Shared publicly  - 
 
#traditionalmarriage in the bible.

somehow #gaymarriage doesn't seem so bad now does it?
124
84
Bernhard Fischer's profile photojackie lee's profile photoAnna Santos's profile photoDeborah Boyd's profile photo
83 comments
 
you obviously don't have any understanding about the culture/reasons etc for various things in the Bible. Furthermore, there were many of those instances you show that were noted as being sinful to God. To try to westernize the Bible isn't going to work. You don't want to know God or the Bible, you just want to mock it.
 
I am not mocking the bible here. I am mocking the idea that christian marriage is somehow traditional and moral.

Please identify the sinful ones with passages. I am curious.
 
Our country already mocks the idea of marriage as Christians would claim it to be. The divorce rate is nearly 50%. Atheists have always been free to marry. So obviously there is marriage in this country that is not religious in nature. The only reason to oppose same sex marriage as a right in the US is because of hatred in your heart.
 
Marriage is a legal contract with duties, benefits and protections associated with it. Getting married in a church is nothing without the legal marriage certificate from the local government.
 
+Kevin Burger, well stated. There was a Rush Meme making the rounds the last couple of days which embodies the sentiment of this thread.
 
when freedom have no limit,,, will you pass the law , to let dad marrying his own daughters or brother with sister , mom with son ? this will be happen when world dont know what is the means of a limits of freedom .#GayMarriage
 
Abraham with the concubines is just one example...the whole point with that was Sarah his wife wanted to have a child, and instead of trusting God, she decided to take things into her own hands and gave Abraham her maiden person to somehow give her a child through that person. It was all wrong, and God said so. He had promised both of them a child, but they didn't trust in His timing. So they took it into their own hands, and Ishmaael was born of that person. So much discord and problems occurred because of the jealousy that Sarah had. God didn't tell them to do it that way...and He promised many children, and eventually Sarah had a child with Abraham and thus the lineage of Israel began.

I could go on, but for now, I won't. And God didn't want those men to have all of those wives or concubines, because it only brings jealousy and bitterness. He created male and female to be together as from the beginning, but then sin entered into the world when they chose to disobey God. If they hadn't, we wouldn't have all of this mess. But once sin enters, it destroys and it hurts people. God knows it and that is why he told them not to do certain things. And sometimes he didn't always tell them the reason to NOT do things, but He knows what is right. He is God! People are always saying that there isn't a God because a God wouldn't allow bad stuff to happen. But that's bogus - he tried to warn people, but giving us free will, we make our decisions and they are not always the best things, and bad things are a result sometimes. NOT because of God, but because we chose not to obey, chose not to trust that He knew what He was talking about.

If you actually read the Bible seeking to hear from God and understand His Word, perhaps you would see. But God knows the heart, and He will not be mocked. When you are out to make fun of God's word and only want to support your beliefs instead of the truth, obviously you won't get it. You won't look at it objectively. And again, people try to Westernize God's Word, and His Word won't be Westernized. You want to know the truth, I believe God will open your eyes. But only if you want to know the truth. He knows your heart too, and He knows if you are just trying to find ways to mock Him.
 
I'm not religious in any way shape or form, nor do I subscribe to any religious teachings. But, my understanding is this, if you are christian, you believe that god loves all of his children. You believe that we are all sinners. You believe that you should treat people in a manner that you wish to be treated. There is a saying out of the bible (can't quote where) that says "Judge not, lest ye be judged". The reality is, there are gay people in the world, has always been and will always be. Some of the couples I know are more loving and commtted to each other than most hetero couples. Should one of them have a health issue where "only family" is allowed to be involved in making profound decisions, that "family" should be their partner. Society needs to officially support and legalize these rights.

If you are christian, god is the only being worthy of rendering judgement. In the meantime, treat your neighbors as you wish to be treated.
 
+santos amaru not being legally recognized doesn't prevent people from entering those relationships now. Yes, they are illegal, but people who want to do that, still do it. There's no indication that legalizing it would increase the desire to do so. Legally I can run for office, but I don't want to.
 
