The biblical scriptures justify/support/ordains same sex marriage.

In this case the pro side , the affirmative would go first as there's nothing for me to demonstrate with scripture. None other than to refute the other side, what they believe scripture is saying which would be to support and ordain same sex marriage as it does with different sex marriage.

There's no scripture I'm aware of that says the two men or women become one flesh, what God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

There's none that says let every man have his own husband and woman have her own wife.

So throughout the scripture, we see a promotion of just man and woman together alone. That's not disputable. It's not up for debate.

So if there is scripture like that with the same sex, call your chapter and your verse .

The scriptures don't ordain same sex marriage.

Do they remotely support it in some way?

Not in regards to sexuality, but the marriage itself, is there anything in the scriptures?

I like to know. It's because there'd be many ministries, ministers that would have to stand correction.

Right, your conclusion of no scripture to ordain it, that is correct.

I like to ask being that there's not much else, did you know this before participating in this exchange?

If so, why proceed with something you couldn't prove?

Did you take this as an opportunity for something else?

In light of the rapid moral and cultural changes in the West—one of which has been the redefining of marriage—in recent years it has become popular for biblical interpreters to turn to the Bible for approval of these seismic shifts in the landscape of the family structure and sexuality. Interpreters—some self-professed evangelicals included—now see a need to justify these cultural changes by appealing to the very text which has been used throughout history to inveigh against such behaviours and institutional changes.1 However, affirming scholars who push for same-sex marriage “rights” rarely desire to do away with or make obsolete traditional marriage customs. On the contrary, even though some may reinterpret certain aspects of the language related to marriage (e.g. What is “biblical marriage”?), they are careful to acknowledge the goodness of heterosexual unions as ordained by God within the Scriptures. Instead, scholars of this persuasion want to “ex-tend,”2 or “add to”/“revise”3 marriage to include same-sex unions. To “strengthen” their case, many times affirming scholars proffer a variety of supposed “parallels” between same-sex rights and other struggles from the past (e.g. women’s rights vis-à-vis patriarchy, slavery, women’s ordination, Gentile inclusion in the church, etc.).4 Indeed, one of the more popular assertions is the belief that same sex coupling produces “good fruit” and is therefore proof of the Spirit’s blessing and God’s approval of these relationships.5 However, these types of arguments merely muddy the water and non-affirming scholars have shown that many of these arguments amount to false dichotomies.6Along with these supposed “parallel” arguments, heartfelt appeal to cultural shifts and public opinion of the church has also been cited as a valid reason for making these changes in the definition of marriage. Indeed, in some cases, the citing of national polls, which show the church as “judgmental” or “anti-gay,” serves as a means of arguing for change so that the Bible and Christianity will no longer be the sources of “bigotry” and “exclusion,” traits—whether real or imagined—which could hurt the church’s “witness for generations to come” if change is not enacted quickly.7 Yet, the oft-cited argument that the church has an “exclusionary stance” vis-à-vis same-sex oriented people is misleading. While I am sure one could find churches that are bigoted in this area, the majority of churches would welcome same-sex persons with open arms—I know my church would. However, rejecting one’s sin, whether sexual or otherwise, does not make a church “exclusionary” but rather biblical. 8 And the assertion that heterosexual marriage is “churchprescribed”9 is simply not true; as I will demonstrate below, the Bible in fact sets the standard and tone in this case. Generally speaking, the reason for the scholarly shift in the area of same-sex marriage, apart from the cultural shift and the sexual revolution, is usually the result of some personal experience with a friend, child, or parent/spouse who has “come out” and now desires to embrace this way of life.10 In some cases, those who have made the decision to pursue a same-sex lifestyle—preferably including the option to get married—still desire to remain within the Christian tradition. In light of these personal experiences, every one of the oft-cited anti-same-sex texts has been “reimagined,” “reinterpreted,” or “set aside” in order to push forward an affirming agenda.11 Of late, one text in particular, Gen 2:18–25, has been the focus of affirming scholars in their efforts to find validity for same-sex marriage. Almost every person who has ever attended a wedding has heard the text of Gen 2:24 recited or read at some point in the marriage ceremony: “Therefore a man shall forsake his father and his mother and shall cling to his wife. And they shall become one flesh.” A straightforward reading of the text seems to make clear that this is a picture of the marriage union of Adam and Eve. Indeed, Jesus himself quotes the text in the context of discussing the sanctity of marriage vis-à-vis divorce (Matt 19:5). The central purpose of Gen 2:24 was to teach the Israelite audience (and by extension, all humanity) about the sanctity of marriage and the antiquity of the institution. God was there at the beginning bringing validity to this fundamental societal pillar within which family could be formed and thrive. Despite the clear instruction and marriage paradigm set forth within the second chapter of the Bible, a segment of modern exegetes have not been deterred from trying to contort this portion of Genesis in order for it to fit a mold recently cast by proponents of same-sex marriage. The basic argument can be summarized as such: Because Gen 2:18–25 focuses on the aloneness of Adam, marriage, at least as presented in Genesis 2, was basically ordained by God to combat this condition. Marriage, in this context, was not for procreation, as some propose, but to establish a “family” through the bonds of kinship ties. As such, any pairing of individuals (male-male; female-female, male-female) can meet the criteria set forth in Genesis 2 to eliminate loneliness and establish a kinship bond which in turn reflects a nuclear “family.”12 Proponents bolster their position by noting that procreation is not acentral tenet of marriage as evidenced by the marriage of infertile and/or elderly people, or couples who decide not to have children.13 In light of the ongoing discussions surrounding the viability of scriptural support for same-sex marriage vis-à-vis Genesis, in this paper I will argue that Gen 2:18–25 does not support the claims of affirming scholars but rather the text presents God’s design of heterosexual marriage. Moreover, I will show that the author had procreation in mind as a central purpose for the institution. I will come to this conclusion along three lines of argumentation: (1) Gen 2:18–25 seems to be painting a fuller picture of Gen 1:26–28; (2) the grammar of Gen 2:18 and 20 points to the “fittedness” of the male and female bodies for sexual pleasure in marriage; and (3) the phrase “one flesh” in Gen 2:24 is not isolated to kinship ties alone, but also has procreation in view. I will conclude my study by briefly addressing some of the ancillary arguments related to this debate. I. GENESIS 2:18–25 VIS-À-VIS GENESIS 1:26–28 At the heart of the above-noted scholarly debate is the historical-critical assertion that the two creations accounts found in Gen 1:1–2:4a and 2:4b–25 stem from two different sources and present two completely different creation accounts with different foci.14 According to source theorists, the first account is attributed to the putative Priestly author and the latter account is assigned to the so-called Yahwist/“J” source.15 The argument is therefore proposed that the Priestly source focuses on procreation as seen in the statement in Gen 1:28 “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” whereas the “J” source is concerned with kinship ties that remedy loneliness as exemplified in Gen 2:18.16 Based upon this scholarly assertion, many affirming scholars are more than willing to offer their full support for the inclusion of same-sex couples and marriage in the church because, they claim, the “J” source has opened the door for any marriage relationship that remedies loneliness through the establishment of a kinship bond. There are at least four major problems with this line of argumentation. To begin, when Jesus was teaching on the sanctity of marriage, he actually linked the teaching of Gen 1:27 with Gen 2:24 (Matt 19:4–6). Obviously, Jesus saw a similarity in the foci of these two texts, namely, in Genesis 1, God created humans with differences of gender for the purpose of procreation within a family/marital structure as seen in Genesis 2. Second, affirming scholars’ assertion that chapter 2 deals only with loneliness is misguided and a false dichotomy. As I will demonstrate below, while chapter 2 does in fact present the marriage bond as a remedy for loneliness, it also teaches the physical complementarity of male and female for sexual pleasure