I think all of the above shows just how close the social practices of Judaism and Islam were and still are. And yet there they go over there in the 'Holy' land today, fussing and fighting and and carrying on like pork chops. Looks more and more like a family spat every day.

Halduell
Love that analogy 'Carrying on like pork chops' i.e. the porkphobic Israelis and Muslims. Thanks for the laugh!

It is irrelevant what the bible says about marriage unless you're a Christian, and considering at least 50% of Christians support marriage equality it is still irrelevant anyway.

i.e. 60% of Australians identify as Christian.
70% of Australians support gay marriage.

You do the maths.

Greetings all. Interesting discussion. Thank you.

A few brief responses:

@ Aga, whether the Bible is the Word of God, contains the Word of God or is simply a collection of inspiring human writings is a matter of wide opinion within the Judeo-Christian faiths. For this piece, I have assumed a high view of the authority of Scripture because that is the theological position of those who claim Biblical teaching on marriage is relevant to society today.

“Selectively quoting from the Old Testament”? No, I don’t think so, Aga. This piece has tried to be as comprehensive as possible. Perhaps the reverse is true: those who claim the Bible teaches M1W1 are quoting selectively. I believe this to be the case.

Not sure Jesus taught anything new about marriage, Aga. Matthew 19 affirmed Genesis 2:24 and other OT teachings about divorce. The same critique of the misinterpretations of Genesis 2:24 apply to the misinterpretations of Matthew 19.

If Jesus adds anything at all, it is to the absolute prohibition of divorce. But He leaves the matters of gender and number of spouses open – as does Genesis 2.

@ WmTrevor: Two-for-one offers are definitely possible. That was effectively the deal Jacob bought. Or was sold.

You are quite correct (I keep saying that to you, WmTrevor; Grrrr ...) about the Bible being unclear about the number of generations from Adam and Eve and/or Noah until God didn't have an incest concern.

And finally, WmTrevor, no, love is not necessary at all. But not prohibited either, you will be pleased to hear. Sort of a bonus if it happens along. A bit like marrying a woman who already has an attractive young slave.

@ Runner, no sodomy is always a bad thing. A very bad thing. The sin of Sodom was attempted gang rape. The Bible consistently condemns any coercive, abusive or idolatrous same-sex acts.

Committed, consensual unions, however, are certainly Biblical.

Alan, with due respect, I have no idea what your "high view of the authority of scripture" actually means? You just stated differences of interpretion. Private personal interpretations are precisely why your piece is unsustainable. It leaves out Sacred Tradition, it leaves out Magisterial Authority and its epistemologically defunct. 2000 years of study have proceeded you! One also intreprets OT in light of NT and vice versa. This is why the Canon was composed accordingly. Sola Scriptura is simply useless. Atheists for example make such ridiculous OT fundamentalist claims without understanding Hebrew, Greek or whatever. Take for example I am a jealous God. In Hebrew there are two words for jealous, one for God and one for man. The one for God is not a negative or evil word. English translations corrupt it. It denotes an almost loving exclusivness. There are loads of such fine differences. Look at Jeremiah. He condemns prophets falsely speaking in the name of God, who say God says this and God says that. Look at Nathan, he initally supports David in building the Temple. Subsequently God corrects him. As for selective quoting of NT, I only have 350 words. The fact is Jesus says "one male and one female". How does that leave gender and numbers open. Did you read Matthew 19? The fact is you article has been nailed on the head. Try reading the Diache and see how far you get, or any other proven archeological document. You do not have a case. It is simple as that.

Alan, thanks for that… regardless of Scripture I prefer the idea that love is at the core of a relationship – especially one that, all concerned hope, lasts a lifetime.

Aga directs our attention to what I think he meant as the Didache… But given the topic of your article, I find myself confused as to why, since I find no mention of husbands, wives or marriages? On the plus side I could find no mention of slaves either. Maybe I have misinterpreted?

It also seems a pity that religious scholars devoted entire lifetimes – from Aldred in the 10th century, through Whittingham, Wesley and hundreds of others in the last centuries especially – only to have aga fault their work.

I can't include your good self in this cohort yet as your religious studies and journey is still ongoing. Not yet a lifetime – but still with the opportunity for the time of your life.