+Sarah Taber , there's nothing worse than an ignorant christian. Though, Duncan is mocking the bible and the institution of marriage "outlined" in the bible. However, he's not incorrect with the information he displayed. He's actually spot on. Those various types of marriage institutions did exist. Mind you though, Marriage unions itself has evovled over the course of thousands of years. Men and Women back then, did not think the way we do today, nor did those who had same sex relations ever think that they should get married to the same sex. Marriage back then was to establish ownership of each other (exclusively belonging to one another) between two people for the purpose of procreation. Stipulations were added to that later on but they always had a reason. According to the God's word, some had his blessings and others were not by his direction but were allowed. However, today the scope of marriage has been widening. So who's right and who's entitled to define what marriage is? To be fair, one would have to go back to see if the formal institution of 'marriage' was created during bible times or if it existed before. That way people can stop arguing about the meaning of marriage, and create some new word or institution that allows two people to create a union for 'whatever they please'.
 
I love it when evangelicals/fundamentalists/biblical conservatives try and discuss the Bible. All cherry picking a few texts and ignoring the rest.
 
Sorry +Jim John Marks, but I did state my lack of theologic background as a preface to my comments.
 
+santos amaru would you marry your son mother daughter father if not please shut your ignorant mouth.
 
I like how in all of these examples, not one of them shows a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman .... wow... so marriage is supposed to be between a Man and a Woman!
 
Man and woman in marriage could be any of that, gay marriage could be all of that to, just replace the girls with guys.
 
I am an angry republican, and I am for small government! Except for your bedroom. There we need big government. Not my bedroom or random bathroom stalls though, I may need to engage in some self-loathing latent homosexual behavior.

- Vivek, a Larry Craig wanna-be.
Mr newt
 
Brings new meaning to the term "that's gay".
 
Amazing descriptions of how babies are made, makes you wonder how the hell people still believe in a virgin birth... such archaic thinking
 
This thread has ventured into the absurd...... nearly time to mute it.
 
Christian marriage is almost irrelevant to the Old Testament laws for the Jews. Christian means "followers of Christ" so what does that have to do with Levitical laws?
 
Marriage can be whatever you want it to be. Just don't ask me, through my government, to sanction it.

Civil unions for all, civil marriages for none.
 
+Vivek Bhatia Um ... the pro-gay-marriage folks are asking government to come into our bedrooms, to lay their civil blessing on certain additional sexual unions. Yes, really.
 
Asexual reproduction... doesn't happen with humans. Nice try though.
 
I have a quick question to those who say that marriage is a religious concept. Your texts use words like husband and wife. If these concepts didn't exist prior to your religion, then why did the words?
 
Lets just make marriage = whoever with whatever, and as many of them as you please. Will that satisfy everyone?
 
Well, +Andrew Farabee, if god didn't give man free will, then how could he of decided to eat the "forbidden fruit" when god said not too??? :-)
 
Your examples are Old Testament text. So what exactly is your point against Christians. Cute graphic, but a waste of time.
 
well pedobear marriage will be a nightmare if they asking the same right as gay-marriage or others in the name of freedom or democracy or human-right as how you trying to fucking the lust you have and at the end you success to kill the freedom.
 
+Chris Nandor , uh, no we're not. I don't really care who you marry. I don't want to know what you're doing in your bedroom, as long as its between consenting adults. I'm sorry that you're so insecure in your marriage/relationship/sexuality that you think someone else doing something 1000 miles away will threaten you, but thats not my problem.

Government needs to be out of the recognizing marriage business. Civil unions for everyone. Let whatever church you belong to (or don't if you're an athiest) deal with any spiritual layers on top of that.
 
The biggest problem I have with this is that you misunderstood the party about rape victims.
When a woman was raped, the law said that the rapist would die, and the woman go free.
But I see where you are confused.
A man who has seduced a virgin must pay the bride price: the price placed on the woman's virginity.
He was then permitted to live (something not given a rapist) and, if the father of the woman permits, marry his love.
There ate other problems, but I don't feel like pointing them all or right now.
 
+Luis Valladares , not sure why you say that, do you have proof that Christianity and not Judaism, Hinduism, or Islam is correct? Or if any of them are correct? I didn't think so.
 
Ahem Even the Christians didn't always believe same sex relations and marriages were wrong... http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html
 
Marriage should not include religion. It is a deceleration of love. This is when it comes to marrying using the governments method. If you want to marry with religion involved than do that with your church. Meanwhile the government's marriage should be free of religion. Just a definition of being able to marry only one person. 
 
There is no one correct religion, faith or whatever one chooses as their guide through life. What is more valuable is to be spiritual. In my experince, religion has been a hypocracy. Acceptance is a quality that many religions lack.
 
Why, Edwin? What does the number of people have to do with it? Some faiths, if you're following a religion's rules, have no problem with many people in a marriage. And not all world governments do either. Ours has been particularly myopic and ethnocentric on that, as well as weirded out about gender issues. I don't think government should have a say in regulating it at all. Just recording the fact as a contract, if you feel like letting them know about it. And if you want to do it in a church, that's between the principals involved and the church -- no one else. All it should be -- ALL it should be -- is an agreement among all parties to love and cherish one another, and to care for all children of the family. That's all that's needful. Anything else is just silly nosiness.
 
I believe that the number has mostly been two when it comes to marriage. If more than two it should be called something else. It should be allowed but there should be a different name for that kind of union. I didn't understand the second half of your post. 
 
In the end they are just labels. What is marriage anyways? If you love the person and you two mutually agree to spend the rest of your lives together than just do it. Yea maybe celebrate it but you don't need a church or a government confirming it to you. Hell the government or church cannot stop you from living and being with a person for the rest of your life. So why would you need their approval. What else does can only marriage possibly give you other than a paper that they give you. 
 
Huh. I hadn't read the Bible in so long that I forgot how messed up "traditional" marriage really is and how basically it's a union of business and acquired property. I now understand how the arguments for "traditional" marriage are valid when they're based on the principles shown here, no matter how outdated and misogynistic these principles currently are and have been. Also, it opens my eyes to how hated and despised women are in the eyes of people who follow these guidelines.
 
I agree, in the end, they are just labels. Why not get married through the government and not the church?
 
If you are gay then of course you will have religion that allows you to get married. The government which allows you to believe in any religion or lack thereof should then allow marriage on that basis alone. 
 
So all gays have a religion that allows them to marry? So by that you mean there are no gay Catholics?
 
Some food for thought:

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)."

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html
 
just because catholics are stupid and chanted and raped kids and married men,doesn't mean other christians are like that....just roman catholics.....if your roman catholic,and that isn't you,you'd better get outta dodge...
 
Haven't they made a branch of Christianity that is exactly like Catholicism only they allow gay marriage? This should be made just for now until the the catholic church allows gay marriage. If you believe in gay marriage you are not a catholic are you?
These are also just labels though,as well. I mean not everybody believes exactly the same thing but they would consider each other catholic/etc. but if you follow the strict guidelines of who is catholic/etc. than many people's beliefs wouldn't follow that guideline and thus they are not catholic. Right?
 
There's plenty of gay Catholics. But the church doesn't like it.
 
I forget to mention that there are gays who believe in a god that is against it. That would really suck. 
 
I LOVE the rationalizations being presented here by the christians as they attempt to defend their indefensible position. Only an irrational mind could rationalize this so well and so loudly for so long without experiencing one shred of embarrassment.
 
Lol @ people arguing about a book they have not read.
 
+Edwin Avila, as long as the gay Catholics put their money in the hat, they can still be Catholic. Beggars can't be choosers in this day and age. But the truth is, "once Catholic always Catholic" isn't far from the truth. They get you baptized before you can say anything about it, then they take you through confirmation before you're smart enough to know better (6th-7th grade or so).
 
As a gay male, I could give a rats ass about the actual "religious" reasons for getting married. I want equality. That's it. I want the same insurance rates as a married couple, same tax breaks, the right to adopt a child (which can't be done still in a lot of states), I want my partner to be able to see me in the hospital when I have a heart attack (I eat a lot of twinkies :)... It would be nice for the churches to actual mean what they praise and do as they say, but meh...

In all reality, marriage is either an institution of the church or the state. It can't be both, because then my rights are being impeded on by Christians and that is not the American way.

PS - +Sarah Taber unless you were there then you don't even know anything about the bible. It's been changed/altered so many times before it landed in your lap that you have no idea if anyone slipped a little extra in there or if just a crazy man wrote it one day. Hell, if I wrote a book today about my experiences of God speaking to me then named it the New New Testamant are you going to add it to your bible and follow my word? I thought so.
 
+Vivek Bhatia I don't really care who you marry. I don't want to know what you're doing in your bedroom, as long as its between consenting adults.

You're confused. By saying you want government to sanction gay marriage, you're saying you want the government's blessing for that specific type of union. That's literally what it means.


I'm sorry that you're so insecure in your marriage/relationship/sexuality that you think someone else doing something 1000 miles away will threaten you

Wow. You're completely making things up. I have no such thoughts.


Government needs to be out of the recognizing marriage business. Civil unions for everyone.

