Now let's honestly ask the question. Why did God make Eve and not Steve?
There IS an answer, and you will see why I CAN say "God made Eve for Adam and Steve for me."
Eve could very well have been made as a Steve. After all, if Jesus,
who is God, is undeniably a male and He chose to create ANOTHER MALE (Adam) as His mate, wouldn't it make sense for Him to
have given Adam another male? After all, males are the image of Adam AND God. Here is why the FIRST mate had to be a female.
Because God foreknew that Adam would sin. Ta Dah! That's it. That's the whole reason.
You see, BECAUSE of Adam's sin and subsequent fall, he brought death
into the world. Therefore, to maintain the human race, children would have to be born. Hence, Adam's mate would have to be
pre-fashioned BEFORE the fall, by divine pre-knowledge OF the fall, to have the ability to conceive, carry
and give birth to children AFTER the fall. The reason God didn't give Adam another male wasn't because two males
together was wrong (else God making another male for Himself would be wrong), but because the race would have ended with Adam's
death. God could not allow that to happen because He had to save His mate whom He loved and redeem him. God wasn't going to
create a new mate for Himself. Adam was it!
Ready for the bomb? Here it is. Adam and Eve did not bear children until
AFTER the fall!! Cain was their first child, and we KNOW that he was born long after the fall. We also know that Adam and
Eve were having sex BEFORE the fall because "making the two one" was the whole point of why God gave Eve to Adam in the
first place. She wasn't some pal that hung around and kept him company. Adam had God and all the animals (and most likely
the angels too) for that. Eve was given to Adam for a unique, physically and emotionally bonding relationship. The purpose
of sex is and was not originally meant for procreation, but for UNION.
It was in the garden that God gave the blessing (NOT a
command, as it has been WRONGFULLY taught) to them to be fruitful and multiple, but it was not until after the fall that
this blessing was put into effect. Can you imagine what would happen if two perfect, undying people gave birth to kids,
and then they gave birth to kids, etc, and so on? The earth would get over populated because no one would die. There was no
need for all those kids, anyway, because Adam and his mate were never meant to die. Children had to be born
BECAUSE of sin. This is why they covered their nakedness. NOT because sex is bad or shameful in and of itself, but because
the very act of sex was the very purpose for Adam's mate's existence, and now that act of sex , which was meant to unite
them as one being in a holy and special way, will have to be used to bring more people into the world - BECAUSE OF SIN. Reproduction
is now their SHAME. It is the very mark and sign of Adam's sin against God. Therefore they covered their shame and we, to
this day, are commanded to keep our genitals covered for the same reason. Haven't you ever seen it written in Scripture
that we are to cover ourselves "so that the shame of our nakedness be not seen"? It is the reason that we have a built-in
feeling of shame to go naked before other people (at least, those people do who are not desensitized to decency). It is that
shame which tells a child, once he reaches a certain age, that it is time to have mommy stop bathing him.
So God pre-planned Adam's mate to be a female - because of sin. Being
female is not the cause of sin - the fact that Adam's mate had to be constructed in the form of a female was due
to Adam's FUTURE sin, to bear children. If she wasn't a female, the human race would have ended.
HOWEVER, as you saw in "Gays & Marriage", Adam and Eve's marriage
CANNOT be the sole basis for determining the definition of marriage and who can participate in a marriage. For example, God
only made ONE SPOUSE for Adam, yet God gave SEVERAL spouses to Abraham, David, Solomon, etc. etc.
Bear in mind that only EVE was specially created - and specially created
FOR ADAM. This is not so with ever other female on earth. Every single human being who came AFTER Adam and Eve is conceived,
created, carried, and born in exactly the same way. Both males and females are MAN. We are ALL "bone of his bone and flesh
of his flesh". The only difference between the male and female in their creation is that little extra shot of testosterone
the mother's body gives to her baby to create a male. Furthermore, marriage and childbirthing is NOT commanded of us. We do
NOT HAVE TO get married. To say that Adam and Eve are the only models for marriage would automatically imply that we MUST
get married. But as we know, there were MANY godly persons in Scripture, such as Paul, who did NOT get married.
