Lawmaker offers $5,000 on man-woman marriage

[Amelia]

Lawmaker offers $5,000 on man-woman marriage

Democrat putting up cash, saying Bible not clear on union of sexes

An Alabama lawmaker reportedly is offering $5,000 to anyone who can show him proof from the Bible indicating marriage is between a man and a woman.

The amount was increased by more than seven-fold by state Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, after he originally took to the House floor this week to declare, "I've got $700 here, and I will give anyone this $700 if they come up and show me in this Bible where it says that marriage is between a man and a woman."

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42817

[GreatLakesGramma]

There is, of course, no text that says "marriage is to be between one man and one woman," and no matter how clear the Bible is on it, or how many texts you might find or how obviously they make the point that marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman, people like that will never accept it unless it says it in those exact words. They will always deny that it means what it so obviously does.

[Nicodema]

That's right, there is no such text. It is a collection of things taken together from scripture that forms that impression, verses that are founded upon the assumption of heterosexuality as the norm (such as those found in Leviticus forbidding going outside that norm). But no one text states that unequivocally, because any pertinent texts themselves (e.g. about adultery, fornication, marriage, or homosexuality) are founded upon the axiomatic assumption of heterosexuality as the norm. Nowhere is this norm itself spelled out for marriage; instead, it is assumed.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he 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,'

for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a

man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Emphasis mine

---

As Nico indicated, the definition is implied, not explicit. However, except for the word "marriage" or "marry," the above text pretty well defines marriage.

For the literalistic mind, however, such as the lawmaker undoubtedly is demonstrating, there is no such text.

Of course, one of my teachers always said, "A literal mind is the sign of a low I.Q."

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

But for Adam no suitable(emphasis mine) helper was found.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Then the LORD God made a woman(emphasis mine)from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I think these verses right here make it clear that woman is the only suitable help/mate for man. Clearly thats what God wanted and thus created.

[GreatLakesGramma]

Ed, that is the exact text that came to mind when I read the starting post of this thread. It's pretty clear to those who are willing to understand it, but if you shared this passage with that man, he would not accept it as any kind of proof.

I've dealt with this kind of person, probably everyone here has at some time. And as far as I'm concerned, 2 Timothy 2:16, which I read years ago in one translation as "shun vain and useless arguments" applies to trying to reason with people who only want to argue. It's a waste of time and energy that could be put to better use.