Biblical Definition of Marriage (Video)

[KillerGremlin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

This is why I need to finish reading the Bible on my own, because frankly I think my Catholic church leaves some parts out.

[Angrist]

The Catholic church is not telling the people everything? Shocker!!

[Professor S]

While this was pretty funny (before it became a redundant effort to misinform to argue a political slant), it obviously mistakes the historical aspects of the Bible with the instructional aspects. Also, it makes no differentiation between the Old and New Testaments. You can say these omissions and misstatements were done in the name of comedy to make the jokes work, but I often believe there is a far more insidious objective, especially once the joke is drug out long after the punchline is given.

Yes, I know it's just a joke, but jokes can greatly mislead if they take the context seriously. It's called the "Politics of Ridicule" made popular by Saul Alinsky. Basically, it stats that you attack and deride people and ideas, often in a satirical/humorous manner, to get your point across without actually having to enter a real discussion.

See The Daily Show for a perfect example.

And for the record, I'm pro gay marriage. I'm also pro honest discussion.

[Dylflon]

While I agree that this is not the right approach for a lot of issues, in this case it seems fine since the argument against gay marriage is pretty retarded anyways.

To call it insidious seems kind of absurd though.

[Professor S]

To clarify, I don't think the argument is insidious, merely the methods. Ridicule destroys public discourse and Alinsky knew this when he wrote the book on using it in politics, and I think we've seen how political ridicule has affected the public discourse of today: there isn't any.

Any argument deserves a full and honest debate (I'll admit I don't always meet my own lofty goal, but I try). When that is allowed to take place, the sillier ideas will always be exposed for what they are and minds can be changed through reason. When you simply try and destroy ideas that are opposed to yours with no sense of fairness to them, then no one is enlightened because people on your side are given misinformation about the opposition that they never challenge because it fits their predisposition, and the opposition can just dismiss your argument as hateful and ignorant.

I've taken a long, hard look at both sides of the gay marriage debate, mainly because some people I greatly respect as true thinkers on the right are against it, but in the end I remain pro gay marriage. I better understand the opposing view though, and my arguments and position on the topic are stronger for having given the opposition a fair shake.

[Angrist]

I'm anti gay marriage, like I am anti homosexuality, just like I am anti pre-marital sex.
And that's just like I am anti killing, anti lying, and anti everything else the bible condemns.

The bible is pretty clear on all those things, the question is if you accept it as an authority.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Angrist

I'm anti gay marriage, like I am anti homosexuality, just like I am anti pre-marital sex.
And that's just like I am anti killing, anti lying, and anti everything else the bible condemns.

The bible is pretty clear on all those things, the question is if you accept it as an authority.

Does the Bible really directly forbid pre-marital sex? If I recall the Bible forbids "sexual immorality," but this is a rather broad term that you could attach several different connotations to... not trying to make this into an enormous religious debate, just curious.

[TheGame]

My opinion on this subject is a bit strange. I strongly disagree with calling a union between two men or two women a marriage. Why? Because I personally think that its putting a good label on something that is immoral.

I think that the only compromise that could be made that I'd agree to somewhat is no longer letting law define marriage. Call everything a civil union under law, and allow the churches and different religions decide what marriage is (And let them decide who they want to marry and who they don't). I think the problem right now has more to do with the term marriage itself, and not the legal side of it.

[Angrist]

Originally Posted by Bond

Does the Bible really directly forbid pre-marital sex? If I recall the Bible forbids "sexual immorality," but this is a rather broad term that you could attach several different connotations to... not trying to make this into an enormous religious debate, just curious.

Interesting question, I did some research.
Yes, it's called fornication and it's always been forbidden in the bible.

The Hebrew word for it was zanah.

