Here's another excerpt from the book I'm writing. It's a shortened version of a previous post, with additional coverage added. It's going in the new "Marriage" Appendix.
There are two creation accounts in the book of Genesis, and they are often used to as proof that God meant every marriage to look exactly like a heterosexual marriage.
The First Creation Account
Then God said, “Let us make adam in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
So God created adam in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
ish and ishshah he created them.
— Genesis 1:26-27
In the first creation narrative (Genesis 1:1-2:4), both man (ish) and woman (ishshah) are created in God’s image equally as humankind (adam). We could consider “man and woman” to be a form of speech called a merism which uses two ends of a spectrum to include the entire range, similar to God creating the “heavens and the earth” or calling God the “alpha and omega”. This could allow for room to say that intersex, transgender, and other non-traditional gender forms from birth are also included in God’s good creation. Certainly the emphasis is on the image of God implanted equally in all humanity regardless of gender.
The Second Creation Account
then the Lord God formed the adam [human] from the dust of the adamah [ground/humus], and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the adam became a living being.
Then the Lord God said,
“It is not good that the adam should be alone;
I will make him a helper as his partner.”
— Genesis 2:7, 18
In the second creation narrative starting at Genesis 2:5, at first only one human is created: the adam (human) from adamah (ground/humus). Then the Lord God remarks that it is not good for the human to be alone, and a corresponding companion is sought for him among the animals. When this is not found, a suitable partner is formed by forming another human out of the side of the first. While the traditional rib is likely better translated side, regardless it’s important to note how the origin was from a place of equality.
The KJV’s “helpmeet” has been misunderstood to imply “assistant/lower partner” instead of “appropriate partner.” In fact, the Hebrew phrase is used for one who comes in support of, as God or an army coming to reinforce in battle. Equality and equivalency are the primary emphasis in this account.
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called ishshah [woman],
for out of ish [man] this one was taken.”
— Genesis 2:23
The passage concludes with the man and woman coming together to make one flesh. The particular is subsumed in union.
In neither narrative is marriage mentioned, nor are any other models of relationship described in negative or positive terms. To use these stories as prescriptive for every relationship seems to take the meaning beyond what is written. Since procreation was important to the story at the time, and marriage understood in the context of inheritance and multiplying, heterosexual relationships seem to be the assumed model. If anything, it seems to me that there is a de-emphasis on the importance of being either male or female, and a focus on our shared humanity.