Where does the Bible define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman?

[DetlefK]

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/where-in-the-bible-does-it-say-that-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman

From the page:
"Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. Genesis 2:24 states: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."

In Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus reaffirms this: "He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?""



EDITED:

Only one wife?
And is this the only kind of acceptable marriage?
And must there be some ceremony or can a man and a woman just claim "We are married now?"

[cbayer]

1. Of course, that is cherry picking, just like the fundamentalists do, right?

One can also find verses that support polygamy.

The bible, as usual, is full of a variety of information, some of which is contradictory.

If someone wants to take one thing and use it as "what the bible says", they are lazy at best, ignorant at worst.

There are lots of articles other than the one you cite that address this if you google the question.

Here is a good one:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/05/biblical-scholars-actually-traditional-marriage-isnt-just-one-man-and-one-woman/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. There are a few unshakeable tenets, though.

We know from Leviticus that cotton/poly blends are an abomination, and I'd be surprised to find any other passage that refutes that.

[cbayer]

3. No, there are really no unshakeable tenents, unless you are a literalist.

And even then, you won't be able to reconcile the contradictions.

Cotton/poly rules!

[Lordquinton]

8. Omg, i should have read further!

Post 1 you're attacking cherry picking (which you used to defend) post 3 your attacking literalists! Which one is it cbayer?

Train wreck in progress!

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Pretty sure there's at least 10 (thou shalt not murder, etc)

[tkmorris]

10. But... "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" Exodus 22:18

So I'm thinking there are exceptions to even the sternest of decrees.

[trotsky]

11. NO YOU GUIZE

If you cherry pick the right things you're OK but if you cherry pick the wrong things (or point out that it's equally legit to cherry pick the wrong things) YOU ARE A HORRIBLE LITERALIST AND PROBABLY A THEOPHOBE, DEFINITELY VERMIN THOUGH.

[bvf]

15. There's "good" theophobes and "bad" ones.

How else to explain the phrase "god-fearing christian"?

Holy shit! Where's the Tylenol?

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. Those infernal literalists and their cherry picking!

[merrily]

4. It is interpreted, like poetry.

As to mixing linen and (silk, is it?) and a host of other directives in Leviticus, the interpretation is that no human could keep up with all that. Hence, God sent his Son to die for us. Ergo, that wipes out anything not repeated in the New Testament.

Of course, in the New Testament, Jesus is quoted as saying he did not come to abolish the law. This does not seem to deter the interpreters. And, of course, Paul, who never met Jesus other than in a vision, brings "forward" into the NT some of the worst parts of the OT, namely, the ugly bits about gays and women.

However, all Christian interpreters would say that, thanks to the crucifiers of Jesus, Christians can mix fabrics and even eat bacon and shellfish, even bacon-wrapped scallops, without offending God.

Please don't ask me to explain or defend any of the above. I'm only acting as messenger.

[safeinOhio]

6. There is always a loop hole

The Bible never mentions same sex marriage, that is just a conclusion or theory.

It does, and so does Jesus, mention divorce and that use to be a big deal for the religious right, up until the 1980s. Then they had to change because they so love St. Ronnie.

[Igel]

12. Yeah.

But if you want to see them squirm ask them where Jesus said they can't screw their sisters or mothers.

He never mentioned incest.

However, when he mentions "righteousness" that wasn't a soft meaningless buzzing. It had a fairly coherent, consistent, clear meaning at the time, one that precluded all sorts of things.

(The Greek referendum included by reference two working documents from the negotiations--not that anybody paid attention to those, either. Democracy means that you don't have to pay attention what's actually said, it appears. Similarly, a recent WI bill was only about 3 paragraphs long, but the claim was it said all sorts of things. If you read it, you find that the bill includes by reference another WI law. And that law included by reference a federal statute and a set of federal regulations.)

[Lordquinton]

7. Weren't you just on a vig kick about how good cherry picking was?

You had a whole bunch of links of proud biblical cherry pickers to defend ignoring all the hate and intolerance that book contains.

Why the change of heart?

[longship]

5. I give you the learned Deven Green on the topic.

(In her satirical role as Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's greatest Christian.)

Professed Christians against gay marriage know nothing about Biblical marriage.

[uriel1972]

13. I'm lazy and not about to pick up a bibble,

but wasn't Abraham married to his sister?
And the lot of a handmaiden appears to be a second class co-wife throughout the OT, if memory serves me correctly.

[bvf]

16. Well, either that or he lied to an

omniscient being. Fucked either way, IMO.

Were the commandments retroactive, btw?