and procreation. Third, it is completely speculative and theoretical to argue that there are two separate authors of the two creation accounts with two completely different agendas.17 Even if one does follow source theory related to the creation accounts this does not mean that the accounts are presenting different perspectives related to procreation—an erroneous either/or scenario. This brings us to the fourth concern: Do the two creation accounts present two contradictory stories of creation? According to a variety of scholars, there are a number of ways of understanding the two Genesis creation accounts. For example, Gerhard von Rad sees the accounts of P and J as coming from different traditions whereby the J source is more interested in anthropological concerns. 18 George Coats points out that chapters 1 and 2 are not parallel accounts but rather focus on different things: the cosmos vs. paradise gained.19 John Walton asserts that chapter 2 is a “sequel” to chapter 1, that is, it presents the creation of more humans at a later date.20 Walter Brueggemann, James McKeown, and John Hartley argue that the second creation story is a completely separate account that should not be taken as a parallel telling of creation,21 a position that hardly seems tenable in light of the clear connections between the two (see more below). Indeed, Tremper Longman III correctly proposes that chapter 2 is a synoptic presentation of the creation of man in chapter 1.22Despite these seemingly conflicting views, it seems most likely that the final author/editor of this material would not have been satisfied with competing accounts of creation sitting side by side.23 It seems more likely that the second account in some way complemented the first account. Even McKeown concludes that the two accounts are “complementary” with the second one covering select aspects of the creation event in more detail. And E. A. Speiser notes that even though these may be from different sources, “the subject matter is ultimately the same in both sources.”24 In this regard, Nahum Sarna is no doubt correct when he notes the total dependence of chapter 2 on chapter 1. He goes on to assert that chapter 1 focuses on the “heavens and the earth” whereas chapter 2 centers on the “earth and heavens” (Gen 2:4b), which pushes one to the conclusion that chapter 2 compliments chapter 1 by zeroing in on the creation and role of humans.25 T. Desmond Alexander concurs that these chapters are complementary: one broadly focused and the other “zoomed in.”26 It seems evident that this zooming in is for the purpose of drawing attention to the creation of the Garden of Eden, its animals, and the man and the woman. Therefore, Nahum’s and Alexander’s positions seem to be on the right track especially in light of the fact that Jewish tradition also sees Genesis 2 as an elaboration on day six from Genesis 1 (e.g. Tob 8:6; Wis 10:1; Josephus, Ant. 1.34);27whether day six is an actual 24-hour period is another discussion altogether.28 As such, it appears that chapter 2 serves to zero in on the creation of man and woman, which was only outlined in Gen 1:26–28. In this vein, Kenneth A. Mathews notes that, “the sixth day’s events regarding the creation of man and woman and their dominion (1:26–28) are taken up in 2:4–25.”29 Mathews goes on to point out that this was a common feature in ANE creation accounts (e.g. in Sumer and Babylon), whereby a more general overview is followed by a more detailed treatment.30 If this is the common pattern in ANE creation accounts, then it should not be surprising to find the motif of procreation—a central tenet of 1:26–28—also a focus of chapter 2. But how exactly does the second account accomplish this without clear reference to being fruitful and multiplying? I believe the answer lies in the language and grammar of chapter 2, something overlooked by affirming scholars. II. A HELPER FIT FOR THE MAN The first hint that sexual coupling and procreation are also a central concern for the author of Genesis 2 appears in 2:18 and again later in verse 20.31 After the obvious lack of a suitable companion for Adam vis-à-vis the animals, God declares the first thing that is “not good” (לא־טוב (in his creation. In verse 18 he declares, “it is not good for the man to be alone.” Affirming scholars use this verse as the central pillar of their argument for the inclusion of same-sex coupling to combat loneliness while downplaying any sexual component.32 However, their argument falls flat when the rest of the verse is taken into consideration especially the description of what God determines is a suitable companion for the man. Although the loneliness of the man is a central idea in this section of chapter 2, the incompatibility of the animals for the