Marriage according to the Bible

I was recently in a hotel in Ireland (so they obviously had a bible in the bedside cupboard) and decided to have a fairly random flick, see what I’d find.

Now, I live in the UK and there’s this whole kerfuffle going on about gay marriage, with most against claiming that marriage ‘always has been and always will be’ between one man and one woman. I also read that that is definitely not what the OT says. So I thought, let’s check for myself.

So the first bit I found, don’t recall where, was about what to do with what bit of an ox (I presume after a sacrifice unto the lord), which goes on for what looked like a whole page or more.

Then I bumped into a passage (IRC somewhere in Deuteronomy) that first described what to do if you capture a slave girl that you fancy: something along the lines of: change her clothes, let her grieve for a bit (because you’ve killed all her family) and then have sex with her, which makes her your wife. Charming.
And just below that a passage that started like “suppose you have two wives, one loved and one unloved, and you have a child with both.” One man, one woman? My holy arse. And again, charming.

And I literally found that shite within a few seconds, not after hours of searching.

On a side note, I agree with what has been said, that if anything should make one lose their belief, it is READING the freggin’ thing.

And as to the debate about same-sex marriage, I don’t understand that anyone can get away with the argument about “one man and one woman” because that is just a patent lie – if even an avowed atheist like me can find passages that disprove that claim in minutes, anybody can – and Christians themselves certainly must know it (and therefore lie), or have a seriously different way of reading the Bible from other people.

 

Advertisements

The C of E and the Catholic Church contradict each other

They really need to coordinate better and make up their mind.

In this (pretty appalling, of course, but I don’t have time to point out all the errors) piece a senior catholic figure pointed out (mistakenly) that same-sex marriage would violate the ‘rights of a child to have a mother and a father’.

At the same time, archbishops of the Church of England have spoken out against gay marriage, but for other reasons. One would think, at first sight, that these two religious behemoths would (excuse the pun) sing from the same hymn-sheet.

But wait a minute… why is the Church of England different from the Catholic Church to begin with? Precisely –

the CofE supports DIVORCE.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but if there’s one thing that is bound to violate the ‘right of a child to have a mother and a father’ it is the right to allow those same mother and father to divorce.

I’m waiting for the campaign, run by the Catholic Church, to make divorce illegal for everybody for the same reasons they oppose same-sex marriage, and publicly attack the CofE over this. I’m not holding my breath though.

Why same-sex marriage should be a non-issue

What better day than Valentine’s Day to vent my unequivocal support for gay (same-sex) marriage!?

Why? Here’s why!

Fortunately, I can be very brief about this. The only real ‘argument’ that always transpires against legalising same-sex marriage comes down to one form or another of ‘marriage is god’s institution’.Since marriage isn’t, same-sex marriage should simply be legal.

If you peer back through mankind’s early history, you can see that marriage originally was most likely introduced by our early ancestors to facilitate social life in a small tribe: fewer fights over women (basically, shagging rights), as marriage made it clear ‘who did it with whom’. I presume this also made it easier, at least in theory, to know which child belonged to which male. The net result is a more stable, happier tribe. As these early tribes lived a violent life it was important that babies were produced, else you were outcompeted (outnumbered) by the neighbouring tribes, so in these days, gay marriage was not very high on the agenda – in fact, homosexuality could be positively bad for the tribe.

Later this set of attitudes was institutionalised, as many other mores, like ‘thou shalt not kill’, and appropriated by organised religion under the umbrella ‘it’s actually god who wants this’. Very convenient for the ruling class – priests and kings – as this gave them the power to speak on behalf of their, self-invented, god.

The simple conclusion

Fast forward to the here and now and it is clear to me that there is no valid argument against same-sex marriage. Marriage is not bestowed unto mankind by god, nor does a marriage – on this overpopulated planet we inhabit – necessarily have to result in offspring being produced. Rather not, I would say.

Marriage is simply two people who love each other and want legal and official recognition of this fact – with the financial perks and legal bonuses that come with it. As I see it, there is no lawful way to discriminate against gay people by disallowing them marriage whilst giving clear and tangible advantages to married opposite-sex couples. This is fundamentally against any and every constitution, which tend to prohibit discrimination based on sexuality.

It might take a while for everybody to realise this, but in the end, common sense will prevail – see for instance this hopeful poll result.