I think you gravely misunderstand the bible. You clearly do not know the context of these verses or what they actually mean, and one of them....I'm not even sure you actually read the verse. So, let's begin shall we?Genesis 2:24 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." Now let me ask you this, do you want to live in your in-law's basement forever? I'm thinking probably not, so most likely the problem is not the leaving his father and mother. OK, what's next? Cleaving to his wife. OK, I'm assuming in a marriage it is preferable that a man love his wife and be faithful to her, and vice versa, right? If that's the case, there is not a problem with the second part of this verse. Next comes becoming one flesh. There are two ways to interpret this one. One is speaking about having sex and procreation in marriage. I don't want to do this, so I am solving the problem by not getting married. The other is that the man and his wife ought to be a team. They will work together and will be seen as one united front, and they ought to act like it too. You know what this doesn't say? It doesn't say anything about interracial marriage (nor does anywhere else in the bible. It condemns inter-faith marriage, not interracial), arranged marriages (in face, the marriage of Abraham and Sarah and Jacob and Rebecca, and Moses and his wife, and Ruth and Boaz.....and several other very big name couples were NOT arranged) and female subordination. Like interracial marriage, the bible actually NEVER says that women are subordinate. In Genesis 3 God acknowledges that woman's "desire will be for [her] husband and he will rule over [her]", but what does this mean? Well the Hebrew word for desire actually means to desire to dominate. So essentially, husbands and wives will seek to dominate each other and men are physically stronger and will win. It is an acknowledgement, not a commandment. Likewise, in 1 Timothy where it commands women to learn in "quietness and full submission" is commanding women to learn in the same way that men do, and likewise "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man" is referring to a few select women in the Church of Ephesus who were incredibly domineering and believed that they should be able to teach despite not understanding the apostle's teachings....and they were causing a lot of trouble.  Continuing on Ephesus "What about Ephesians 5? It tells wives to submit to their husbands." Indeed it does, however, the word "submit" is actually better translated as "respect" and right after it goes on to give a lengthy explanation to husbands about how they ought to submit to their wives by giving up their life for her. Now, this can be literally DYING to save her, but it can also be giving up his wants and desires for her, and her likewise for him. It's telling them to care more about each other than themselves. You KNOW that the woman is expected to be a docile housewife because we have the description of the ideal wife in proverbs 31. This woman is an internationally known successful business woman, who kind of does her own thing. She is kind to her servants, and her kids grow up to be respectable individuals, and people actually stop her husband on the street to tell him how great his wife is. It also tells us that she just goes out and buys a field without consulting anyone. This is the equivalent of just kind of going out and buying a business.Genesis 38:6-10. First of all, we are never told that Judah has a wife other than Tamar, his brother's widow. At this time, a childless widow would have been unable to take care of herself, because despite all the ideals I have mentioned above, women were not well respected in ancient times, and it is still that way today in this middle east.this was a family's way of providing for the widows of their sons. I don't necessarily get it, but I will just leave it at that it was the best possible option at that time. As for Dueteronomy 22, that also draws on what I just mentioned. A non-virgin woman would not have been able to find a husband, and would not have been able to provide for herself. Keep in mind with this, that the victim would have had the right to refuse, and she would not have been married to him. Also, this was a collectivist society, so he would  have been watched VERY closely. The modern day equivalent would be requiring a rapist to pay a large fine, all of the victim's therapy, for the victim's future wedding, all of her education, and generally fully financially support her until the day he dies. He would also have to fully financially support any child that came from it regardless of where that child lived. I want this law in America.