Defending Biblical Marriage (?)
 

A friend sent this to me (knowing I think that whatever kind of couple wants to get married should be able to), and I thought I'd pass it on to you folks.



Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage


As certain politicians work diligently to prevent marriage between
two people of the same sex, others of us have been busy drafting a
Constitutional Amendment codifying all marriages entirely on
Biblical principles. After all, God wouldn't want us to "pick and
choose" which of the Scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we
choose to ignore:


Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage:


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


* 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)


* 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)


* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.
(Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30, 2Cor 6:14)


* Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any
state law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)


* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry
the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the 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)


* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found),
a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen
19:31-36)


I hope this helps to clarify the finer details of the Government's
righteous struggle against the infidels and heathens among us.

Damn, that's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. :D

I have, somewhere in the depths of my hard drive, a document similar to this one in which the Ten Commandments have been updated for the times.

It shows them, chiseled onto stone tablets as usual, with one exception. The familiar, "Thou Shalt Not" has been replaced with the applicable sections of the US Code, complete with references.

It's sad that this "updated" version, which codifies ALL of the Commandments in different words, is completely permissible in courtrooms, classrooms and most anyplace else, but the archaic wording version is not only banned, but villified.

Sometimes, I think I'll never understand politics, religion and law.

Brian

so when is my execution?

I've been lurking for more than a year here, but I guess this proves I have a really hard time letting inaccurate information go by...

Now, personally, I think marriage is just as much a secular institution as a religious one and therefore anyone who wants to marry anyone else is fine in my book.

But almost all of those references (with the exceptions of some in the fourth and fifth items) are from the Old Testament, which is *not* the same as the Bible as a whole. The New Testament spends a great deal of time directly countermanding the Old Testament, but the Old Testament is still part of the Bible because you can't say "make it x plus 2" unless you know what x was to begin with. Christians by definition believe in the New Testament.

Incidentally, the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), where a lot of those references come from, are also sometimes called another document--the Torah. Obviously orthodox Jews aren't trying to make constitutional amendments as such, but my point is Christians don't actually believe in many of those passages, as they are specifically disregarded in later books.

So was that worth registering for, or should I have kept quiet for another few years? :)

Now was as good a time as any to jump in.

Welcome, and congrats on breaking the lurk barrier.

are there more of you out there? .....watching?

:worried:

hundreds.

lying in wait.

they will catch you unawares.

you weren't really needing that spleen, now, were you?

I'm pretty sure most of us get connected by way of the IOTD. You can thank UT later.

Here is a great article entitled "Here's How to Defend Marriage" by Harry Browne which is an amusing and eloquent description of how "marriage" can best be saved. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

When you're done, you also might want to check out another of his articles called "The Bush Doctrine"... " which is an excellent look at Bush and his policies and how laughable it is when he claims to be a defender of freedom.

I figure, hey, Jehovah changed his mind once, maybe he'll do it again...

Oh, pitch in, by all means!

I'm a pagan, so all that christian stuff doesn't apply to me :D

Some Christians think the new testament invalidates the old or somehow erases it. They act as though the Old Testament weren't even part of the bible and they ignore the many gaping holes in the bible.

I've had a few Christian fundamentalists try to tell me how dangerous Muslims are and they claimed the Quran teaches hate, and to kill Christians and they mention some harsh punishments under Muslim Law. When I mention the harsh penalties in the bible such as death by stoning for adultury, disobedient children, beastiliaty, or even planting more than one crop in the same field, they say "that was the old testament" as though the old testament were not in the bible.

Luckily for us, The United States of America is not now, now has it ever been a Christian nation. It was founded by Diests and Unitarians who believe in a generic natural higher power that was called a "god" for lack of a better word. But they certaily didn't believe in the judeo-christian mono-theistic concept of "God" with a capital G.


"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." -George Washington

Dig it up. I'd be curious to see it, especially the first commandment.

Um, there's about 1.5 % of the US population which would disagree with you on that. I thought the whole point of having a split representational democracy was to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Just because YOU (and 90-something % of the US population) combine the T'Nach (five books plus other writings which comprise the "Old Testament") and the "New Testament" and call it THE BIBLE doesn't make it so.

PS, just out of curiosity; if the New Testament is predicated upon a "new covenant" with God, which relegates the old testament to historical footnote status, are Christians still beholden to following the 10 commandments (since most of the 603 other commandments are off the table)?

I'm a pagan, so all that christian stuff doesn't apply to me

Is that how it works? If I just drop the whole "religion thing" or change to another one, the rules no longer apply? Hot damn!

For anyone interesting in a damn good rebuttal of the whole gay marriage thing, the economist had one of it's best editorials on it this week. Succinct, clear and concise, well wroth a read.

