November 21, 2003

In Defense of Biblical Marriage

United States: Fundies in the US are getting in a tizzy over the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision that limiting a cosy arrangement of one's financial affairs to opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional, so some wag has consulted the Bible to determine how to redefine marriage to keep them happy:

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.
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)

5 TrackBacks

Defense of what? from Modern Geekery on November 21, 2003 15:43

For all of you fundie types who really have gotten bent out of shape about the thought of homosexual couples sharing the same economic benefits of partnering that you do, someone has written a draft constitutional amendment that you should... Read More

Defense of what? from Modern Geekery on November 21, 2003 15:49

For all of you fundie types who really have gotten bent out of shape about the thought of homosexual couples sharing the same economic benefits of partnering that you do, someone has written a draft constitutional amendment that you should... Read More

Massachusetts' highest court ruled on Tuesday that gay couples have the right to marry, and it gave the state legislature 180 days to make same-sex marriages possible. The Pagan Prattle has an amusing counter to the fundie mantra of biblical... Read More

Bible Study Contest Winner from The Raving Atheist on June 7, 2004 22:08

Full credit for the proposed "Constitutional Amendment on Biblical Marriage" now making its way through Congress must go to Alex Frantz of Public Nuisance. Alex is quite indisputably the originator. As Brent of Unscrewing the Inscrutable points out, Al... Read More

7 comments

Now, I'm not a "fundie", a "christian", or even "spiritual" in the least, but I think that item "G" is taken way out of context if you're referring to the story of Lott and his daughters. They got him drunk and had sex with him because they thought they were the only people left in the world and would have to repopulate it. He also offered them up to the towns people as sex toys to protect an angel from god.

I could care less about homo's getting married, and I care even less about what you have to say about it, but I'm sure that most of those, like the one I pointed out, are taken from specific occurences in the Bible and not "laws" that were for man to abide by. Just because Moses turned a staff into a snake doesn't mean all christains have to turn staves into reptiles or else they beleive they are damned.

Although it may be impossible to track down the original author of the "In Defense of Biblical Marriage" tract, I am trying to do so now. Anyone with information about how to contact the author of this particularly creative piece is welcome to contact me at dlevitas@dlevitas.com.

I am requesting this information because, after passing along the original "Biblical Marriage" email to a contact at a major national media outlet, that outlet expressed interest in perhaps doing a story. I think it would be an excellent opportunity for the original author of this email to garner some well-deserved and much needed visibility for their point of view on this critically important issue.

Please contact me if you have concrete information to share.

Thank you very much.

Daniel Levitas

Although he's not the originator, James Randi did add to a version that's been kicking around the internet for years:

I give you here a document which has been around the Internet. I've amplified and changed it a bit. I can't ascribe it to any specific source, though I tried hard.

The problem with satire is that some people do not get it. As a reformed fundamentalist, I find the Biblical Marriage piece to be clever and useful.

Of course it does not represent the views of actual fundamentalists; it just points out how foolish it is to employ brief passages of scripture in support of one's ideology.

I am of the considered opinion that if it isn't one of the ten commandments, then it's man's law not god's law. Who ARE mere men to determine what God wants...if there even is a god. Are we not all god's children, hetero, homo or trans. Life like this isn't a choice, it's a genetic fact. Henceforth all are deemed to be good in god's eyes.

Gillian - humans already decided which commandments are the Ten Commandments, and it's still a matter of debate among theologians. You see, what we have are the first nine of several hundred.

Going back to the original topic, when I was in the States, I suggested to some politically-minded Americans that giving legal recognition to any religious marriage was, in fact, unconstitutional. They concurred.

Found at last! Via glenstonecottage's comment to The Raving Atheist, we might have the original version of 'In Defense of Biblical Marriage'.

Leave a comment

Evangelism, witnessing and similar activitites go by one name here—advertising, and is no different from spam for viagra, penis enlargement products and pornography. We do not take advertising. If you want to advertise your imaginary friend, please spend your own money on your own web space to do so. Any attempts to use the comments section for advertisements will be deleted, and the perpetrator barred, unless they are particularly stupid, in which case I reserve the right to pinch an idea from Teresa Nielsen Hayden and delete all the vowels.

Allowed HTML: a href, b, br, p, strong, em, ol, ul, li, blockquote, q, pre. If your name has accents in it, things will (hopefully!) work better if you use the XHTML entities for those letters. The same applies if you are using a word processor to compose your comment, then copying and pasting the text—either turn off curly quotes and avoid using em-dashes, or edit your comment after pasting to get rid of them. Garbled comments usually get deleted.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Feòrag published on November 21, 2003 9:24 AM.

Two for the price of one! was the previous entry in this blog.

It all adds up is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Resources

About this site
Contact the Prattle
Ego Corner

The Pagan Prattle
c/o P.O. Box 666
Edinburgh EH7 5YW
Scotland

Syndication

Licence

Creative Commons License
The original material in this weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.