Defense of Marriage

From my inbox today

Published on December 8, 2004 By dabe In Politics

Sharpen your Biblical skills...
Defend marriage just as
God has ordered

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)

* 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.

Comments

Danny Bassette

on Dec 08, 2004

I'd have to laugh if this happened. But would they have to first invalidate all marriages that didn't fit this or would it only apply to new marriages?

whoman69

on Dec 08, 2004

While I certainly would not go to this extreme for a definition of marriage, I take my vows very seriously as though they were taken in front of God. That said, noone can really know someone before they are married, especially if they did not know each other biblically before the marriage. I don't see that a just being could force people to stay together who no longer enjoy their company, or in extreme case are subject to abuse.
That said, marriage is a religious institution. Every major religion in this country does not approve of homosexuality. I think a few use that as an excuse to hate homosexuals, but that's a different thread. I have no problem with a civil union that has equality in law. To force religion to sanction something it does not approve is wrong.

LeapingLizard

on Dec 08, 2004

A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If
the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.

Yikes!

Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden

What if they both believe that marriage, as a whole, is a marketing scam and mostly a crock of crap? Does that count?

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

What the ..... ? Nasty, dabe...!

Whoman

That said, noone can really know someone before they are married, especially if they did not know each other biblically before the marriage.

So my aunt and uncle, that were together a decase with children before they got married didn't really know each other? Hhhhmmm. I think they knew each other a lot better than my dad and stepmom, who have been married about two years, biblically or not. Don't you think?

kingbee

on Dec 08, 2004

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

defense of marriage is a consistent theme throughout the gospels. but unlike the dominionists and fundamentalist religious activists who've spun that phrase into euphemistic codespeak, jesus' approach was to sternly condemn divorce several times as well as manifesting both his human/divine natures simultaneously to add something really special to the cana wedding. nowhere in the gospels did he feel the need to condemn or denigrate same-sex relationships...or even mention them, for that matter.

ill continue remaining steadfastly vigilant against the pomps and works of false prophets until i see those who claiim god is working and speaking thru them exercising their influence to minimize this country's deplorable divorce rate

on to victory!

Molly0597

on Dec 08, 2004

I don't see that a just being could force people to stay together who no longer enjoy their company, or in extreme case are subject to abuse.

I don't see that a just being could deny people rights for something they can't choose. The whole point of this article, I think, is to show that people pick and choose parts of the Bible to justify their views, and ignore the others, saying that they're old, and times have changed, or their just wrong. So why can't any of the passages about homosexuality be wrong? Those are equally as unjust. The purpose of the government is to protect it's people's rights, which it isn't doing when it denies homosexuals marriage.

That said, marriage is a religious institution. Every major religion in this country does not approve of homosexuality. I think a few use that as an excuse to hate homosexuals, but that's a different thread.

There are two components of marriage: a religious aspect as well as a legal one. We also have a separation of church and state. That means that currently, any church can perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals, it just isn't legal, and if it were made legal, that doesn't require churches to perform the ceremonies. Remember, not everyone gets married with a religious ceremony by a priest or in a church. It isn't required to make it legal.

In addition, the approval of a church shouldn't matter to the government. The government decides things based on not just what the people say, but also the Constitution, which gives people rights regardless of the things they are born with and the things they choose. If you don't believe that homosexuality is inborn, but is a choice, you can treat it as a religion, sort of. The government can't deny rights to people simply because of they religion they choose to follow, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else, which homosexuality doesn't.

I have no problem with a civil union that has equality in law. To force religion to sanction something it does not approve is wrong.

Again, the state isn't forcing anything on churches. And what is the difference between a civil union with all the aspects of a marriage and an actual marriage? At this point, we're just persecuting homosexuals by giving them what we have and forcing them to refer to it as something different because they are homosexual.

In the end, just remember that the only true argument against gay marriage is some sort of circular logic. People say that we can't change the definition of marriage is currently between a man and a woman. That says nothing. Good article, dabe!

~Molly

dabe

on Dec 08, 2004

Thanks, Molly. Your comments were exactly what I intended when I posted this. My sister sent it to me today. I didn't write it. Regardless, it sure got a chuckle from me. Anyway, the point is that if you're going to throw the bible around as your excuse/reason to prohibit same sex marriage, then don't cherry pick for your arguments. If you think the bible is the end all, be all document, then use it in total.

Of course, having said that, again your right, Molly. The government has no place dictating that gay marriage is not legitimate, particularly if religion is the basis for such argument. It's that separation of church and state thang. My sister went to a same sex wedding a few weeks ago. She said it was beautiful. Both families were there, in their entireties. The couple had been together for over ten years. It was a beautiful affair, and they obviously loved eachother, and they decided that they wanted to formalize their relationship with a ceremony. It was beautiful. What struck me, when she was telling me this, and to which I mentioned to her, is that it's such a shame that their love is such a threat to so many people. I don't get it. I really don't. What is so, so terrible about allowing two gay people who truly love eachother to gain the same benefits as any other two straight people who love eachother? Why are some people so threatened by that? To which she replied that she had the exact same thoughts during the ceremony.

Marriage is a vow that two loving individuals share between eachother, and a commitment to eachother. It's not about religion. Whoman, are you saying that people who are not religious can't love eachother and be married? And, are you saying that marriage that is attended to by a Justice of the Peace is not a marriage, but instead, a civil union? Because if that's what you're saying, I think the terms "marriage" and "civil unions" are interchangable. And, if a church decides that performing the marriage ceremony is acceptable to them, the government has no right telling them that it's not OK. I really don't see much distinction between marriage and civil union, other than whether religion is involved or not. Otherwise, they are essentially the same, as their commitments of love and honor and vows are the same.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!