God I sound like tw.

You mean that many of us will be really, REALLY pissed off by it?

No, you don't. He would have posted the whole article.

A link might be nice, though, for those of us too lazy to look for it themselves ... (me) ;)

I'm not qualified to answer that. I'm only barely qualified to say what I said. The only reason I have any religious schooling at all is out of convenience--namely, it was important to my husband (because it was VERY important to my husband's mother), and when tempered with common sense and decency I believe it's a reasonable moral structure in which to raise children.

Which is why it bugs me when someone takes a wacky passage out of Deuteronomy and puts it forth as a fundamental tenet of Christianity. I used to be more than a little biased against religion, and it was a bit of a wake-up call when I did finally get a basic overview and understood how so many of those passages could still be in there.

It's just a question of low-level education--I think people would be a lot less intolerant on both sides if everyone had a simple understanding of exactly what it was everyone believed in the first place. I'm a fan of educating oneself.

Incidentally, who are the 1.5% you mention? Are you talking about the apocrypha? Either way, I certainly don't think that the majority should be tyrannical, or that religion should have ANYTHING to do with our government. Please don't assume that just because I believe in learning a little of everything that I BELIEVE everything I read. But I do believe that if a religion gives something a name, then that is what that thing is called for them. Not that it is TRUE, just that that is what's it's called. I'm not sure which point you were making because I don't know who the 1.5% are.

Actually, you end up with a whole different set of rules, more gods than you can shake a stick at (which is valid act in many pagan practices), and a lot more personal responsibility ... there's no get out of hell free card of 'accepting christ as a personal savior' in paganism ... you have to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

You also have to put up with a lot of crap, like Lady Morgahhna Moonshine Dewdrop and people who overuse glitter.

Oh, and the teens who want to freak out their rather straightlaced parents.

Here are two links.

join my church.

we're Pickandchoosists. you just take what you like from wherever you like it, and try to be a good person. Don;t persecute others based on their religious beliefs, and you get to go to whichever heaven you feel most comfortable with.....nirvana, valhala, heaven, whatever. and you dont have to go to church or anything.

Actually, you end up with a whole different set of rules, more gods than you can shake a stick at (which is valid act in many pagan practices), and a lot more personal responsibility ... there's no get out of hell free card of 'accepting christ as a personal savior' in paganism ... you have to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

You are correct -- personal responsibility is something I do not see in too many religious people these days, even though they are often educated in it. They seem to be much more concerned about enforcement of their ideas and the questioning of others'.

I have a lot of respect for people who are spiritual, but not so much for people who are religious.

Speaking for the total heathens, it's a great exercise to build your very own moral code based on philosophical principles instead of fairy tales. I heartily recommend it.

Without making this sound meaner than it's intended -- well, DUH.

I am an atheist. I do not feel bound by the "rules," beliefs, moral/value systems and/or Lists of Things That People Shouldn't Do that various religious organizations have cooked up. They simply do not apply to me, because I am not a member of any of those groups, nor do I feel the need to structure my behavior according to the standards of J. Random God in hopes of attaining salvation, reaching enlightenment or avoiding eternal damnation.

Am I actively working _against_ those things, or deliberately thumbing my nose at them by doing what major religions denounce? No. Whether or not (let's say) the Catholic Church disapproves of my behavior is as irrelevant to me as whether or not my neighbor's ferret disapproves. Their "rules" aren't my guidelines, much less something I should feel compelled to follow. Sometimes my behavior matches up, sometimes it doesn't, but worrying about whether I'm acting according to religions' "rules" or not isn't one of my priorities.

Can a religious person look at my actions, feel that I am in violation of his or her own moral beliefs, and disapprove accordingly? Of course. But I can do the same in return, and neither of our denouncements should mean much to the other.

The same analogy can be applied to competing religions -- should Baptists be concerned if the Unitarians follow different rules? Should Catholics adjust their doctrines to accommodate Islamic dissent? Should pagans give a rat's ass what the Jews or the Buddhists or the atheists don't like about their beliefs?

Nope. Because nobody "knows" for sure which group is right, and anyone who says otherwise is either deluded or selling something.

Why do so many religions have the "you shall dislike, with hate, X group of people"? And doesn't the rule that is included in those same religions "don't hurt other people, you twit" cancel out the previous? I only think of this because my own, personal set of ideals and beliefs are fashioned from the general ideas of, "Don't hurt others, don't damage other people's things, etc, etc." I didn't have to go to church to learn those basic ideals, either, and my set seems to get me by with a lot less friction and personal strife than what a lot of religions teach. Yet, when approached by anyone concerned with my "saved? status", I'm immediatly put down as an evil heathen for holding ideas so similar to their own minus the "be a dick to people different than you" rule.

