How can one reconcile these two Biblical interpretations?

Question

To explain the argument against gay marriage, many people argue that the Bible says, "A man is not to sleep with another man the way he would with a woman." To make their argument these people interpret the passage literally.

Meanwhile, the Bible says the following: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (Leviticus 25:44-46)

The 2nd passge I listed essentially says that slavery is permitted, but I don't see anyone nowadays using this passage to demand that slavery be legalized, so how can one interpret the slavery passage literally to justify one's views without interpreting the slavery passage literally?

I know that this is a repeat question, but I want answers from people who didn't answer the first time. After 10 minutes, a question rarely gets another response, so I thought that I would try again.

Thomas Paine, what you said about 7 year limits on slavery is accurate, but you never answered the question.

Just to elaborate on the beginning of THA's response. The Jewish Bible contains 613 comandments and the proper term to prefer to the God of the Old Testament is simply "God."

Answer 1

--SLAVERY IN THE BIBLE under the law of Moses of over 600 laws that Jehovah God the Israelites was as a employee/ employer relationship with proper guidelines to prevent abuse!

*** it-2 pp. 977-979 Slave ***

The original-language words rendered “slave” or “servant” are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word ‛e′vedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Ge 12:16; Ex 20:17) Or the term can designate subjects of a king (2Sa 11:21; 2Ch 10:7), subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2Sa 8:2, 6), and persons in royal service, including cupbearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers, and the like, whether owned by fellowmen or not (Ge 40:20; 1Sa 29:3; 1Ki 9:27; 2Ch 8:18; 9:10; 32:9). In respectful address, a Hebrew, instead of using the first person pronoun, would at times speak of himself as a servant (‛e′vedh) of the one to whom he was talking. (Ge 33:5, 14; 42:10, 11, 13; 1Sa 20:7, 8) ‛E′vedh was used in referring to servants, or worshipers, of Jehovah generally (1Ki 8:36; 2Ki 10:23) and, more specifically, to special representatives of God, such as Moses. (Jos 1:1, 2; 24:29; 2Ki 21:10) Though not a worshiper of Jehovah, one who performed a service that was in harmony with the divine will could be spoken of as God’s servant, an example being King Nebuchadnezzar.—Jer 27:6.
--The Greek term dou′los corresponds to the Hebrew word ‛e′vedh. It is used with reference to persons owned by fellowmen (Mt 8:9; 10:24, 25; 13:27); devoted servants of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, whether human (Ac 2:18; 4:29; Ro 1:1; Ga 1:10) or angelic (Re 19:10, where the word syn′dou·los [fellow slave] appears); and, in a figurative sense, to persons in slavery to sin (Joh 8:34; Ro 6:16-20) or corruption (2Pe 2:19).
--The Hebrew word na′‛ar, like the Greek term pais, basically means a boy or a youth and can also designate a servant or an attendant. (1Sa 1:24; 4:21; 30:17; 2Ki 5:20; Mt 2:16; 8:6; 17:18; 21:15; Ac 20:12) The Greek term oi·ke′tes denotes a house servant or slave (Lu 16:13), and a female slave or servant is designated by the Greek word pai·di′ske. (Lu 12:45) The participial form of the Hebrew root sha·rath′ may be rendered by such terms as “minister” (Ex 33:11) or “waiter.” (2Sa 13:18) The Greek word hy·pe·re′tes may be translated “attendant,” “court attendant,” or “house attendant.” (Mt 26:58; Mr 14:54, 65; Joh 18:36) The Greek term the·ra′pon occurs solely at Hebrews 3:5 and means subordinate or attendant.
***Before the Common Era.
-- War, poverty, and crime were the basic factors that reduced persons to a state of servitude. Captives of war were often constituted slaves by their captors or were sold into slavery by them. (Compare 2Ki 5:2; Joe 3:6.) In Israelite society a person who became poor could sell himself or his children into slavery to care for his indebtedness. (Ex 21:7; Le 25:39, 47; 2Ki 4:1) One guilty of thievery but unable to make compensation was sold for the things he stole, evidently regaining his freedom at the time all claims against him were cared for.—Ex 22:3.
--At times slaves held a position of great trust and honor in a household. The patriarch Abraham’s aged servant (likely Eliezer) managed all of his master’s possessions. (Ge 24:2; 15:2, 3) Abraham’s descendant Joseph, as a slave in Egypt, came to be in charge of everything belonging to Potiphar, a court official of Pharaoh. (Ge 39:1, 5, 6) In Israel, there was a possibility of a slave’s becoming wealthy and redeeming himself.—Le 25:49.

