While on Piers Morgan's show on CNN (yeah, as usual, I'm late to the party), Kirk Cameron said that homosexuality is against what God created as perfect in the Bible with Adam and Eve, in Genesis.
Unfortunately for Kirk, he seems to be parroting right wing talking points without having actually read the Bible from cover to cover, which I have done myself, at least twenty times. This should actually surprise many people who have heard Kirk's conversion story, where he says that, from that day forward, the Scriptures came alive to him. It would seem that only a few select Scriptures came alive. The rest he conveniently ignored.
You see, Adam and Eve were not married. According to the book of Genesis, they were a man and a woman, but they weren't married. There was no marriage. No marriage license was issued to them. God did not perform a marriage ceremony in a church with a hallowed vow that the Eve would forever obey Adam and Adam would throw his dirty socks on the table and Even would have to smile sweetly, kneel down, and rub his feet. There wasn't even a law that gave Adam and Eve the right to get married. Also, because there wasn't a law that Adam and Eve could be married, there was also no implied principle that Adam couldn't marry another man.
Wait...there wasn't another man he could marry anyway? Oh...riiiight. Which brings me to the reason why Kirk Cameron has obviously not read the Bible thoroughly.
In the beginning, there was Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve had kids the old fashioned way. No artificial means were necessary, no adoptions available. No, they simply "knew" each other. But their generations carried on, correct? Yep. Kirk, brothers and sisters got busy with each other in Genesis. They had kids and cousins had kids and uncles and nieces had kids. All kinds of relatives had relations with relatives near and far and they all had kids together. It was all one big, happy family there for a while.
Then God does weird things in his inerrant and completely inspired word (Kirk Cameron's assumption). He orders a prophet of his to buy a prostitute and take her for his wife. His own blessed people get pissed at a foreigner who slept with one of their women, so they circumcise all the foreigners of the land, then murder them - then they steal their wives and daughters for themselves. One of God's tribes were short on estrogen so they lay in wait, at God's command, for women to come out and dance, then they kidnapped them and took them for their own wives (You can watch this live in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers).
Many men of renown, godly men, men after God's own heart, had many wives. The stories around these women were beautiful (especially David's women) and not once was it condemned by God. He had many an opportunity to ridicule David for his polygamous practices but nary a word. None. In the case of Solomon, God only cared that he married foreign wives. Yes, God would be considered racist if he wasn't so perfect and holy that we don't get to pick on him for doing everything he tells us not to do.
Kirk, there are many more stories of all shapes and sizes about marriages in the Bible. Only, they were never called "marriages". Unfortunately for your rhetoric, the Bible never says that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Right wing leaders would want you to think that the Bible says that. But it doesn't.
Rather than looking at all the cool ways one can get married if they follow the literal Bible, why not adopt the REAL talking points between those covers. Like the fact that homosexuals need to die, right along with rebellious children. The fact that destruction of civilization pointed to the sexual deviancy of the people in those societies that were destroyed. Those are the real principles on homosexuality in the Bible.
Don't look to the Bible to define other's lives, Kirk. It gets messy in a hurry. That's simply because you're relying on sheepherders and camel riders who thoughts that a whisper of wind was the breath of the gods. Let's progress together and accept the reality that people are people and they deserve the same love and respect as those you claim should be the picture of a great society. In the arena of ideas, your arguments have no basis and you will lose. It's inevitable.
Love,
I. C.