Recommended Posts
QuoteI agree that the government should not have any thing to do with telling us whom we can or cannot marry but I think one step further from that is what makes religion so special that it can have a say in who marrys who. When did marriage all of a sudden become some religious topic because marriage predates Christianity.
Saying it is unlawful to love someone of the same sex is no different that banning interracial marriages.
Right, but churches are private parties and can say anything they want. I am no more obligated to accept a churches validation of a marriage than I am to accept their statements about a man living inside of a fish or about having 72 virgins waiting fo rme.
billvon 2,471
>Bible for historical purposes not as an example of proper behavior.
This isn't just a mention, it's an instruction:
Exodus 21:10 "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights."
Exodus 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him."
skyrider 0
Quote>There are many instances where human behavior is mentioned in the
>Bible for historical purposes not as an example of proper behavior.
This isn't just a mention, it's an instruction:
Exodus 21:10 "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights."
Exodus 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him."
Fuck....they even had Lawyers back then....
Right.
Q: What's the penalty for Bigamy?
A: Two Wives
Government should stop recognizing personal relationships and prioritizing some over others. Of course I'm another one of those Libertarian types.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites