Does Genesis 2 Support the Gay Affirming View of Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage?

Posted on January 1, 2018 in Uncategorized

The Creation narrative recorded in Genesis chapters 1-2 is a fixture in the debate over homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Traditionally, many Christians believe these chapters demonstrate beyond all doubt that homosexuality was never God’s intention for mankind, and that the first marital model–Adam and Eve–is the only model that carries his approval. However, tradition has a way of causing people to accept a premise without due analysis and deliberation. Does this narrative, in fact, provide unquestionable opposition to homosexuality, or have traditional Christians overlooked evidence in this very passage that actually lends substantial support to the very thing they oppose–same-sex marriage?

[18] Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him… ” [21] So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. [22] The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. (Genesis 2:18, 21-22)

You’ll notice in my quote of this popular narrative that I skipped verses 19-21. Tragically, this is how the vast majority of traditional Christians perceive this story, as though those intermediate verses don’t exist at all. But, it is what takes place in those verses that casts a dark shadow over the interpretation held by so many. By skipping these verses, people understand the story to progress as follows: “God makes man. Man is alone. God makes woman as man’s companion so that he won’t be alone.” This flow is very convenient, as it allows people to conclude that God prescribed Eve for Adam, thus prescribing woman for man. But, when we add verses 19-21 back to the narrative, another story altogether begins to form.

[18] Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” [19] Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. [20] The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. [21] So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. [22] The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. [23] The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” (Genesis 2:18-23)

What people can’t seem to remember is that after God determined that it wasn’t good for “the man” (“the” being a definite article that points to a single individual–Adam), He didn’t immediately create Eve. First, He brought all the animals He’d created to Adam. Now, we must ask why a God who is concerned that all things are “good” (remember how He pronounced what He made good after each successive stage of creation) would take this time-consuming step of having Adam name all of the animals before creating Eve to resolve Adam’s “not good” state of being alone. Why not create Eve immediately, so as to remedy Adam’s loneliness as soon as possible, as most Christians wrongly assume He did?

The answer is found in the second half of verse 20. Although God brought the animals before Adam to see what He would call them (v. 19), resolving Adam’s loneliness was in His mind and purpose the whole time. After Adam named all the animals, there was still “not found a helper suitable for him.” This means that even this naming process was a part of God’s purpose to remedy Adam’s loneliness. Unfortunately, nothing in all of creation was found to be suitable.

But here’s an interesting question: What was an omniscient (all-knowing) God doing searching for a suitable companion for Adam? Why did He have to find one, seeing as He already knew that nothing in creation to that point was suitable? The answer is simple. God wasn’t searching… Adam was! It was he, not God, who named the animals; and it was he, not God, who determined that none of them were suitable for him.

Now, if God already knew that no animal was suitable for Adam, why would He go through this time-consuming process, allowing Adam to search for something he would not find? There’s only one reason: God needed Adam (and, by extension, us) to understand that when it comes to finding a suitable companion, it is not He who does the choosing, but us. Sure, He knows who would be best for us long before we do; but no purpose is served in His assigning a companion for us, when we don’t make that choice for ourselves. We’re the ones who have to come into covenant with our companion for the rest of our lives, so it makes perfect sense that God would leave the determination of suitability to us.

It was only after Adam found that nothing in creation was suitable that God fashioned Eve. But notice something important at the end of verse 22. As God did with all the animals He’d created, so He did with Eve. Rather than assigning her to Adam, telling him, “This is your suitable companion,” He brought (presented) her to him, allowing Adam to give the okay. And so it happened. In the next verse (23), it was Adam, not God, who gave approval, saying, in effect, “Now this is someone I can become one with!”

