.
Then when we break the hedge, well thank G-d it was just the hedge and not an actual sin!

 

[eye4them]

Not following you. Lev 20:13 prohibits lying with a man as he lieth with a woman. It does not prohibit lying with a woman in the way he might lie with a man.

I totally agree with both of those statements. I think what I said and what you said are basically the same thing. I'm not sure where the communication broke down.

There are two ways that a man can lay with a woman, yet only one of those ways is possible when two men are laying together. That one way which two men are physically able to lay together must be what is spoken of here in Lev 20:13. A woman is not able to lay with another woman in either of these two ways, therefore a inversion of the gender labels in v13 produces a law which is impossible to transgress. Therefore this cannot be where we learn that "women laying with women" is "wrong"... supposing one is looking for a "women laying with women" prohibition prior to Rom 1:26 (which I trow is no prohibition at all).

As an aside.. as you pointed out, I think v13 implies the lawfulness of that non-procreative way a man might lay with a woman. So I think it is an error to say that Godly sex must be open to procreation... as some (Catholics) so say.

Does this clarify the matter? I'd like for us to be on the same page, so if not, please say so.

 

[eye4them]

@Kevin, Please accept my apologies for misspelling your name in my post above.

 

[andrew]

Does this clarify the matter? I'd like for us to be on the same page, so if not, please say so.

It does, and after reading the way you unpacked it there, I can go back and re-read your previous post the way you meant it. Thanks!

 

[Nikud]

You're right there's no need to get worked up. Trust me I'm not yelling You hypocrites......yet. So I believe I'm not worked up yet. Passion has yet to turn to anger. When I get to the point that poin't I'll stop posting.

So to recap there's no law that prohibits Lesbianism.

Also
There's no law that prohibits a man's wife from going out and having sexual relations with any woman she wants.
There's no command her husband has to be involved.
It's not described as sexual imorality.
There's no law that prohibits two women from getting a marriage certification.
There's no law prohibiting a man from being a homosexual.
Only engaging in the act.
There's no law prohibiting two men from getting a marriage certification.

Unless Yeshua meant that there are spiritual aspects to the law in Matthew 5:28-30 'But I tell you that everyone who looks upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.'

There's no law prohibiting two men from getting a marriage certification.

There's no law that prohibits two women from getting a marriage certification.

The spirit of the teachings about marriage is headship and in both those cases you cant have true headship.

There's no law prohibiting a man from being a homosexual.
Only engaging in the act.

If he looks at a man with lust he is guilty of the act

There's no law that prohibits Lesbianism

Unless Romans 1:26-27 is the Holy Spirit is through Paul revealing the spirit of the instruction in conjunction with the letter of the instruction.

The do not add is thrown out quick. There's a difference between adding and interpreting.

No where in scripture is it said that we are to live according to patriachy. Scripture shows us that is the model.

No where does scripture say that Polygyny is acceptable. Scripture shows us that it is.

For those who want to say women don't have the equipment to lay with a woman in that manner as a man does so there's nothing wrong with it. Once again if she lust after the ability to do so she has done so in her heart and she can use other appendages or objects to represent a phallic when engaging in the act.

 

[FollowingHim]

@Kevin, you're bringing in a very wide range of matters and trying to discuss them at the same time, which is confusing. As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with marriage licences (which aren't scriptural for anyone anyway), so I'm going to ignore that side of it to narrow things down. And you are jumping to conclusions a bit by assuming this is about "Lesbianism". The physical act we are discussing can occur in a range of contexts, with lesbianism being only one extreme case, and not the most relevant to anyone on this forum. More practically, we're talking about one man and two wives in the one bed together, or two wives together without their husband. Lesbianism is the other end of the spectrum - it's there too, but not necessarily the first thing people have in mind when considering this issue.

The spirit of the teachings about marriage is headship and in both those cases you cant have true headship.

I completely agree. This isn't about lesbianism, that is completely against the spirit of the teachings about marriage. Marriage is always between a man and a woman.

As I stated Romans was unclear, I better provide some reasoning behind that. Here's a copy/paste of some of my personal notes I took on the topic a few years ago when I was more interested in this topic.

Romans 1:26-27: 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: 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.

What is verse 26 actually describing women doing? The wording is very obscure. The women did some form of "affections" (or "passions") that were "vile". But what exactly did they do? Several different interpretations are plausible and can be justified scripturally.