Regarding conscription of workers, see COMPULSORY SERVICE; FORCED LABOR.
--Laws governing slave-master relationships. Among the Israelites the status of the Hebrew slave differed from that of a slave who was a foreigner, alien resident, or settler. Whereas the non-Hebrew remained the property of the owner and could be passed on from father to son (Le 25:44-46), the Hebrew slave was to be released in the seventh year of his servitude or in the Jubilee year, depending upon which came first. During the time of his servitude the Hebrew slave was to be treated as a hired laborer. (Ex 21:2; Le 25:10; De 15:12) A Hebrew who sold himself into slavery to an alien resident, to a member of an alien resident’s family, or to a settler could be repurchased at any time, either by himself or by one having the right of repurchase. The redemption price was based on the number of years remaining until the Jubilee year or until the seventh year of servitude. (Le 25:47-52; De 15:12) When granting a Hebrew slave his freedom, the master was to give him a gift to assist him in getting a good start as a freedman. (De 15:13-15) If a slave had come in with a wife, the wife went out with him. However, if the master had given him a wife (evidently a foreign woman who would not be entitled to freedom in the seventh year of servitude), she and any children by her remained the property of the master. In such a case the Hebrew slave could choose to remain with his master. His ear would then be pierced with an awl to indicate that he would continue in servitude to time indefinite.—Ex 21:2-6; De 15:16, 17.
**Female Hebrew slaves.
--Certain special regulations applied to a female Hebrew slave. She could be taken as a concubine by the master or designated as a wife for his son. When designated as a wife for the master’s son, the Hebrewess was to be treated with the due right of daughters. Even if the son took another wife, there was to be no diminishing of her sustenance, clothing, and marriage due. A failure on the son’s part in this respect entitled the woman to her freedom without the payment of a redemption price. If the master sought to have a Hebrewess redeemed, he was not permitted to accomplish this by selling her to foreigners.—Ex 21:7-11.
***Protections and privileges.
--The Law protected slaves from brutalities. A slave was to be set at liberty if mistreatment by the master resulted in the loss of a tooth or an eye. As the usual value for a slave was 30 shekels (compare Ex 21:32), his liberation would have meant considerable loss to the master and, therefore, would have served as a strong deterrent against abuse. Although a master could beat his slave, the slave, depending upon the decision of the judges, was to be avenged if he died under his master’s beating. However, if the slave lingered on for a day or two before dying—this indicating that the master had not intended to kill the slave but to discipline him—he was not to be avenged. (Ex 21:20, 21, 26, 27; Le 24:17) Also, it would appear that for the master to have been considered free of guilt the beating could not have been administered with a lethal instrument, as that would have signified intent to kill. (Compare Nu 35:16-18.) Therefore, if a slave lingered on for a day or two, there would be reasonable question as to whether the death resulted from the chastisement. A beating with a rod, for example, would not normally be fatal, as is shown by the statement at Proverbs 23:13: “Do not hold back discipline from the mere boy. In case you beat him with the rod, he will not die.”
--Certain privileges were granted to slaves by the terms of the Law. As all male slaves were circumcised (Ex 12:44; compare Ge 17:12), they could eat the Passover, and slaves of the priest could eat holy things. (Ex 12:43, 44; Le 22:10, 11) Slaves were exempted from working on the Sabbath. (Ex 20:10; De 5:14) During the Sabbath year they were entitled to eat of the growth from spilled kernels and from the unpruned vine. (Le 25:5, 6) They were to share in the rejoicing associated with the sacrificing at the sanctuary and the celebration of the festivals.—De 12:12; 16:11, 14.

Answer 2

Slavery in those times and into Roman times was often used by people who had no money to provide service in exchange for security. Of course its very unpleasant; we are now lucky that wealth generation with advanced technology, mechanisation, mass production etc is so much easier. In one of St Pauls letters he says that Slave Trading is an example of the ghastly behaviour that wicked people engage in, so its not acceptable. In other letters it says that if people are unlucky to be slaves, they should bear up under it, and not cheat their masters (which was probably common, unsurprisingly.)

Homosexuality behaviour is still pictured as wrong in the New Testament. Severl times in Paul's letters. This is because the act is supposedly not what is natural in terms of sexual mating. I.e male and female produce new offspring, and that is done by sexual intimacy.

If you are homosexual, there is nothing in most Western countries' law to stop you cohabiting. Its just that it is declared to be a wrongful act in the bible. But there are many sins. Things like pride, common all over the world, are quite likely much worse in god's sight.

Answer 3

And people who are opposed to gay marriage are opposed because they want to keep its sanctity (did you know homosexual couples are consistently happier than heterosexual couples?).

There's also a passage that suggests you lie down with another man, and that it will warm your heart... Can't cite it, sorry. A friend had it on his wall and I always thought it was very interesting because he's Southern Baptist. He, evidently, was not considering it the same way I was.

Answer 4

You could only have a slave for seven yrs, then set them free if they want.

Give up on your agenda and just hate us without the complications...you're likely to get converted if you keep reading the Bible.

Answer 5

Use this one....

Genesis 1
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,

Answer 6

I have to do some thinkin before i respond, good question.

(my response will be a long time comin)

Answer 7

the letter kills, the Spirit gives life.

Answer 8

deja vu
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070725101158AAC1aSD