Redefining Marriage

Isn't it time we quit attempting to redefine marriage?
We need to get back to the traditional Biblical values advocated throughout the OT.

Genesis 2:24 (One Man+One Woman)
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Genesis 38:6-10 (One Man+Dead Brothers Widow)
Then Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him. And Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.” But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (One Man+His Rape Victim)
If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

Deuteronomy 21:11-14 (One Man+Prisoner of War)
and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may
go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for mon
ey; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.

One Man+One or more Wives+Concubines (Official Mistresses)
Abraham, Gideon, Nahor, Jacob, Eliphaz, Caleb, Manasseh, Solomon and Belshazzar.

One Man+More than One Wife (Polygamy)
Lamech, Esau, Jacob, Axhur, Gideon, Elkanah, David, Solomon, Rehaboam, Abijah, Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar.

Exodus 21:4 (Arranged Marriage for Slaves)
If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.

Exodus 22:16 (One Man+Paid-For Wife)
If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.

Genesis 20:12 (One Man+His Half-Sister)
But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

Exodus 21:7-8 (One Man+His Slave/Wife)
And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her.

Yes, it is time to revamp DOMA, defend marriage and the traditional value it is built on.

Misogyny.

Ya know, this is what some folks are aiming for. It's worth pointing out that none of these arrangements involves man + man or woman + woman, the very arrangement that gets the extremists red-faced.

It is just that we here so much about "Traditional Marriage" from those opposing Marriage Rights for homosexual couples.
How "traditional" do they want it?

tumbleweed41 said:

It is just that we here so much about "Traditional Marriage" from those opposing Marriage Rights for homosexual couples.
How "traditional" do they want it?

Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious? All those types of "traditional" marriages include a mandatory one "tab A" and at least one "slot B". At no time is there more than one "tab A" and no numerous "slot B"s are allowed to be together without at least one "tab A" involved. Obviously, all those types of "traditional" marriages are fine as they follow a specific pattern of certain "tab A" and "slot B" requirements. Not to follow said A and B requirements is all there is to it to bring down the whole foundation of "traditional" marriage.

What they fail to realize is that as of 2007 almost half, if not more, of the world's population does not subscribe to Judeo-Christian-Islamic scriptures or beliefs. Very arrogant of them to think their way is the way.

Jainarayan said:

What they fail to realize is that as of 2007 almost half, if not more, of the world's population does not subscribe to Judeo-Christian-Islamic scriptures or beliefs. Very arrogant of them to think their way is the way.

Click to expand...

But...but...but...but...their way is...GOD'S WAY! They must be right! Just because more than half the world is wrong and misled doesn't change that. They're not arrogant, they're just right, and it's not arrogant to be right, right?

Draka said:

But...but...but...but...their way is...GOD'S WAY! They must be right! Just because more than half the world is wrong and misled doesn't change that. They're not arrogant, they're just right, and it's not arrogant to be right, right?

Click to expand...

True, because the bible says so. The rest of the world is deluded by dat dair debbil. Just like he planted those false fossils to delude us into thinking the world is older than 6,000 years.

And if there were a hell, I'd be going there.

[qAhh, but it was a female goat (I hope).

See, man, all about tab A and slot B.

tumbleweed41 said:

Isn't it time we quit attempting to redefine marriage?

Click to expand...

It depends on which definition you're talking about. Spiritually/morally, then it doesn't really matter what it's called as that's personal. Legally, in the US, no, we shouldn't stop trying to redefine it until it's re-defined to allow the same legality to all who wish to participate within it. In reality, the term shouldn't be a legal term at all simple because there is already a term (union/civil union) that fits the bill

We need to get back to the traditional Biblical values advocated throughout the OT.

Click to expand...

No we don't, if we is everyone no matter their religious views. If you want to 'get back to traditional biblical values' (which includes multiple wives, young wives below the legal age, etc) that's your choice.

tempter said:

It depends on which definition you're talking about. Spiritually/morally, then it doesn't really matter what it's called as that's personal. Legally, in the US, no, we shouldn't stop trying to redefine it until it's re-defined to allow the same legality to all who wish to participate within it. In reality, the term shouldn't be a legal term at all simple because there is already a term (union/civil union) that fits the bill

No we don't, if we is everyone no matter their religious views. If you want to 'get back to traditional biblical values' (which includes multiple wives, young wives below the legal age, etc) that's your choice.

Click to expand...

For clarification, the point of the OP was satire.
Not to denigrate or mock the practices of the authors of the OT, but to point out the absurdity of "tradition" trumping common sense.

For those who enjoy visuals:

No gay marriage is very dangerous.

My husband and I met a married gay man last Wednesday. And see, now hurricane Sandy is coming right at us!!

Maya

Maya3 said:

No gay marriage is very dangerous.

My husband and I met a married gay man last Wednesday. And see, now hurricane Sandy is coming right at us!!

Maya

Click to expand...

One wonders why an all powerful deity has no problems with killing hundreds or even thousands of innocent non-gay persons as punishment for gay marriage..?

Mestemia said:

One wonders why an all powerful deity has no problems with killing hundreds or even thousands of innocent non-gay persons as punishment for gay marriage..?

Click to expand...

Well, if you're gonna make an omelette..... :sarcastic