1. The "natural use" of a woman is to produce children (Genesis 1:28, "be fruitful and multiply"), and the sin was to avoid producing children. The "vile affections" were sexual practices that would not result in children. This interpretation would forbid all forms of female-female sex, masturbation and contraception.
2. The "natural use" of a woman is to have sexual intercourse with a man (Genesis 2:24, "Therefore shall a man … cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh"), and the sin was to have sex with someone other than a man. The "vile affections" were sexual practices that were not with men, and parallel "men with men working that which is unseemly". This interpretation would forbid female-female sex and masturbation, but allow contraception.
3. The "natural use" of a woman is to have sexual intercourse with a man (Genesis 2:24), but they are not limited to this. Rather the women's sin was to "change" the natural use and abandon men, paralleling the men "leaving the natural use of the woman". This interpretation would forbid exclusive female-female sex (lesbianism) but not forbid bisexuality (e.g. sexual contact between two wives of a polygynous man, who also have sex with their husband) or masturbation where it did not displace heterosexual sex.
4. The "natural use" of a woman is to have sex in ways that are not specifically forbidden in the Hebrew law. The "vile affections" were unlawful sex such as bestiality or incest (Leviticus 20). This interpretation would forbid bestiality, incest, adultery etc, but allow lesbianism, bisexuality, masturbation and contraception.

Other interpretations may also be possible. Which is correct? That is hard to say for certain from the Bible alone, since we have only one verse to go from. All are entirely plausible, and can be argued for using at least one "proof-text" and logic that appears to support the conclusion. None can be disproved from scripture. So it is possible to just pick the interpretation that fits your presuppositions, and believe it is correct, even though it cannot be proven to be the only correct interpretation.

The most firm interpretation is point 4, as it is completely backed by Torah, but it is also the most limited interpretation. It's a bare minimum. 3 is probable as it aligns with the general principles of headship. It is possible that points 1 and 2 are also correct, but far more debatable.

Easy solution: If you want to clarify it, just forbid your wives from doing it. That's called building a hedge around it!

 

[IshChayil]

What about those hedges?
Moses ben Maimon (1135‑1204) (known as Maimonides or Rambam) clarified the halakhic position in his code, the Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 21:8). He wrote:

“For women to play around with one another is forbidden and belongs to ‘the practices of the Egyptians’ concerning which we have been warned, ‘You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt’…But though such conduct is forbidden, it is not punishable by lashing since there is no specific prohibition against it and in any case no sexual intercourse takes place at all. Consequently, such women are not forbidden to the priesthood on account of unchastity, nor is a woman prohibited to her husband because of it, since this does not constitute unchastity. But it is appropriate to flog such women since they have done a forbidden thing. A man should be particularly strict with his wife in this matter, and should prevent women known to indulge in such practices from visiting her, and her from going to visit them.”

Maimonides’ formulation of the halakha was upheld by Jacob ben Asher (1270?‑1340) in his Arba’ah Turim a century later (Even haEzer 24), and by Joseph Caro (1488‑1575), whose Shulchan Arukh (Even ha‑Ezer 24), published in 1563, became the authoritative guide to halakha throughout the Jewish world—a status it still occupies within Orthodox Jewry today. The Shulchan Arukh was the “final word” on the subject for 400 years.

It took 30 seconds to find, because I looked.

Yes, I'm aware of the tradition that lesbianism started in Egypt. I actually was thinking of you @Kevin when I decided to not bring it up We also have traditions that Og King of Bashan's femur was 9 miles long in the talmud where the bible clearly says his bed was about 14 feet long. Just because there is an opinion or a tradition doesn't mean we must embrace that tradition (as you succinctly put it earlier in the thread). We look at the tradition in light of the situation before us right?
Shulkah arukh tells us it is also halakhah to separate dairy from meat items and targum Onqelos even mistranslates the original Hebrew torah text to say it is forbidden to mix dairy and meat while you know the Hebrew says "boil a kid in it's own mother's milk". (Onqelos clearly influenced by Aqiva as talmud says they were pals). I respect and enjoy the sages and find loads of wisdom but some points of halakhah as a Messianic believer I reject (or at least choose not to impose on others). In Israel, for example, I never mix dairy and meat ...just in case the tradition is correct.
One other thought, as someone who has studied Middle Egyptian on and off for years, I haven't ever seen a text which mentioned lesbianism. Not saying the Rambam is wrong, just saying, I'm ready to see some evidence from the culture he's talking about that this is actually true.