man bespeaks the duality of the sexes (i.e. male and female) and the man’s total aloneness in this regard.33 What is more, the aloneness of the man makes it impossible for him to be “fruitful and multiply;”34 an obvious concern of God. The key Hebrew phrase, which addresses the issue of sexual complementarity, ke ezerֵ (‘עזֶר ְכֶּנְגדּוֹ isnegdo). There are only two places in the Hebrew Bible where this exact phrase appears: both in Genesis 2 (vv. 18 and 20). As such, the phrase is hard to interpret35 and has been variously rendered by modern translations: “an help meet for him” (KJV); “a helper suitable for him” (NASB; NIV); “a helper fit for him” (ESV); “a companion who will help him” (NLT); “a helper as his partner” (NRSV); and “a fitting helper for him” (NJPS). All of these translations zero in on the concept of a fitting “helper” (‘ezer) without doing translational “justice” to the second word in the phrase, kenegdo. Kenegdo is a combination of three different Hebrew words: the preposition כּ , ְthe word גדֶנ ,ֶand the third masculine singular pronominal suffix וֹ .The כּ ְmeans “like” or “as” and גדֶנ ֶcan be rendered as an adverb of location meaning “in front of” or “opposite of.” As the object of the clause, the וֹ simply means “him” or if it is rendered as a genitive, it can be translated as “his.” When these words are considered in conjunction with one another the idea that is generated is “as/like in front of him” or “as his opposite.”36 God seems to be declaring that the man needs a helper that, when standing “in front of him” (negdo), is his opposite. As such, the physical complementarity of the man and woman come to the forefront as opposed to the simple idea of a “fitting helper,” which most translations present in a non-sexual way.37Not surprisingly, other scholars have noted a similar interpretation. Gordon Wenham notes that kenegdo has the idea of “matching him,” which, among other things, includes the procreation of children.38 And Allen P. Ross notes that the idea behind kenegdo means a correspondence between the man and the woman on the physical, social, and spiritual levels.39 George Coats is more cryptic when he notes that “no helper fit for intimacy with the man appeared among the animals.”40 However, Bill Arnold is indeed correct when he concludes that the context “has marriage and procreation in view, as well as general human companionship.”41 The sexual needs of the man are clear in the context. Nahum Sarna says it succinctly when he states, “Celibacy is undesirable.”42Now while it is true that the phrase can, and no doubt does, include nuances of social and psychological complementarity, the physical/sexual component cannot be overlooked either especially when the entirety of the phrase is considered.43The physical complementarity is further supported by the second appearance of the phrase ‘ezer kenegdo in verse 20. In this second occurrence, after all the animals had been created and paraded in front of the man for him to name, God once again notes that there was no suitable helper for the man. There can be no question that the author wants to stress the idea that the man is lacking a companion to “be with” beyond mere emotional friendship (see Gen. Rab. 17:4). The man needs a mate for both companionship and for the purpose of procreation and sexual pleasure. This understanding flies in the face of affirming scholars who propound that if sexual coupling was in view, the female animals could have fulfilled the sexual needs of the man.44 This is patently absurd in the context. The reason that man’s aloneness is “not good” has to do with the fact that the animals could never be a fitting sexual or emotional mate for the man (cf. Lev 18:23; 20:15). What is more, the man would never be able to procreate with animal species: he needed a helperthat “fit him” in this regard. That is why God “built” (נהָבּ ;ָv. 22) the woman with the perfect physical anatomy that would “fit” the man’s anatomy when they stood “in front of” (גדֶנ (ֶone another! This physical complementarity is bolstered by what follows in Gen 2:24–25. III. GENESIS 2:24: BECOMING ONE FLESH As noted in the introduction, gaining traction in the recent debate for same sex marriage is the assertion that unlike Gen 1:26–28, Gen 2:24 is not about procreation, but rather, becoming one flesh is focused only on kinship ties.45 Prototypical of this opinion is Miguel De La Torre who asserts that “if we define the purpose of marriage to be procreation, then, yes, same-sex marriage should not be allowed. But if marriage is more than simply having children, if marriage is to become one flesh by creating a familial relationship, then the race, faith, ethnicity, or gender of the participants ceases to be important.”46 Here De La