Notice one final point in the text. On multiple occasions, the text demonstrated that it was God’s intention to provide Adam with a companion that was suitable for him (for Adam). This is born out in verses 18 and 20. The companion was not to be suitable for mankind, but for one man–Adam. Traditionalists would like to require that what was suitable for Adam is suitable for all men; but this absolutely violates what Scripture teaches. Not only do we find in this particular passage that Adam determined suitability for himself; but a necessary consequence of traditionalist logic would be to conclude that as it was not good for Adam to be alone, so it’s not good for any man to be alone. Because what’s good for the goose (Adam) is good for the gander (all men), singlehood is not appropriate for anyone, since it was not good for Adam! This line of reasoning indicts many heroes of our faith as people who violated God’s supposed intentions, including the prophets Elijah and Elijah, but also the apostles John and Paul, and, dare I say, even our Lord, Jesus! None of these men married; yet by traditionalist logic, they were supposed to based solely on the fact that Adam did.

Traditionalists would obviously try to wiggle out of the consequences of their (ill)logic by claiming that the Adam model only applies as a spiritual law to those who decide to get married, and only in relation to whom they marry. But this just isn’t true. Their logic requires us to conclude that what happened in relation to Adam’s sexuality is a requirement in relation to all of humanity’s. If it was not good for him to be alone, it must not be good for any of us to be.

Now, although their logic has already failed on this point, let’s assume that it did not. Problems still exist with the traditionalist line of reasoning. Adam’s model was one man with one woman, as conservatives incessantly spout today. Yet, in Scripture, polygamy (or more specifically, polygyny–one man with many women) was not only allowed and facilitated, but God even established certain polygynous unions (2Samuel 12:7-8), violating this presumptive principle. So, either God violates His own word, or this law of the Adam-Eve marital paradigm (one man, one woman) exists only in the minds of people who refuse to study Scripture objectively, allowing it to speak for itself.

So, what do we learn from the creation narrative, a passage of Scripture presumed to hold a smoking gun against same-sex marriage? We find that:

  1. Adam determined suitability, not God.
  2. What he determined as suitable was only suitable for him.

Marriage (and sex) was intended to satisfy the human need for intimate companionship. Now, in order for this purpose of marriage to be fulfilled, those involved in it must necessarily be suitable to the individuals; else, it’s a marriage of form, with no real godly purpose. This absolutely necessitates same-sex marriage for homosexuals, else those with a natural inclination only to the same-sex are caught in an unresolvable “not good” situation: needing of companionship, yet unable to have it in a suitable way (suitable as determined by the biblical testimony, meaning suitable for the individual).

The best solution traditionalists can come up with is lifelong celibacy; however, according to 1Corinthians 7:9, that’s not an option, either. In fact, verse 7 of that same chapter explicitly says that celibacy is a gift, meaning that not everyone has it. For gay people not gifted with celibacy, the biblical remedy pronounced in Gen. 2, as well as 1Co. 7:9 is sex through marriage. But this requires a suitable companion: Eve for Adam in the case of heterosexuals, but Steve for Adam, and Jane for Eve in the case of homosexuals. There is no other solution.

Don’t Give Your Sex Away – Placing Value on Your Body and Not How Many Partners You Can Sleep With

Posted on December 28, 2017 in Uncategorized

As parents, we try every day to shield our children from violence, teen pregnancy, drugs and alcohol, and even peer pressure. Yet no matter how much you try to protect your children from these things sooner or later they will have to deal with the once the enter school. With the increase level of teen pregnancy from year to year it is time that parents once again sit down with their children and discuss sex but not in the way you are used to teaching them. I am not talking about the birds and the bees story, frightening your children with the abstinence talk, or throwing condoms at them. I am talking about teaching your children how to place value on sexual intimacy and not just giving away their goodies for free to anyone who will take it. Our children need to realize that their bodies are worth more than 10-60 minutes worth of sex or better yet, wham-bam-thank you ma’am. Our children need to know that their bodies are precious like jewels and they need to treat their bodies as such.