In the case of the lesbians in our congregation I choose to not chase them away while they are still coming every shabbat to service and listening and learning. I knew one of them when she was heartbroken by a man years ago.
Regarding lesbianism, if any of them come to me in private and ask with an open heart, I will share "a more perfect way". I see in the end sadness for them not having children, and an indirect violation of the commandment regarding that. That said, I have seen lesbians move into bisexuality and eventually settle down as heterosexuals. The real danger for them is getting pushed into the arms of extreme leftism / feminist man-haters.
That said, I don't want to drift too far down the path of defending lesbianism as in general, at least in the West, it is a haven for femininsts. I only jumped in because I agreed with @FollowingHim 's peshat interpretation of the text. We may be able to get to a ban on lesbianism using the reasoning you described regarding covering, or other such principles but it's not in the plane reading of the text. Also, I would try to gear them towards bisexuality with 1 man as their head, and that man is me! Just kidding

 

[WifeOfHisYouth]

This is the only verse I am aware of that limits a man and his wives together.

Leviticus 18:18 (KJV)
18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

Seems kind of obvious that there was “uncovering” happening in front of other wives or with multiple wives together.. hence the story of the 5 virgins on their wedding night. A man was just not to take sisters to vex each other.

I think the overly “monogamy” polygamy aids in the difficulties us women have towards plural. We feel cut off and alienated every other day or more depending on the situation. Heaven forbid we talk about or see the intamacy between a husband and his wives or two wives enjoy their husband at the same time

Each house will be run different depending on the husband’s conviction, of course.

But where scripture is silent, there is no sin. (Kind of like plural marriage )

 

[steve]

• 18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

You are taking this out of context and using it wrong

 

[WifeOfHisYouth]

You are taking this out of context and using it wrong

Please explain

 

[WifeOfHisYouth]

To clarify, I am not saying a man can not marry sisters. I was saying that he shouldn’t sleep with them both at the same time to vex them. I think some sisters wouldn’t care and would prefer to be together (ie those twins in the other thread) in that case, it wouldn’t vex either one.

It kind of goes back to the heart of the man, is he bringing closeness in his home or trying to bring division. Again each family is different! Some don’t even live in the same home, some do.

But the real question is: is it sin or is it not?

 

[steve]

This is the only verse I am aware of that limits a man and his wives together.

In the context of this thread, I took your statement to be limiting his right to being intimate with two sisters at the same time.
I see the verse simply limiting him from taking his wife’s sister as another wife if his intention is to “get back” at his present wife.

 

[WifeOfHisYouth]

Sorry my original post wasn’t as clear as I intended

 

[Nikud]

Just because there is an opinion or a tradition doesn't mean we must embrace that tradition (as you succinctly put it earlier in the thread). We look at the tradition in light of the situation before us right?

At that point it wasn't about the tradition but the inference you made that tradition was silent on the subject by saying

I've never heard of anything from the talmud regarding lesbianism or bisexuality for females.

Yes, I'm aware of the tradition that lesbianism started in Egypt.

I'm confused you never heard of anything from Talmud about it but you where aware of it.

As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with marriage licences (which aren't scriptural for anyone anyway),

I should have just said Marriage because marriage is defined under the law as....anybody?

Just like the nonrelavent examples that are all relevant to the point that not all biblical truths are defined under the Law, and interpreting scripture is not adding to the word. If it is then we are guilty of that when we talk about patriachy, marriage and a whole host of other things. Also the claim that female homosexuality is lawful because it's not defined under the law just is as much adding to the word as saying that me seeing it as falling under the same as male homosexuality.

I don't think many of y'all know this, there's a few on the forum I have had this conversation in real life with, and I'm not sure if I've said it in a post, but I don't actually care how another man runs his household. Each man is ultimately accountable for what goes on in his house to only G-d.

I do care about understanding the motivations of others. How their justification of things reveal those motivations. If their beleifs are influenced by those motives.

All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient
All things are lawful, but all things edify not.

Does engaging in threesome (an orgy by another name) or two women having sexual relations edify G-d.
Or
Does engaging in threesome/ (an orgy by another name) or two women having sexual relations edify the flesh and this world.

If I had stated that Gender reassignment surgery was not a sin. Nobody would have jumped up and said there's no prohibition in the law so its lawful.

Yet attack a common male and female fantasy or a females need to be part of her husbands intimate acts and the there's no prohibition in the law so its lawful statement is spit out quick in defense of it.

Im fully aware that some times a cigar is just a cigar.....but then again sometimes it not.

Romans 13:13-14
Let us walk properly as in the day—not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual imorality and sensuality, not in strife and envy. Instead, put on the Lord Messiah Yeshua, and stop making provision for the flesh—for its cravings

2 Timothy 3:1-7

But understand this, that in the last days hard times will come— for people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, hardhearted, unforgiving, backbiting, without self-control, brutal, hating what is good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of G-d, holding to an outward form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid these people! For among these are those who slip into households and deceive weak women weighed down with sins, led away by various desires, always learning yet never able to come to the knowledge of truth.