Torre is setting up a false dichotomy: if marriage is not about procreation but rather kinship ties then same-sex marriage should be allowed. However, the issue is not either/or, but both/and. Indeed, in light of our discussion immediately above—which supports seeing procreation in Genesis 2—verses 24 and 25 reinforce the idea of procreation within the marriage bond. When God brought the woman to the man the result was a marriage arrangement that certainly included emotional and kinship bonding; no one would deny this fact. However, it does not end there. The man and the woman were to become “one flesh.” This is not simply kinship ties as proposed by some affirming scholars; this includes the sexual/procreation facet as well. In interpreting the meaning of “one flesh,” scholars in general (non-affirming as well) have tended to vacillate between the idea of sexual activity and procreation and the resulting kinship bonds. For example, while John Hartley suggests that the “one flesh” notation does not point explicitly to sexual connectedness or the children that would result from such a union, he does conclude that “it does not exclude these expressions of their union.” 47 And Christopher Seitz correctly concludes that becoming “one flesh” is also for “sexual coupling.”48 Indeed, sexual coupling is a central teaching of this portion of Gen 2:24. Due to these sexual nuances in verse 24, I cannot agree with affirming scholars that it does not include procreation. True, there are those who cannot procreate due to some physiological fault of the man or woman or both, no doubt a result of the fall,49 but that does not preclude the possibility of children for the majority of couples who marry. Genesis 2 does more than present the picture of a man and woman coming together for the purpose of creating a kinship bond where sexual encounters within marriage are God’s design; the “one flesh” notation also anticipates the bearing of children.50 Martin Luther certainly understood Gen 2:18–25 as a clear picture of marriage for the purpose of the propagation of the human race.51 Luther even goes so far as to say that couples who marry but refuse to procreate are displaying evidence of a fallen nature whereby God’s greatest temporal gift to a couple—offspring—is rejected.52 One could argue that having a child within the marriage bond is perhaps the best demonstration of becoming “one flesh.” All one has to do is look at a child produced by the act of sexual coupling and it becomes clear that two separate individuals have literally become “one flesh.” The closing line of Gen 2:25 reinforces the sexual component of the narrative: “The two of them were naked, the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed.” Even some affirming scholars recognize the sexual component involved in the context of Gen 2:18–25, especially verse 24.53 Procreation was understood in the Genesis 2 account especially in light of Gen 1:28. Indeed, marriage offered the institutional parameters for family to emerge. In this regard, Meredith Kline aptly notes, Created male and female, man was to multiply through sexual fruitfulness. In Genesis 1 the procreation mandate is formulated in simple functional terms. Genesis 2 adds the institutional (i.e., the familial) aspect, so assigning human procreation to its proper context in the marital relationship…. It was within this marital relationship of legal troth that the procreation function of the cultural commission was to be fulfilled. As the words of the marriage ordinance in Genesis 2:24 indicate, it was in this covenantal union that the man and the woman were to become ‘one flesh.’54 Hermann Gunkel also notes that the concept of “one flesh” is clear by the surrounding language: “The nature of the love he [Adam] intends is very clear from the expressions he uses: it is sexual union.”55 And Gerhard von Rad intimates that “one flesh” means the union of the man and woman for the purpose of children when he queries, “Whence this inner clinging to each other, this drive toward each other which does not rest until it again becomes one flesh in the child?”56 Similarly, Gordon Wenham notes that “one flesh” includes a variety of concepts beyond kinship ties, two of which are sexual union and children, the natural product of the marriage bond.57 In light of the obvious connections between the one-flesh union and the expected procreation from that union, we can conclude that affirming scholars who limit chapter 2 to kinship ties only have in fact misread and misunderstood the heart of the narrative.

Are those enough arguments to sum up my past few arguments(As I was ill and wasn't feeling my best)?

And of course thankyou so so much to Mall for being my opponent and being part of my first ever debate.😊