In defense of traditional Biblical marriage

[Brian_Expat]

It's time to take a stand! ;-)

http://www.thecommongood.org/CGN/3_3/biblicalmarriage.html

Subject: In defense of Biblical marriage

The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for
the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the
definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical
principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of
marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by
our government." This is true.

Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by
action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals,
is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely
on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between
one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron
11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut
22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be
forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry
the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or
deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one
shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.
(Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your
town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with
him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men
young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of
course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

[Deja Q]

1. This needs to be kicked for a few weeks!

:yourock:

[mopinko]

2. yup kick

here's to making them eat their own Words.

[Turbineguy]

3. F. OK, let me get this straight

my Brother married a rather attractive blond. But they divorced. I'm married already. Would that mean the fine would be one of my wife's shoes?

[leesa]

34. But they AREN'T divorced. And you can't go around divvying up

shoes until your brother's dead.

[DenverDem]

4. The fallacy of Old Testament legalism.

The fundy idiots who persist in quoting Old Testament in direct contradiction of Jesus' theology, show that they are not really Christians but are actually under control of "the other guy".

6. actually these guys are not fundamentalists

It's Satire.
If you go deeper
http://www.thecommongood.org/sexual_orientation.html
into their web site
http://www.thecommongood.org/index.html
you find stuff like this

Sexual Orientation

Protestants for the Common Good (PCG) advocated on behalf of amending the Illinois Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation to the list of characteristics protected from discriminatory practices, then known as House Bill 474. The board of directors adopted the statement below at that time. HB474 was placed on postponed consideration in March 1999 and has not been reintroduced to the Illinois General Assembly.

Protestants for the Common Good continues its support of amending the Illinois Human Rights Act. When this measure is reintroduced to the Illinois General Assembly, PCG will again work for its passage and enactment. More information on how you can become involved will be posted at that time.

[DenverDem]

8. Yeah, I realize that.

I was going a step before them to the fundies that inspired their great satire.

Merely supporting their satirical thesis.

14. just checking!

no offense taken, I hope.

[DenverDem]

15. Nah,

My post was not specific enough to asuage your doubts of my understanding.

[never cry wolf]

5. Thanks

Hope you don't mind that I cut and pasted into an email!

[bryant69]

7. What does this accomplish other than to Mock Other's beliefs?

Just out of curiousity?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mike1963]

9. Mock? How do you get that? It simply uses their own book for support.

:eyes:
:eyes:
:eyes:

[Az]

11. The religious right claims moral superiority

By demonstrating that they do not adhere to their own doctrine we show the hypocracy inherant in there attempt to force their beliefs as the law of the land.

[DenverDem]

13. If other's beliefs are so mockable. . .

actually this merely points out the hypocricy of the fundamentalist's citation of Old Testament legalism to support their bigotry against GLBT's.

[DieboldMustDie]

18. Well, it gave me a good laugh.

Besides, some beliefs deserve to be mocked. :evilgrin:

[Touchdown]

21. What does FMA do other than mock my very existence?

My life, livelihood, and freedom in this country should trump their "beliefs".

[bryant69]

23. Well than make that argument

Why stoop to conquer? Why take another kick at religion that makes it easier for Republicans to paint as all as anti-Christian?

I can tell you are pissed off over this; fair enough, but is it more important for you to win or for you to express your anger?

[Touchdown]

28. Imagine if your life was being debated by the likes of Gary Bauer

constantly, relentlessly, and hyperbolically for 25 years, as if you were never in the room, and nobody would listen to your story because your one of the "afflicted", see how long you can keep a "cool head" about this issue. I am not a soundbite. I am a human being. These people are discussing me, not my beliefs, not my tenets, not my values...but ME. To suggest that I should give respect for others who believe that I am just faking it...that I'm really straight, and just like to fuck guys because it's fun to do some anti-religious political taunt is also insulting.

Most people who are anti gay marriage, or even anti gay, know very little about the phenomena of homosexuality, and would like to know even less. Still, they parade Fatwell, Robertson, Bauer, Sheldon et al. on these TV shows to debate gay rights (not just this issue) as if they're experts on the subject. Do you realize how demeaning, and insulting that is to hear about myself, and who I am, being defined by those who have little knowledge, or empathy for my place in humanity, because donations need to be collected, and political debts to pay?

