|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 9 new of 150 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 142 of 150:
| 
Sep 3 00:44 UTC 2003 |
Recently, with the push for civil unions and gay marriage, many people
have called for us to remain true to the Biblical definition of
marriage. Here's what remaining strictly true to that definition would
mean:
1 Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one
man and one or more women.(1) Marriage shall not impede a man's right to
take concubines in addition to his wife or wives.(2)
2 A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin.
If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.(3) Marriage of a
believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.(4)
3 Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed
to permit divorce.(5)
4 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.(6)
1: Gen. 29, 17 - 28; II Sam. 3, 2 - 5.
2: II Sam. 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21
3: Deut. 22, 13 - 21
4: Gen 24:3; Num 25 1 - 9; Ezra 9:12; Neh. 10:30
5: Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9
6: Gen. 38 6 - 10; Deut 25 5 - 10
(Source:
http://nuisance.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_nuisance_archive.html#1061273031022
29366
)
|
cross
|
|
response 143 of 150:
|
Sep 3 04:34 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 144 of 150:
|
Sep 3 12:27 UTC 2003 |
That is your opinion, I do not know anyone anywhere who promotes such a
belief.
|
gull
|
|
response 145 of 150:
|
Sep 3 12:34 UTC 2003 |
That's kind of the point.
|
bru
|
|
response 146 of 150:
|
Sep 3 21:51 UTC 2003 |
thtas what I mean. i could sit here and say married people have to have sex
withone foot on the floor for it to be a leagal weddig. That wouldn't make
it so.
|
tod
|
|
response 147 of 150:
|
Sep 3 22:07 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 148 of 150:
|
Sep 4 02:53 UTC 2003 |
The point, to spell it out for you, is that calls to remain true to the
"Biblical definition of marriage" are irrelevent; we've already gotten
away from that long, long ago. What people currently think of as the
"Biblical definition of marriage" is really just tradition, and
relatively recent tradition at that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 149 of 150:
|
Sep 4 05:25 UTC 2003 |
Of course, the point is, it is *some peoples'* tradition. That's fine.
But it is not *all peoples'* tradition - nor is it immutable.
|
lynne
|
|
response 150 of 150:
|
Sep 8 17:47 UTC 2003 |
re 148: Hallelujah. I wasn't looking forward to being executed. although
watching people have to pay one shoe for not marrying their brothers' widows
sounds pretty funny. if anyone needs to do that, I have a bunch of shoes
I'd be happy to donate.
|