Here are a few steps to help you start the discussion once again about having sex too early (use your personal discretion when considering the word early as what I may say as being too early to have sex you may not):

1. Think about your personal values on sexual intimacy: Before you can have a conversation with your child on having sexual intercourse, as a parent you need to determine how you view sex. If it’s just hitting the sack and talking your partner for granted then are you not telling your child the same thing through your own actions? If you have never thought about this question or have put it to the side because you feel like you are grown, then rethink about your personal values before you share your wisdom with your child. Teens are smart and they can tell whether or not you believe what you are saying so don’t try to pull the cover over their eyes.

2. Ask your child their definition of sexual intimacy: For many kids they see no difference between intimacy and intercourse. Many will tell you that they love the person but when asked to define how they love the person and why, they may not have a clear picture of what love is. This is the perfect opportunity to go in and help clarify what love is and how it goes hand in hand with sexual intimacy.

3. Don’t accuse your child of having sex without all the facts: The worst thing you can do is accuse your child of having sex without asking them. Yes there are some children who will lie about being sexually active for fear of punishment but there are others who are telling the truth more times than not. Instead discuss with your child how they value their personal body as related to sexual intimacy as well as how they would value their partner’s body in the same way. If your child has no clue then he/she is not ready for sex.

4. You don’t have to sleep with the whole team to be popular: Some kids have learned in school that the more sexual partners you have the more you will become a part of the “popular” group. However, I would beg to ask that if you were to sleep with the whole team now to be popular, would you or the individuals you slept with remember your name a year later? If your child says no then I would have them question whether it was worth becoming popular by sleeping around.

5. Know and love yourself: Unless you know and love yourself no one else will. Our children need to start loving and respecting themselves first so that others will do the same.

Finally, there is no cure all to having sex early as sex is all around our children no matter where they turn. However as parents we need to add something else to the “talk” that does not frighten our children or send them to the corner store on a contraceptive frenzy. If your child is having sex, then take all the necessary steps to ensure that they are practicing safe sex. If your child is not having sex, then take all of the necessary steps to ensure that they are continuing to live an abstinent life. Just make sure that whatever course your child takes as related to having sex that they learn to (1) place value on their bodies and treat it like there is not enough money in the world that could buy them out and (2) accept that sexual intimacy involves committed people who have decided to unite their bodies as one and not share it with another. It’s time that our children stop giving away their sex for FREE and start loving themselves for who they are and not what their friends or the media (videos, TV., magazines etc.) says that they should be.


Sex Toys – How to Introduce!

Posted on December 24, 2017 in Uncategorized

Introducing sex toys into a relationship can take both pleasure and intimacy to the next level and then some. In addition, the element of “fun” is brought into the picture, and being in a fun, playful relationship is something few couples truly achieve due to poor communication. With a sex toy, you can easily build a bridge toward fun sexual intimacy. Here are three important ways to bring sex toys into a relationship.

1. Start slow! Remember you’re building a bridge and before you can put up the foundation you need to prep the work area. Introducing any outside element into sexual relations can be challenging. The easiest prep tool to use in order to ease into sex toys, are lotions or oils. What you are doing here is simply introducing a third element into your intimate relations, and you’re starting with something simple. Once erotic oils and lotions are used, you’ve opened the door for other intimacy tools to be added in the future.

2. The foundation! You’re foundation will set the stage for further sex toy adventures, so it’s important to choose the right foundation. What you’re looking to do here is to introduce an actual sex toy into the relationship. But it has to be a sex toy which is simple, gentle, and easy. In other words your foundation sex toy shouldn’t be some elaborate contraption. You’ll easily scare off your partner. Your foundation should be basic and something easy which you can further build upon in the near future. Various ticklers and the like would be an example of a simple foundations to begin building your sex toy adventures around.

3. Avoid the Crutch! You want to avoid becoming sex toy addicted and every intimate encounter having to rely on a sex toy. That is, don’t turn a sex toy into a crutch. Use it only to enhance the relationship, not serve as the centerpiece where every intimate encounter is going to require a sex toy in order for pleasure to be achieved.

Sex toys, or intimacy tools, can be used as an automatic bridge to bring one another closer while achieving intimacy on a level never previously experienced.