When Israelites got married, they needed to be virgins. After diner, they went inside and had sex for the first time (see for example Psalm 19:5).
As a proof of the woman's virginity, they needed to use a cloth to save blood traces. This could then be shown to proof she was a virgin (in case the man would start hating her and lie that she hadn't been a virgin). See Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

If people had broken the law by having sex before getting married, they didn't need to die, but they did have to get married. For life.

The Greek word for it was porneia. Jesus mentioned it among murder, stealing, etc. (for example Matthew 15:19,20). Acts 15:19,20 says: Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
It's mentioned way more often than this.

So to answer your question, yes, the bible is pretty direct about it.

[BreakABone]

That's the weird thing I get about marriage.
I always thought it was more of a legal term, and as far as I know there is a clear distinction between religion and law in this country (or so it says). On a legal basis, I don't see how a union between two people (man/woman, man/man, woman/woman) can be deemed anything but a marriage.

From a religious standpoint, you may be against it, but as long as they aren't getting married in a church... I believe it falls way outside of their jurisdiction.

[Angrist]

Ah yes of course, I don't believe religion should ever get involved in politics. Even though I don't approve of many things, I don't want people forced to stop them.

So whether a state allows gay marriage or not is out of my interest.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

it obviously mistakes the historical aspects of the Bible with the instructional aspects. Also, it makes no differentiation between the Old and New Testaments.

Historical vs. instructional? WHAT? It's a literal translation or it's bunk! You can't just start interpreting it how you want....

Also, some religions *coughJudaismcough* are mostly based on the teachings of the Old Testament. Although you are correct that much of the Old Testament was modified. Two Bible changing events included the Great Flood where God killed all those sexing mufuckas and then of course Jesus Christ came to earth. Unless you're Jewish and you don't believe that Jesus was the son of God....

Originally Posted by Professor S

And for the record, I'm pro gay marriage. I'm also pro honest discussion.

How can you have an honest discussion with people who use a book as their only source and refuse to listen to any logical argument? Not so say that all religious people are like that, but some are.

For the record, I'm of the opinion the marriage is a religious thing. If atheists can get married, gay people should be allowed to get married too. Society hasn't quite grasped that concept yet, so I think we need to change all non-religious marriages to "unions." This way all the atheists, gays, Hindus, Buddhists, or whatever can happily celebrate unions of love.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

How can you have an honest discussion with people who use a book as their only source and refuse to listen to any logical argument? Not so say that all religious people are like that, but some are.

Well, you can have a discussion over religious fact or fiction, and personal religious opinions. But I agree, a logical argument over the legality of marriage can not be had if one participant wishes to use the Bible as his or her main source of argumentation. Logic doesn't allow that kind of discussion, as both parties have not agreed upon the legitimacy / interpretation of the Bible.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Angrist

When Israelites got married, they needed to be virgins. After diner, they went inside and had sex for the first time (see for example Psalm 19:5). As a proof of the woman's virginity, they needed to use a cloth to save blood traces. This could then be shown to proof she was a virgin (in case the man would start hating her and lie that she hadn't been a virgin). See Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

This doesn't strike you as being sexist, or at least being written by a bunch of guys 3000 years ago in a country that basically oppresses women? I mean, where is the male virginity test. Are we just going by personal testimony that the males are virgin? Why does the male need to get a blood sample. Also, not to bring science into religious discussion () but the hymen often is broken before any sexual encounter just from physical activity or doing things like horseback riding. It can break from just normal physical activity.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Bond

Well, you can have a discussion over religious fact or fiction, and personal religious opinions. But I agree, a logical argument over the legality of marriage can not be had if one participant wishes to use the Bible as his or her main source of argumentation. Logic doesn't allow that kind of discussion, as both parties have not agreed upon the legitimacy / interpretation of the Bible.

Agreed. Or as we say in Mass, "Amen."

Btw, how's the new DMB? I heard it was really heavy which makes sense since their Saxophone player passed away....I'm quite partial to Under The Table and Dreaming, Crash, and Before These Crowded Streets. Although admittedly I can't stand Dave Matthew's fan club....