Must be my beautiful looks.

Because organized religion differs from personal religious belief in one significant way -- one of its primary goals is to obtain and wield POWER. That's power as in influencing society through strength of numbers, through suppressing opposed groups (religious or otherwise) through various methods, and through maintaining a healthy level of zeal among its followers and receiving a correspondingly high level of donations and devotion to the church's goals.

It's so much easier to control people when you can present them with scapegoats and easy targets as to what's wrong with the world.

It's so much easier to control people when you can present them with scapegoats and easy targets as to what's wrong with the world.

This is why I think Shintoism kicks ass: they believe in all sorts of wild stuff, still go to temples to worship, but not once, ever, have they gone on the war path for anything based on that religion. No war was ever started because something in a book told the people who subscribe to Shinto to go kill The Unbelievers, Shinto never suggests that it is more correct than other beliefs, and they have rather nice ideas that there should be a nice balance between people and nature.

Yesterday I ran into something that was a little frightening: two of my co-workers, who I always considered to be the nicest of people (have wonderful families, do charity work, help out others that they don't even know, not racist in any way, considered almost family, etc) turned into something scary while enjoying a discussion over lunch. All it took was for someone to mention Disney, the other mentions Gay Day, and all of a sudden I'm hearing the most awful, uneducated hate that is usually reserved for members of the Klan being interviewed on Springer. I was really taken aback by this display and I'm still hoping it has more to do with the current media atmosphere than the actual feelings of the people I work with.

You begin to wonder just how far simple 'faith' can take you.

I was raised under a very strict christian roof and I turned out to be a lesbian. I have yet to come out to my family simply because of the fact that I lack moral value and I want their financial support.

The other day, while on the phone with my mother, I mentioned the joke of a gay friend of mine, and she began to spurt the most distasteful and hateful things about him and gayness in general. She ended her tyrade with a nice cherry topping of, Oh well, they'll burn in hell anyway.

it has more to do with the current media atmosphere than the actual feelings of the people I work with.

As the lesbian daughter of a woman who once told me that she would love me no matter what and support me in all I do, I can't help but wonder if she would continue to feel this way if I tell the truth. I'm actually scared to find out.

As the lesbian daughter of a woman who once told me that she would love me no matter what and support me in all I do, I can't help but wonder if she would continue to feel this way if I tell the truth. I'm actually scared to find out.

This is not even remotely going to parallel the stress of the situation you are faced with, but I feel somewhat similar anxiety when it comes to dealing with my boss. I have a great fear that if he ever found out that I didn't subscribe to the beliefs of the church that I would probably be fired. He is, as are the other members of the group, very kind people, but it is generally accepted that the entire group is composed of god-fearing, church-going people. One person is quite openly not one of these, as he is Indian and has annouced his Hindu beliefs, and this poor guy gets no work, no praise, and was recently pushed off into the corner of the building where no one has to deal with him. I think during the next round of cuts he'll be the next to go.

Without saying anything, I think everyone has made the assumption that I go to church and think along the same lines they do. I'd prefer it stay that way.

Quote:

Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage: * Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

Say what?!?! :confused:

Quote:

* 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)

Sorry God...I'm selfish and I don't like sharing with others!

Quote:

* 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)

Looks like there's gonna be a lot of women dying out...

Quote:

* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30, 2Cor 6:14)

:rolleyes: Whatever.

Quote:

* Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)

Dang. *watches fidelity fly right out the window*

Quote:

* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the 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)

Baahahah! One shoe, eh? That's funny.

Quote:

* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen 19:31-36)

The hell?!?!?!? Holy shit!!
:eek: :confused:

Well I think you shouldn't be so harsh... Put all these commands in the right time! In these days there was no State to protect people, so another Power was ruling society and that was the religious power. And there was nothing worse for a woman than her husband to die and leave her without any income. So the brother was taking care of here. Don't forget this is about 3000 years ago. The world is changing and so does the c(C)hurch.
I think you shouldn't be so narrowsighted and only look at these sayings with your wisdom and knowledge and morals. Because otherwise you're not better then the people still believing in these sayings!

It would be nice if more people took that stance. The rules in the Bible were written for a completely different civilization and time. Whether something is supported or discouraged in the Bible shouldn't be relevant to whether it should be allowed in 21st century America.

That's not to say that all Biblical rules should be broken, just that they need to be able to stand on their own with no regard to the Bible.

There are legions of people out there who will kick, scream, harass, donate money, picket and cast votes specifically to ensure that c(C)hurches and contemporary religious views in general do _not_ change with the times.