That's what I said (in the comment directly above where I responded to you). What you implied is that gay marriage should be recognized by government, which literally means getting the government to care about whom I marry.
 
+Randi Miller In all reality, marriage is either an institution of the church or the state. It can't be both, because then my rights are being impeded on by Christians and that is not the American way.

There are actually two different institutions of marriage. There's the civil marriage, and there's the social/religious marriage. They are not the same thing. The problem is that we call them the same thing. We should stop doing that.

I disbelieve that your rights are being impeded on -- since I don't believe in a right to have your chosen marriage recognized by government -- although certainly there is an issue of equality there. However (and this is a pet peeve of mine): if you really believe in actual marriage equality, then you should fight not for legalized gay marriage, but for legal marriages between any two consenting adults.

I heard a gay activist say New York has full marriage equality now, but it's a lie: siblings, first cousins, etc. are still not allowed to marry in New York. Even if they're gay. Frankly, I disbelieve people who say they are for full marriage equality, but fight only for expanding the circle of marriage to include their preferred unions, instead of fighting for actual marriage equality.

Yes, incest is icky. To me, homosexuality is just as icky. But I am fine with people making that choice. And I can see no justification for keeping incestuous marriage illegal if we're saying that gay marriage should be legal for the sake of "equality."

It's like when we got suffrage for black men in the 15th Amendment. A lot of people opposed that because women were still excluded from voting. Equality means equality, dammit. I know it's hard because we think incest is so terribly wrong, but honesty and reason require me to reject the claim that this is about equality if it's demonstrably not really about equality.
 
+Chris Nandor , do do you not realize that the government ALREADY cares who you marry. How? It recognizes opposite sex marriages.

Until opposite sex marriages are against the law, the only answer is to NOT pick & choose what type of marriage is recognized.

So either:
1) Ban all forms of marriage and only recognize civil unions, or
2) Allow gay marriage.

I presume by your stance that you are in favor of the former, and you would sign a bill banning straight marriage?
 
Any examples from the new testament? There's crazy stuff in the old testament.
 
Matthew 19:29King James Version (KJV)
29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

New Testament isn't into family values... sounds like the warning signs of a cult, doesn't it?
 
Matthew 5:17King James Version (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

So Jesus wasn't getting rid of the law or was he? Either you still should be keeping the law (keep kosher, kill your wife if she wasn't a virgin, kill your kids if they talk back, kill a witch, kill the gays, marry your rapist, marry your dead husbands brother... ) or God changed his all knowing mind again (but he knew he was going to do that right?) after sending himself down on a suicide mission where he prays to himself... Read the bible... it's makes the religion look bad... and it isn't written by the disgruntled people that left the group.
 
Oooooooh all this is in the bible ,i love how people get offended by this. The thing is its in Old Testament once Jesus came in the picture in New testament things changed.
 
Hows that Shemekia? Jesus stated he did not come to destroy the Law, and his only stance on marriage was basically that you should leave your wife and follow him in order to get rewarded. Although I do recognize the reality of a monotheistic religion that transformed into one where you believed Jesus was the son of god or they killed you.
I don't get how the Christians managed to eliminate the Law WHILE telling us that the fictional Ten Commandments still apply.
 
ok umm we arent in the year 3...WTF is the point of this. You just poved the oppositions point. Notice they all are between a man and a woman, or set of women. Who ever made this made no point.
 
+lance welch Actually, there are quite a number of protestant denominations -- UCC, Unitarian Universalist, several flavors of the Society of Friends, various folks -- who have been performing weddings for same sex couples for many years.  

It's just not even controversial for many of us anymore.

One of our UU churches got shot up over it a couple years ago, and it didn't deter us, it rather solidified us that we are on the side of Love on this one, if Hate comes through our doors with murder on its mind.

We were in the vanguard on race relations and quite a number of other progressive causes, and within my memory, I remember my more conservative Christian brothers and sisters going though these same convulsions over "miscegenation" -- the marriage of blacks and whites -- in the 60s. 

It may be hard for you younger people to believe this, but it's true.  The bible was used to support that as unnatural and against God's will also.  But oddly, that's rarely spoken of (at least, in public!) any more.  Except perhaps when someone sees a Cheeerios commercial before they've had their coffee and their medications...? :)
 
+Shava Nerad It should come as no surprise that most protestants do not consider UCC etc. to be Christian churches, mostly because they explicitly reject the words of the Bible.
Add a comment...