Skip to content

Marriage according to the Bible

from Unicorn Booty

Personally, I believe that Jesus wouldn’t care one way or another about same-sex marriage, and that some people are just using the Bible to support their own homophobia and sexism. Which is pretty darn unchristian-like.



  1. David Ould wrote:

    Nice picture, but cheap rhetoric. The real question one has to ask is which of these models and actions is endorsed in the Bible, and which is not? What is the purpose of the laws surrounding rape of prisoners-of-war?

    Or, alternatively, promote shallow argumentation.

    Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 10:17 pm | Permalink
  2. Iron Knee wrote:

    David, if you’ve been reading this blog, you know that the regulars are fully capable of having a reasoned and in-depth discussion of those issues.

    So do you have an answer to your questions? What is the model of marriage that is “endorsed in the Bible”?

    Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 11:30 pm | Permalink
  3. TENTHIRTYTWO wrote:

    David, that isn’t the real question at all. The real question (for me, I’ll say) is, no matter which of those models ends up being the golden rule, how did you arrive at choosing it?

    And we will have days and days and pages and pages of discussion where you will drag out hundreds of scriptures. This will completely sidestep the actual answer to my question.

    You arrived at your answer based entirely on your own personal interpretations, which are necessarily jaded by your own personal preferences. I would go further and say it is actually a by-product of your brain structure, but that is a little too tangential.

    These differences in interpretation are why many Christians have no issues at all with same sex marriage. You will say they are wrong, and they will say you are wrong. But you all simply have different interpretations. This is also how throughout history, people have wielded religion as a tool to justify their own horrific actions.

    When you are prepared to talk about how your own interpretation of a book should be the foundation for law merely because it was your own interpretation and for no other reason, then we can have an actual in-depth discussion.

    Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 5:07 am | Permalink
  4. Falkelord wrote:

    Or when someone can prove to me how Bronze Age text is superior to the Constitution as the basis for law, then I’ll believe their interpretation.

    Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 8:12 am | Permalink
  5. ZIP-ZERO-NADA wrote:

    More important question: If I convert to Christianity, can I go get a few concubines? Sign me up!!

    Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 8:30 am | Permalink
  6. Michael wrote:

    Here’s my take on the “real question(s):” What purpose does and should the institution of marriage mean in a modern, pluralistic society? What role does and should the government (federal, state, and local) play in regard to such an institution? What role should religious institutions play in defining the legal definition of marriage?

    The legal issue of marriage is clearly not about procreation, as we allow post-menopausal women to marry. It is clearly not about religious beliefs, as marriages performed by Justices of the Peace are just as binding as those performed by clergy. Furthermore, the ban on polygamy demonstrates that legal marriage is explicitly not about religious beliefs; otherwise, the state would be encroaching on the free exercise of religion, which is verboten.

    To me, marriage, in its ideal form, has always been about creating a stable home and family based on love and mutual respect. The exclusion of homosexual relationships from such an institution can only be based on prejudice, bigotry, or religious exceptionalism (“My church is closer to the truth than yours is.”). It rests on the idea that GLBT relationships are not capable of attaining the same levels of love and happiness. Especially, it implies that GLBT people will somehow be better off by marrying a person of the opposite gender, regardless of their personal feelings, than the person they love naturally. That just seems very insulting to me, and it goes against everything that I believe marriage should be.

    Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 9:04 am | Permalink
  7. Jeff wrote:

    I like the graphic. It really captures the idiocy of the “because the Bible said so” argument, and not just for marriage. There are some Christians like Pat Robertson who believe that the Ten Commandments should supercede the US Constitution in political and ethical discourse. What this shows is that the Bible cannot be taken literally as a model for our society, unless we are willing to accept gross injustices to human dignity and personal liberty in order to make that happen.

    The question I would like to ask Biblical literalists is, how do you justify the biblical model in today’s society despite the glaring differences and apparent moral problems with that viewpoint?

    Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 9:08 am | Permalink
  8. David Ould wrote:

    Well, I go for the definition set out at the start and then endorsed by Jesus. That, surely, is the reasonable reading of the text. It’s pretty poor comprehension of the text to simply equate every description of marriage in the Bible as equally endorsed – the text itself makes it quite clear what is endorsed and what is not. In fact the text is normally fairly clear about a number of things, despite how some people want to distort them to make cheap rhetorical points.

    Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 5:37 am | Permalink
  9. TENTHIRTYTWO wrote:

    How could there be more than one description of marriage, when marriage has been the bond between one man and one woman, since the beginning of time? Isn’t this the core of the traditionalist argument?

    “The text itself makes it quite clear” based on your own interpretation. Many people who feel like they’ve divined truth from a holy book often feel that it is the only, obvious truth to divine, and that all others must be simply twisting the words to fit their own sinful will.

    While, not surprisingly, all the others feel that the first group has twisted the words to fit their own sinful will.

    This is not limited to conflicts within religious sects either…the Muslims think the Christians are all deceived, and the Christians think the Muslims are all deceived.

    To return to your original point about what was endorsed by Jesus, how do you feel about this:

    “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Matthew 19:9

    Do you agree with Jesus? That if your spouse steals from you, you have no grounds for divorce unless they have cheated on you? If you had a daughter and her husband physically abused her, would you tell her to remain faithful if he had not committed infidelity?

    Tricky things, these ‘quite clear’ passages.

    Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 9:10 pm | Permalink
  10. PatriotSGT wrote:

    Good points 1032- I’d like to add that the Catholics have figured a work around for this very situation with annulment. If you pay and pray enough then the 1st marriage never even happened leaving you free to get married for the first time all over again.

    Friday, May 18, 2012 at 7:31 am | Permalink
  11. Michael wrote:

    Patriotsgt’s comment somehow got Madonna’s “Like a Virgin” stuck in my head…

    Friday, May 18, 2012 at 8:43 am | Permalink
  12. Iron Knee wrote:

    Michael, now it is going to be stuck in my head. Curse you!

    Friday, May 18, 2012 at 11:53 am | Permalink