If people like that did not exist, the world would be a better place.

To borrow a link I used in another thread:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/
http://www.godhatesamerica.com/

These people, just, damn...

Something I'm reading right now...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/08...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

From Publishers Weekly
Drawing on evolutionary psychology, Skeptic publisher and Scientific American contributor Shermer (Why People Believe Weird Things) argues that the sources of moral behavior can be traced scientifically to humanity's evolutionary origins. He contends that human morality evolved as first an individual and then a species-wide mechanism for survival. As society evolved, humans needed rules governing behavior-e.g., altruism, sympathy, reciprocity and community concern-in order to ensure survival. Shermer says that some form of the Golden Rule-"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"-provides the foundation of morality in human societies. Out of this, he develops the principles of what he calls a "provisional ethics" that "is neither absolute nor relative," that applies to most people most of the time, while allowing for "tolerance and diversity." According to the "ask-first" principle, for instance, the performer of an act simply asks its intended receiver whether the act is right or wrong. Other principles include the "happiness" principle ("always seek happiness with someone else's happiness in mind"), the liberty principle ("always seek liberty with someone else's liberty in mind") and the moderation principle ("when innocent people die, extremism in the defense of anything is no virtue, and moderation in the protection of everything is no vice"). Shermer's provisional ethics might reflect the messy ways that human moral behavior developed, but his simplistic principles establish a utilitarian calculus that not everyone will find acceptable. 35 b&w illus.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Re: Defending Biblical Marriage (?)
 

Actually, I looked this one up just for ha-has. you should really include 19:37-38 as well...they tell of the results.

To wit: (this is ALL of 31-38)

And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father.
And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father.
And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-ammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.


Thus is it written in my Book of Genesis. Things got kinda racy in those days, neh?

Brian

Silly little "rules to control the masses" don't fly in Paganism, thank Goddess. We sum up "play nice" in a single sentence.

You sound like either a Pagan or a Unitarian Universalist :D

So do you ascribe to the ideas in the book, or are you just reading it for fun?


To everyone:

In a similar vein, I wonder how many people here (and I'm saying "here" because this is where I am) actually walk the walk of the talk they talk. It's easy to say, "I ascribe to this belief/This is how I see things," but I wonder what the discrepancy is between what you "believe" and how strictly you adhere to those beliefs for yourself. Lots of people say that "this is how things should be" but REALLY mean "This is how things should be, except for me, unless I choose to conveniently follow this belief so as to make some kind of point."

For instance, I'm going to use an example that I've found here: unfaithfulness. I wonder how many of the people who denounce unfaithfulness have actually ever BEEN unfaithful? If so, what's your excuse (or "justification" if you prefer)? I thought of this example because I've seen it here a bit, and the idea of " the "happiness" principle ("always seek happiness with someone else's happiness in mind") would have to do with something like that.

For instance, is cheating unacceptable behavior
UNLESS your spouse/SO is a bitch/asshole?

UNLESS you start thinking you made a mistake and want out, but don't want to have to be the one to do it?

UNLESS you start thinking, "hey, this marriage/dating thing is too much responsiblility, I can't take it"?

UNLESS you find someone you like better?

UNLESS you have problems in the relationship and, instead of dealing with them, you'd rather just bail because it's easier?


See what I mean? People who are vehemently against infidelity will use these excuses when they violate the beliefs they profess, because their situation is SPECIAL.

Any comments?

I haven't read enough of it to agree with the content, but I like the idea and it falls in line with my studies, research an ideas.

Re: Re: Defending Biblical Marriage (?)
 

I like how this is going. It might be a flash in the pan, but the amount of media coverage and the number of places starting to allow homosexual marriage looks positive.

<a href="http://www.dailyemerald.com/">My school paper</a> was made up mostly of reports about the subject. In particular, the folks in Portland who found a <a href="http://www.dailyemerald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/03/04/4047426bcc8ff">loophole or whatever</a> in the Oregon constitution. It gives me the feeling of one of those crazy social revolutions, though it might still be too early to say.

I was going to write something about how silly the arguments against homosexual marriages are, but the Economist articles pretty much sum up how I feel.

I'm an optimist. I think the San Fransisco strategy is going to pay off well. Instead of seeing a horrible, gruesome gay freakshow, you see average normal people, couples and families with kids that have been together and loving each other for years, celebrating their lives. Its making the injustice visible. Shows that the fears are out of wack. The hate spewing protester waving his poster about bestiality, screaming at the happy, peaceful couple holding their small child....its going to be very hard to go back now. Those who got hitched make me proud. I'm cheering them on.:)

It's even making waves in China. :)