Annette Gross

Biblical Marriage - makes sense to me.....

Filed By Annette Gross | May 10, 2006 9:13 PM | comments

Filed in: Living, Marriage Equality
Tags:

Biblical Marriage

Much of the opposition to same-sex marriages is fundamentally religious in nature. Evangelical Christians argue that marriage between two members of the same sex is, from their perspective, simply invalid - and therefore civil marriage law should conform to their ideas on what marriage is. But what, exactly, would a real biblical marriage look like?

Public Nuisance offers us a good idea by creating a Constitutional Amendment on marriage that reflects what the Bible says:

1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives.

2. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.

3. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce.

4. 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.

So, what do you think?


Recent Entries Filed under Living:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Margeaux May | May 11, 2006 9:08 AM

Bravo Annette, excellent points, and well articulated. The same can be said of the prohibition against eating shellfish, eating pork, wearing blended fabrics, women wearing men's clothing, and men wearing women's clothing. If that's not enough, then there are the numerous probibitions against menstruating women and men who masturbate.
If we were to try to get into the minds of the evangelical fundamentalist Christians, they would probably say "Jesus freed us from those laws." The trouble is, these same followers of Jesus would also claim that Jesus did not free us from certain other laws, like homosexuality and cross-dressing. If is like Jesus became this legal filter, repealing some laws to allow us to eat bacon and shrimp, wear wool-blend suits, and eventually lead us to create a billion dollar industry of feminine hygeine products, while at the same time Jesus did not repeal same-sex love or cross-dressing. If we are truly honest with ourselves, we must admit that there are those among us who use/abuse Jesus to promote their narrowly defined views of social mores. Jesus is far more diverse than that.

Hmm.. would the shoe have to be Gucci.. or would any old Converse work?

I prefer Franco Sarto myself!