This is why I believe - or one of the reasons why I believe
- it is not a sin for two males or two females to be together. A human is a human is a human. Whether you choose the
male OR the female of our race, the point is that we are the SAME RACE - MAN. And even more to the point, the purpose
for marriage is for UNION AND COMPANIONSHIP - not childbearing. Breeding children can be the RESULT of sex, but it is not
the PURPOSE for sex. That's why it's preposterous for the right wingers to say that allowing two men to marry is
similar to beastiality. Nonesense. We are talking about two human beings who are created in the image of God! None of
us have suggested that we start marrying or having carnal knowledge with other SPECIES!
I remember one time, when I worked at a little calendar kiosk in a mall, we had
romantic calendars for gays and lesbians. There were two young Jewish men (I knew they were Jewish by their yarmukas)
who were snickering and laughing at the pictures of the men together. I approached them and asked why it was funny for two
men to love one another. They said, "Because it is wrong." I said, "Really? But isn't it written in the Torah that
God made Man in His own image and that God made Man to be His bride? God also said in the prophet Jeremiah 31 that He was
Man's husband. Are you then saying that God is wrong for choosing another male for His mate?" They said, "Uhhh.." I
said, "Furthermore, how can you find Man's appearance to be repulsive if Man is made in God's image? Are you then saying that
God's appearance is repulsive? I think you need to rethink your theology, gentlemen." They were speechless. Absolutely
speechless.
There's something more to this though. Something the anti-gay folks fail to
take into account when they say that being gay is a learned behavior and that we can change. First, let's give them credit
that they at least understand that, yes, it is absolutely possible for a heterosexual to have sex with another of the same
sex. No question there. It is also true that a heterosexual man, for example, can find himself in the arms of another
man because he is hurting inside, or because of loss or lack of female love, or because he needs that masculine affection
he didn't get from his father or other male figures as a child and now as an adult that need for affection has translated
into sex, or because he is scared of women, or because something happened to him such as molestation which opened his mind
to that type of activity. Totally true. Undeniable.
However, THESE types of men are NOT true homosexuals, therefore, YES, they CAN be
healed of their hurts and revert to their NATURAL heterosexual drive. These were men who, WHATEVER THE REASON, "left the natural
use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly," Romans 1:27. These
are the men who "ALSO lie with mankind AS WITH WOMANKIND," Leviticus 20:13.
But how do you explain homosexuals who do not fall into any of those categories?
Even concluding that I am gay because, say, my father was distant from me, how do you explain this inner most feeling that
can look at an attractive man and be totally aroused by him and totally UNaroused at the sight of a beautiful female. How
do you explain the feeling that says inside you that everything about masculinity and the male is attractive in an emotional, romantic
and physical sense but NOTHING of femininity and the female is attractive to you? How do you explain my being repulsed by
the mere thought of sexual contact with a female in the same way that a straight man is repulsed by the thought of sexual
contact with another male? The devil's influence? I think not. The answer is, because that is who and what I am, just
as surely as being caucasian, Scottish, right-handed, brown haired, and green eyed, is who and what I am. Why does everyone
seem so determined to separate our sexuality from being a part of the rest of our identity? Certainly heterosexuals
conclude that their heterosexuality is part of their identity and they would insist that they were born straight. I don't
know many heterosexuals who say that heterosexuality is a learned behavior or the cause of environmentals! If it were that
simple (which it is not) then you COULD say that sexuality is a choice.
In addition, no two people are attracted to the same thing, and it is vital that
we understand that attraction is NOT the same as lust. Heterosexual men are NATURALLY attracted to the female. It has nothing
to do with lust. Now, different heterosexual men are attracted to different types of women; but it is the feminine aura
about a female, or the female IDEAL, which attracts heterosexuals. It is the same for homosexual men in their attraction
to other males. The point is that no two people are alike, therefore no two people are attracted to the same thing, and
it is foolishness to assume otherwise. When it comes to any two consenting non-related adult human beings, there
is NO BIBLICAL LAW which prohibits their union. And as it is written, Where there is no law, there is no sin.