I know it's difficult for those who aren't gay to understand this, but this is a debate about me, and other gays and lesbians, and it is VERY PERSONAL. Religious values are not the issue here...they're just the excuse that's used to frame the debate.

Edited for typos.

[LeahMira]

29. No more sacred cows!

Are there some who believe that the sun circles the earth? That the universe came into being in six days? Would they be terribly wounded if I laughed at those beliefs?

So tell me... how is it that we all can have differences on Social Security, the occupation of Iraq, an increase of the minimum wage, and tax cuts and that's all right. But comes along religion and no one is allowed to comment without being accused of mocking other's beliefs?

Excuse me, but if someone's religious belief results in discrimination, bigotry and unhappiness for any human beings in this world it's fair game for criticism, be that outright criticism or some clever satire.

Seems to me that we in the U.S. have let all sorts of stupidity just slide because we're afraid to be accused of criticising someone's religious beliefs. What happens then is that a whole lot of really nasty people get to bully everyone around and then run and hide behind the excuse of religious belief.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of it.

[arewethereyet]

10. the marriage everyone is so interested in is a societal thing not religion

It mixed with religion where religion was the ruling authority, it mixed with state when state was the ruling authority. It remains mixed where authority tranfered from one to the other.

Its a societal issue in the main. Thats why same sex marriage enjoys the disfavor that it does. Can't pin this on fundemantalists and you make a huge mistake in trying to.

You have to understand your enemy if you seek to do battle otherwise you guarantee defeat.

[Brian_Expat]

12. Nah

Bush and other right-wingers talk about "the Bible" and marriage being an "ancient, unchanging institution." If changing this institution from its history destroys it, then it's important that it be brought back to traditional roots, right?

[arewethereyet]

16. Bush, no

in his statement regarding his support of the marriage ammendment he only mentioned religion twice and in a supportive, universal sense. Not just Christianity but all major religion.

As to the rest, as the Judeo/Christian idiology does not support same sex marriage on the basis of the sex matter and in the context of it being an institution, then yes the institution is changed and changed in a Biblically unacceptable manner.

If you have any interest in winning same sex marriage, best to get this framed as a social (state) matter and not religious. Considering that the religious rite is not a legal anything, it should not be that hard to overcome. Then its down to trying to change social mores. But that is a daunting task in itelf.

Civil unions are far more attainable, provide the legal status that is, at least in part, what is desired. At that point there are any number of churches that will "marry" you and then that part is covered as well.

THe current actions are very harmful to the cause.

[Brian_Expat]

17. Mentioning religion, yet completely ignoring its tenets!

How Republican -- Bush is faking it as usual.

As for my "opponents," I know who they are. They're people like this guy:



I think people like the guy above are more harmful to society (and the Republicans) than the people below:

[blondeatlast]

19. What a lovely couple!

I always cry at weddings!

:toast: to the happy couple!

[arewethereyet]

26. my point is that you have Bush taking this position of religious grounds

and he didn't. He did it on societal grounds. Not helpful to distort the truth to make a point.

[kayell]

22. Civil Unions are not attainable!

People keep acting like civil unions are available just anywhere. Do you know where they are available?

VERMONT

That's it.

If you are anywhere else in the US, civil unions are NOT available. If you go to Vermont to get one, it probably won't matter a damn in your home state, because your home state probably included civil unions as something they wouldn't recognize in their DOMA.

Talking endlessley about civil unions is fantasy. Marriage is an existing institution. The SCOTUS will almost certainly find that the equal protections clause in the 14th amendment applies to the right to marriage for gays and lesbians.

The reason that * and the fundies want a Marriage Discrimination Amendment is because they KNOW that even this SCOTUS will find that the DOMAs state and federal are unconstitutional. If they didn't know this, they wouldn't need such a repulsive amendment.

I don't want to hear any more fantasies out of people about some f-ing non-existant civil unions! Although I'm sure I will.... :eyes:

[arewethereyet]

24. attainable / obtainable

attainable meaning the they could be legislated into law as has happened in Vermont.

obtainable meaning the you can, this day, get it. As you say, only in Vermont.

My point is that legislators (not courts) are far more likely to pass this legislation than marriage legislation.

You already see how Mass is reacting to judicial action on the matter and thats Mass !

If this gets pushed you will force opposition that cannot be stopped and you will lose it all.

But its its all or nothing, then have at it.

[kayell]

30. "You will lose it all"

Nice threat, I'm seeing a lot of these bogus threats lately.

