Real Biblical Marriage

Passed along from a friend via email

If we were to create a constitutional amendment defining marriage based on the teachings of the Bible, it would look like this:

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)

Posted in GLBT Issues, Religion Tagged with: , , ,
3 comments on “Real Biblical Marriage
  1. Wil says:

    Damn! I wish I was straight. I could have so much more fun than I have with this monogomous relationship I’ve had for almost six years now. Of course, I can always “choose” to go straight – just like I “chose” to be gay.
    Did you see Jon Stewart’s interview with Mike Huckabee?
    Wil

  2. Steph says:

    I did. It was painful to watch Huckabee writhing around trying to parse his ideas.

  3. Wil says:

    I just watched it again on YouTube. It was really an interesting conversation and I wish it would have gone on longer. I think Stewart missed some points – mainly if marriage is going to be based on religious teachings, then the govt should get out of it entirely, including benefits that married people enjoy.
    I also found it interesting at the beginning when Stewart talked briefly about the Pro-Life movement, he couldn’t get himself to say the word “abortion”. Wil

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: