sanctity of marriage ala the bible

[varwoche]

I came across this outstanding post by davebuck on christianforums.com:
---------------------------
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)

[Tony]

Originally posted by varwoche

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)

Tag-teaming? Bwahahahahaha. Funny *****.


"Thou shalt tag-team with thou's father."

[Upchurch]

http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp

[Brown]

Somewhat unrelated, but here's a column from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/03/opinion/03KRIS.html) (registration required) that discusses a previous effort to amend the Constitution to protect marriage.Long before President Bush's call for a "constitutional amendment protecting marriage," Representative Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia proposed an amendment that he said would uphold the sanctity of marriage.

Mr. Roddenberry's proposed amendment, in December 1912, stated, "Intermarriage between Negroes or persons of color and Caucasians . . . is forever prohibited." He took this action, he said, because some states were permitting marriages that were "abhorrent and repugnant," and he aimed to "exterminate now this debasing, ultrademoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy."Many states banned interracial marriages citing (surprise!) religious concerns.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Tony


Tag-teaming? Bwahahahahaha. Funny *****.


"Thou shalt tag-team with thou's father."

I presume you are aware of what is in the Biblical quote offered? I think 'tag-teaming' is perfectly acceptable current usage to the event described in Genesis. Isn't it?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Hutch


I presume you are aware of what is in the Biblical quote offered? I think 'tag-teaming' is perfectly acceptable current usage to the event described in Genesis. Isn't it?

I am aware of it. But reading the term "tag-teaming" in the context of a bible verse was damn funny. Do you object to my finding humor in that?

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Tony


I am aware of it. But reading the term "tag-teaming" in the context of a bible verse was damn funny. Do you object to my finding humor in that?

Not at all. Just wasn't sure you had a sense of humor. ;) :p

[fishbob]

I made a terrible mistake and listened to Medved on the radio while driving home from work. He was spouting off about protecting the sanctity of marriage. Made me so mad, I almost wrecked my car.

"Sanctity of marriage" is really sanctity of the INSTITUTION of marriage. The US is governed by the people and for the people, not for any institutions.

Equal rights for all, institutions be damned.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Tony
"Thou shalt tag-team with thou's father."

Surely if it's "you" and "your" it should be "thou" and "thor"?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Tony

"Thou shalt tag-team with thou's father."

The story is in the Bible, but it's not told with approval. In fact, the story refers to the alleged ancestors of some people the ancient Hebrews didn't like.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Matabiri


Surely if it's "you" and "your" it should be "thou" and "thor"?
<pedantry>"Thy"

"Thou shalt tag-team with thy father." </pedantry>

And all this from the religion of peace! :D

[The Don]

Originally posted by Matabiri


Surely if it's "you" and "your" it should be "thou" and "thor"?

I read somewhere that 'th' and 'y' were used interchangably at the time at which the early English language translations were being carried out thus:

'ye' is also the and

'thou' is also 'you'

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


The story is in the Bible, but it's not told with approval. In fact, the story refers to the alleged ancestors of some people the ancient Hebrews didn't like.

But they were the only three people God saw fit to save from the destruction of Sodom and Gohmorrah, right? So they must have found favor in God's eye as being the 'right sort of people'. ;)

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Hutch


But they were the only three people God saw fit to save from the destruction of Sodom and Gohmorrah, right? So they must have found favor in God's eye as being the 'right sort of people'. ;)

The idea that God approves of everything the patriarchs did is not found in the Bible.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by The Don


I read somewhere that 'th' and 'y' were used interchangably at the time at which the early English language translations were being carried out thus:

'ye' is also the and

'thou' is also 'you'

It was originally not written 'y', but as a 'p' with a tail extending upwards. See
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/11/12/31017/737

(And I know it's "thy", I was being silly. But I understand, I'm a pedant myself)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Matabiri


It was originally not written 'y', but as a 'p' with a tail extending upwards. See
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/11/12/31017/737

(And I know it's "thy", I was being silly. But I understand, I'm a pedant myself)

Oh ACE or what?!! I love this sort of thing. I annoy everyone at work by using "&c" for "etc" because the ampersand symbol is a stylisation of "et" (http://www.adobe.com/type/topics/theampersand.html), the Latin for "and", so &c is a perfectly acceptable, if obscure, substitution for etc.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Brown
Somewhat unrelated, but here's a column from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/03/opinion/03KRIS.html) (registration required) that discusses a previous effort to amend the Constitution to protect marriage. Just wanted to thank you for pointing this out, Brown. I got to use it on Rapture Ready.

[Tmy]

"God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve"

I hate that stupid line. First off God made everyone, so he did make Steve, and Bob, and Jill and everybody. 2nd, OK he made Adamd and Eve. That means we are all A+E's kids. So incest must be ok.!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tmy
"God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve"Lordy, I heard some moron use that line on Sean Hannity's radio show like it was an actual argument. I cannot for the life of me remember what the guy's name was. He's a fairly well know evangelical minister. Oral Roberts? Billy Graham?

Hannity had a debate going on with this guy and the head of some civil rights group who was also a lesbian. (ugh, my memory sucks. I can't remember any names.) Anyway, "not Adam and Steve" was the strongest argument this yahoo had.

[Brown]

People can't mention that "Adam and Steve" line anymore without making me crack up. "Adam and Steve" makes me think of the hilarious "reality" program "Family Business" on "Showtime."