Your point about legislators likely to pass civil unions legislation (I'd say unlikely in most states) is moot. This issue WILL be decided in the courts. There are bad, unconstitutional laws out there now, and they are going to make it to the SCOTUS. This will happen a lot sooner than any concievable civil union legislation possibly could.

Again - "The reason that * and the fundies want a Marriage Discrimination Amendment is because they KNOW that even this SCOTUS will find that the DOMAs state and federal are unconstitutional. If they didn't know this, they wouldn't need such a repulsive amendment."

The 14th amendment applies to gay marriage just as it did in Loving vs. VA.

You seem to be a bit distressed at "judicial action." Care to elaborate?

[LeahMira]

32. Baloney!

If this gets pushed you will force opposition that cannot be stopped and you will lose it all.

That's what they said to mixed race couples and black students who wanted to go to integrated schools and people who wanted to form labor unions. I'd even bet that back in 1776 there were folks who worried that if we all pushed this independence thing we'd force opposition from England that couldn't be stopped and that we'd loose it all forever.

As for Massachusetts, when busing began there the folks in Boston were out in the streets sobbing and screaming their heads off... right in front of their dear little children.

Maybe the opposition can't be stopped, but what if the people who support same-sex marriage can't be stopped either? If homosexual marriage is not pushed, for sure it all will be lost. Or do you think that if homosexual people just wait patiently, eventually they will get what they want because all Americans are just such swell folks?

Dream on...

[blondeatlast]

20. Not only am I not married (citing D), I'm dead as well (C).

Mr. Blonde is gonna be PIIIIIISSSSSSED!

The only threat to marriage is SOME ridiculously married people.

[pacifictiger]

27. One of the founders of this country thought

marriage was such a non fundamental issue for this country that he shacked up with his wife for life instead of getting his marriage sanctioned by the church. His name? Benjamin Franklin, the only man to have his hand in all the founding documents! More people need to know this!

[MAlibdem]

25. Wait a minute! I get to OWN my wife

Where do I sign? Mom, Dad, come quick! Find me a wife and get together a dowry, I want a sex slave! A good old traditional Biblical marraige, just what I need: a punching bag, a sex slave, and some property.

WTF!?! Why cant these people wake up and realize what century they're in? It's called PROGRESS, we've made some in the last couple millenium.

[distortionmarshall]

31. yah - i wanna wife like in brazil.......

..... where you can beat n kill em n stuff.... i'm sure the church had to have sanctioned it, since they're pretty much all catholic down there.....

ooooo sh*t - mebbe the priests were all "busy" when they shoulda been keeping an eye on marriage..... lol

[leesa]

33. That's right! Serve one up for the self-righteous.

I also like the notion that it is a sin to waste your seed if you are not trying to conceive. That leaves a lot of bible-believers out their sinning away as they copulate without an intent to conceive.

It's so bizzare to have people from this milleniae following old biblical rules. The realities are so different. At this time, people were desperate to increase their populations in whatever tribe or region they came from because the death rates of children and adults were so high. Perhaps these kinds of rules were necessary to keep the population numbers up.
Same with old prohibitions against things like pork. Don't you think it probably had far more to do with epidemiology than anything else? Someone probably put cause and effect together and found that eating pig flesh could kill (trichinosis). It became a rule, was expanded and romanticised and there you have it.

[MountainLaurel]

35. Oh my!

leesa wrote: I also like the notion that it is a sin to waste your seed if you are not trying to conceive.

There go the chances of heaven for pretty much every 14-year-old boy out there, who I understand do a hell of a lot of spilling. (Let's hear it for ova, who stay put until they're called for by hormones.)

:evilgrin:

[Mick Knox]

36. notice its all old testament...

To bad some groups of Christians dont pay more attention to the teaching of Jesus... as opposed to the old testament.. Jesus superceded those old testament laws and made them obsolete... He gave NEW commandments regarding love etc. I think the arguments Jesus very well would have defended gay marriage may hold merrit. he stopped the stoning of Mary Mag.. I imagine he would have done the same for anyone he found being "stoned" who was otherwise good in the heart. He never spoke of it.. but I doubt the one group of otherwise good people he would have overtly condemmed would be homosexuals. the problem is.. he never addressed it one way or the other.. but he did say to love all... he did not say.. love everyone except homosexuals.

[Piperay]

37. Interesting...

Thanks! :thumbsup: