Time to Change Massachusetts Laws for Consistency!

[Dreadsox]

[Q]BIBLICAL SENSE
Making marriage religious
BY MARY-ANN GREANIER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Since the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled last week that same-sex couples should be allowed to wed, many commentators have reiterated their belief that gay and lesbian couples should be excluded from marriage for religious reasons. But why stop there? If marriages recognized by the Commonwealth must be based on biblical principles, then it?s clear more changes to the law are needed. Below are seven suggested amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution that would bring Bay State family law in line with the Bible.

? Because Jacob and David each had more than one wife, marriage in Massachusetts shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women of his choosing (II Sam. 3:2-5; Gen. 29:17-28).

? A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is found not to be a virgin, "they shall take her to the door of her father?s house and her fellow citizens shall stone her to death" (Deut. 22:13-21). (Here, Governor Romney?s resurrection of the death penalty will come in handy.)

? As Rehoboam, David, and Solomon all possessed concubines, a married man in Massachusetts shall also have the right to keep concubines in addition to his wife or wives (I Kings 11:3; II Sam. 5:13; II Chron. 11:21).

? When Moses said, "Every one of you must put to death those of his people who have committed themselves to the Baal of Peor," he was forbidding the marriage of a believer to a nonbeliever (Gen. 24:3; Neh. 10:30).

? Christ said, "What God has united, man must not divide." Therefore, neither the Constitution nor any state law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall permit divorce (Deut. 22:19; Mark 10:9-12).

? If a married man dies childless, the widow must not marry a stranger outside of the family. Instead, the dead man?s brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow or refuses to give her children, the law shall fine him one sandal, and he will be forced to go about wearing one sandal for the rest of his days, and he shall be called the Unshod One of Massachusetts (Deut. 25:5-10; Gen. 38:6-10).

? If there are no acceptable men to be found in the town, a woman shall ply her father with wine and have sex with him in order to produce progeny to carry on the family name (Gen. 19:31-36).[/Q]

Well?

 

[melon]

Really...it's about time that heterosexuals live up to their end of the bargain!

It's also why using the Bible to justify homophobia is preposterous.

Melon

 

[martha]

[Q]BIBLICAL SENSE
Making marriage religious
BY MARY-ANN GREANIER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


? A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is found not to be a virgin, "they shall take her to the door of her father?s house and her fellow citizens shall stone her to death" (Deut. 22:13-21). (Here, Governor Romney?s resurrection of the death penalty will come in handy.)


[/Q]

Well?

Remind me to not go to Massachusetts.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Very, very true. The person who wrote that made an excellent point.

This is just one of many reasons why religion should stay out of the lawmaking process.

Angela

 

[MrBrau1]

I can barely afford to keep 1 woman. Now I need more. Feck.

 

[nbcrusader]

Very, very true. The person who wrote that made an excellent point.

This is just one of many reasons why religion should stay out of the lawmaking process.

Angela

No. The person who wrote this is an idiot and insults believers who seek to understand Scripture. This is wonderful fodder for non-believers in their mocking of Christians and Christian beliefs.

For example, the taking of multiple wives was expressly prohibited for a king (Deuteronomy 17:17). The fact that many of Israel's kings took multiple wives shows their disobedience.

Many of the examples sited show figures in history breaking one of God's commands - not a command from God about how we should live. And if Ms. Greanier bothered to study, she would see how each individual suffered consequences for their breaking of God's commands.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Wouldn't this be better in the gay marriage thread?

I think whether or not you agree with the points the author makes, it does highlight the problem with allowing marriage to be defined by religious belief in a secular state. If we decide who can marry based on what the Bible says, what is to stop other decisions from being based on religion also? And of course it does raise the question of which religion should take precedent and which interpretation of that religion should be followed.

So...while I find the tone of the article somewhat OTT, I do think the author makes a valid point.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

No. The person who wrote this is an idiot and insults believers who seek to understand Scripture. This is wonderful fodder for non-believers in their mocking of Christians and Christian beliefs.

Not necessarily. All it's doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of some Christians.

Originally posted by nbcrusader
For example, the taking of multiple wives was expressly prohibited for a king (Deuteronomy 17:17). The fact that many of Israel's kings took multiple wives shows their disobedience.

Many of the examples sited show figures in history breaking one of God's commands - not a command from God about how we should live. And if Ms. Greanier bothered to study, she would see how each individual suffered consequences for their breaking of God's commands.

But according to some Christians, the Bible is fully God's word, which would mean he'd condone every single thing that occurs in the Bible. Those people tell us that we should follow the Bible totally, and not pick and choose what to support and what not to support in the Bible. And yet they're doing the very same thing here-ignoring those bits and yet supporting anything that's against homosexuals marrying. Why must we not follow these laws, but follow any that prohibit two men or women from being together?

Angela

 

[melon]

I'll say it again. It isn't about adhering to "God's word." It's about elevating one's traditions to the level of "God," thus making your beliefs and prejudices above debate. This is what the Pharisees were guilty of, and when Jesus actually fulfilled their OT prophesies, they were completely blind.

Nothing has changed in over 2000 years. Sure, we can point out the illogic in fundamentalism, but when you keep in mind that it is really about a reactionary preservation of cultural traditions, their hypocrisy makes a lot more sense.

Everyone "picks and chooses" from the Bible. Period.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

Everyone "picks and chooses" from the Bible. Period.

I think people pick and choose all the time. It is not necessarily from the Bible. It may very well be the way human beings work. I think we have Muslims in the world who pick and choose fr4om their book. We have every day people pick and choose what laws to obey or not.

 

[melon]

I think it is simpler than that. It is impossible to adhere to 1000+ pages of a disparate text.

Religions, a long time ago, made their decision as to what was worth emphasizing. 2000 years ago, their emphasis was countering idolatry. Today, we're sex obsessed. And the whole "born again" phenomenon is about taking an obscure passage in the NT, and elevating it to something that was never intended to be that important; after all, there were no "born again Christians" before the 20th century.

That, by its nature, is "picking and choosing."

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

But according to some Christians, the Bible is fully God's word, which would mean he'd condone every single thing that occurs in the Bible.

That is plain ridiculous. Of course you will find problems with Christianity if you find that God condones "every single thing that occurs in the Bible". That is simply a falsehood. I?d like to see the statement of faith that includes this principle.

There are many things described in the Bible (the historical account) that is contrary to God's commands. They are recorded so we see the struggles and the consequences of those who do not live according to God's Word.

 

[nbcrusader]

I'll say it again. It isn't about adhering to "God's word." It's about elevating one's traditions to the level of "God," thus making your beliefs and prejudices above debate. This is what the Pharisees were guilty of, and when Jesus actually fulfilled their OT prophesies, they were completely blind.

True, there are many church traditions that are not supported by Scripture, but are taught as divine requirements. However, I find you at times are confusing the parts of God's Word you reject with what you label "one's traditions".

 

[melon]

True, there are many church traditions that are not supported by Scripture, but are taught as divine requirements. However, I find you at times are confusing the parts of God's Word you reject with what you label "one's traditions".

If I am guilty of this, then everyone is, whether it be people who ignore St. Paul's misogyny, both his and Jesus' prohibitions against divorce (and St. Paul makes it far more explicit than the gospels), or the parts that just don't seem to make any sense at all, such as how brothers should be forced to marry their brother's widow or how Jacob was forced to marry the oldest daugher, Leah, before he was able to marry the younger one that he loved, not to mention the ritual intolerant bloodbath that we call the "Mosaic Law."

Change is inevitable, as change is even applicable within the Biblical times. After all, when did, suddenly, polygamy somehow get looked down upon? There certainly isn't a prohibition against it in the Bible, but, by the NT era, it seems to have long ended. Or how about slavery between then and now? St. Paul certainly didn't condemn it; in fact, he said that slaves should be obedient to their masters. But would we find slavery to be morally correct today? No.

Change is inevitable, and we have accepted change far more than most people are willing to believe.

Melon