Bil Browning

Traditional marriage: Good enough for King David

Filed By Bil Browning | February 08, 2010 3:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, constitutional amendment, King David, marriage amendment, monogamy, polyamory, same-sex marriage

Indiana Family Institute policy director Ryan McCann wrote a post on their blog advocating for passage of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the "traditional marriage supporter" who blames his fondness for discriminating against gays denounce the Biblical history of polyamorous marriage? Or does he castigate the current practice of only having one marriage partner at a time when he condemns, "changing the definition of marriage legally"?

Clip from the logically unbalanced post after the jump - plus a free sneak peek of the IFI's new traditional marriage bumpersticker.

This recent article in the Boston Globe strikes at the heart of what traditional marriage supporters have been arguing for years. Changing the definition of marriage legally (and religiously, as a few denominations have done) to include same-sex relationships ultimately will make marriage meaningless within our culture.
...
The Boston Globe article takes a look at the hundreds of couples in and around Boston practicing a polyamorous lifestyle. After approving a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples in the spirit of "tolerance, inclusivity, fairness and love" what consistent argument is there for denying marriage and it's legal benefits to these groups of people who are practicing their various and sundry relationships in the same alleged spirit? If marriage must be redefined for homosexual couples, why not groups of people? Isn't that the "tolerant" thing to do? Mustn't we recognize the "love" these groups have for one another as the GLBT traditional-marriage.jpgPC police has tried to strong arm state governments around the nation into doing?

Coming soon to the bumpersticker of a traditional marriage supporter near you: "If it was good enough for King David and Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, Abigail the Carmelitess, Maachah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, Michal, and Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel, it's good enough for me!"


Recent Entries Filed under Fundie Watch:

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.


It's also conveniently forgotten that marriage was only declared a sacrament in the 12th century- over a thousand years after Jesus!
Inconsistencies have to be called out and discussed....

Not quite true. A second century bishop (Ignatious of Antioch, if memory serves) lay out the first rules and regulations about marriage. I dont remember if they became part of canon law that soon, but certainly the idea of marriage as sacrament before God is far older than the 12th century.

Now, granted, there were long periods there where marriage was seen as a political and financial act (Early marriages between nobles were performed on the lands the wife brought as dowry -- the poor, having no land to bring, were married in the church.), and it wasnt until probably the 16th century that the concept of mutual love entered the marriage equation. It was about that time that we see the first Catechism statement about marriage.

Just some odd pieces of trivia for your amusement. :)

Sean's comment agrees with what I remember from such history. Also, I think that marriage is a sacrament only in under Roman Catholicism --- most (if not all?) protestant denominations do not consider marriage to be a sacrament.

Anyone with a brain can figure out that through the ages marriage has evolved into whatever society wants it to be at that particular point in history. If marriage was then what it is now, imagine the divorce settlement that Sarah (who, according to Genesis, was a beauty even in old age) would have demanded when she learned that her rich old man Abraham had fucked the maid.

King David supposedly had multiple wives, but his son Solomon takes the cake --- I Kings 11:1-3 indicates that King Solomon had 700 hundred wives and 300 hundred concubines, many from lands of which God had previously instructed the Israelites to avoid intermarrying. I also wonder how one man can have a "quality relationship" with one thousand different women --- if you rotate them, one every night, you will see each one about once every three years.

OK, sick of the implied misogyny where only a male gets to chose multiple partners. How about polyandry???