Why Phil Gingrey can kiss my gaytheist arse (another gay marriage thread)

Phil Gingrey is a Georgia Congressman, doctor, and the author of this editorial. (Why did my parents always believes doctors were by definition intelligent.)

My response (which also appears on my blog) with a lot more hyperlinks (I’m too busy at the moment to link this one- apologies).

Thanks for clearing that up, Congressman. I feel bad for calling my mother a lying fornicating slag for saying she married in 1952 when President Bush wasn’t elected (well, sort of) until 2000.

I’m assuming that Gingrey is referring to the god of Genesis, though there are certainly many others worshipped in Georgia and the rest of the nation and the beliefs of all are protected just as much as Gingrey’s. Going with this assumption, it’s certainly odd that the Bible never even mentions marriage until either the 29th or 34th chapter of Genesis (depending upon the translation) by which time the world’s been created, populated, depopulated, and repopulated at least once. In the 29th chapter of Genesis it refers to a union that ends in deception and polygamy while in the 34th it refers to a union that ends when the bride’s brothers kill the groom and all the men in his village during the honeymoon.
However, let’s assume that those people joined in holy same-sex unions in the Bible before these chapters were truly partners in marriage as created by God (not, repeat not, George Bush).

The first “marriage” was between Adam & Eve (unless you count legends of Adam’s earlier wives, but we’ll ignore those and go strictly with the ancient texts that are available in Wal-Mart). That “holy union” resulted in the Fall of Man, the expulsion from Paradise, original sin and an excellent novella with a beautiful epilogue by Mark Twain.

Skipping ahead many generations we come to Abraham, the man 3/5 of the world’s population claim as founder of whichever of the several one true religions they follow. Abraham was married to his half-sister, a fact which evidently bothered God not in the slightest as He chose the couple to be the direct ancestors of his Chosen people and of the Messiah (now a major motion picture). When Sarah grew impatient for a child, Abraham, at her request, impregnated Hagar, her maid (this was long before unions), whose willingness to the union is not mentioned. Later Sarah thought better of the idea and drove both maid and son into the desert. (That God wasn’t terribly upset by the first recorded surrogate mother is evidenced by the consolation gifts he gave them, which included a supernatural spring for Hagar & Ishmael and the world’s richest petroleum reserves for their descendants.) After Sarah died Abraham married again, going Tony Randall four better by siring six children when he was well over 100 and then driving them into the desert as well like a good father-uncle would do for his sort-of firstborn.

Abraham’s son and nephew Isaac married his cousin and begat twins, the younger of who was so loved by God that he became the patriarch and namesake of the nation of Israel. This son felt marriage was so holy that he married two women the same week, both of them his first cousins, and went his grandfather/granduncle one better by impregnating two household servants (with the blessings of his cousins-wives). Centuries later Moses led the children/nephews of Abraham out of bondage in Egypt and finally, at Sinai, for the first time in the Bible, God Himself delivered a few words on the institution of marriage.

For starters, in the centuries since Abraham God had evidently come to regard the marriage between half-siblings thing as icky and forbade it among future couples (Leviticus 18:9). Most other forms of incestuous union were also disallowed, including aunt-nephew marriage , a ban that couldn’t have done much for Moses’ self esteem since he was born of one, but as a consolation prize uncle-niece marriage was still permissible and marriage among cousins was recommended. After condemning homosexuality (along with multiple crops in the same garden, multiple fabrics in the same outfit, etc.) and giving more regulations on mildew riddance than one would think possible, the Lord amends the rules of the Holy Institution of marriage that He (and not, repeat not, George Bush) created by saying it is perfectly alright for a man to force a beautiful P.O.W. to marry you, so long, of course, as said P.O.W. is a woman (and so long as she shaves her head, trims her nails, and you let her mourn for a month, but all that goes without saying). In the same chapter, God gives some invaluable advice on how to figure inheritances when you have children by each of your multiple wives which, along with advice on what animals to sacrifice to get rid of mildew reminds us of just how relevant, sage and eternal the Bible’s advice still is in our everyday lives.

Much more of the same, but I’m sure by now Congressman Gingrey has already uttered the old standard the “our society is based on biblical teachings” crowd:

So let’s see what Jesus says about marriage:

“At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30)

Hmm. Well, that’s just one Gospel’s version. In others it’s probably different.

“When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (Mark 12:24)

Well, that was rather similar.

Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. (Luke 20:34-36)

And that was even more detailed. It’s almost as if Jesus saw marriage as an Earthly institution that didn’t even exist in heaven. But then again, Jesus never had to worry about re-election in Georgia and I’m sure Congressman Gingrey knows better (an M.D. is much better educated than a carpenter, after all):

Too bad the same can’t be said of the Confederate flag:

To borrow a rhetorical question of Robert Heinlein’s character Lazarus Long, “Does history record any case in which the majority was right?” Polls taken within the lifetime of millions of Georgians showed that most of the state was against miscegenation, integration and black suffrage. Too bad the Klan didn’t have good Christians like Gingrey around back then to make the government “give the folks what they want”:

And that is a crying shame. Just when we’d finally licked a poor economy and solved the problems of affordable healthcare, quality education, drug abuse, disastrous environmental pollution, illegal immigrants, terrorism, homelessness, sexually transmitted diseases and the highest national debt since Weimar, this had to come along and screw up everything.

Speaking of setting things in stone, Gingrey evidently didn’t notice that the only marital related law God Himself set in stone was that adultery is a sin. Surely, since marriage is divine and God Himself set in stone that adultery is a sin, he must also be for jailing adulterers (or at least Barr[R-GA]ing them from public office) since it’s apparently even more important to God than the right to marry a captured slave. (After all, God Himself put in on His short list.) But so long as there are more adulterers registered to vote in Georgia than there are queers, I doubt we’ll ever hear Gingrey’s reply to this one.

Odd then that laws directly affecting marriage and marital practices (polygyny, polyandry, suttee, arranged marriages, divorce, dowry, child support/custody, alimony, brideprice, etc.) differ in almost every culture (including different Christian cultures) and that even God changed His mind repeatedly on the subject.

But isn’t that just what you’re proposing to do- alter the constitution to freeze marriage for all time? How 'bout criminalizing divorce while you’re at it to really save marriage? (Oh, wait, I forgot- there are a helluva lot more divorced people registered to vote in GA than there are queers as well.)
Oh well, look not for logic in the state with the nation’s lowest SAT scores. Gays- quit your bitchin’ and stop trying to marry as that’s for decent folk. The rest of you, do as the Lord instructs regarding marriage and don’t marry that slave until she’s been bald and crying for 30 days (and if the marriage isn’t happy, don’t worry; you won’t be married to her in heaven anyhow).

You know I’m tired of hearing about the whole gay marriage thing…but I have to admit I really like your post. Send it to more people - it’s well-informed and detailed. When you sent the e-mail, did you put all the relevant bible chapter numbers in there? It’s amazing how many “true christians” haven’t actually read the Bible and don’t know what’s truly in there.

Good post.

HAL-le-lujah!

On a scale of 1-10, definitely a 1000! Finally, a rant that makes me want to jump up on my desk and start pointing wildly at my co-workers while maniacally shouting: “That’s RIGHT! WHO’S your daddy!!!”

The funny thing is, when I present just this type of biblical “factual” evidence to those born-again type folk, their response to me is: “You just see it that way because Satan is trying to manipulate you and take control of your life.” WTF?! IT’S WRITTEN RIGHT THERE IN THE FREAKING BIBLE, PEOPLE! Multiple versions, even!!! Who’s in denial?

So my response to them goes like this: “Baa-aaa. Baaa-aaa-aaa!!!”
They usually don’t get it. :smiley:

Yamirskoonir
Straight, but not narrow

I’m fairly neutral on the whole gay marrige thing. I think a Consitutional amendment against it is a bad idea but I don’t care what the states do or don’t do.

However I AM sick and tired of people using the whole God is for/agaist this. You know 90% of those people never picked up a bible and read how contradictory and twisted it is.

Good post.

If it please you any, Sampiro, Gingrey’s district is not particularly Republican, and there is a decent chance that he’ll lose re-election this year.

That’s good. There should be a Constitutional Amendment in Georgia banning Republicans with surnames that start with “Gingr*” from running for office.

Meanwhile, my new favorite Republican quote is this one from Mike Crotts (a senator in the Georgia legislature) made last night (Feb. 27) on Paula Zahn’s show (CNN):

Well, I guess Eskimoes, Navahos and Cherokees were kinda conservative…

My translation is the KJV. The first mention of marrige is clearly:

Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

See. God DID define marriage. If you want to change the definition, take it up with God.

Though I won’t defend Jacob’s actions, not all marriages end well. He desired Rachel, but was deceived into taking Leah. After seven years more labor under Laban, he earned the right to marry Rachel, who he truly desired.

Wow. This isn’t even close to correct. Shechem raped Dinah, then desired to marry her. Jacob and his sons, angry at the way Dinah was treated, tricked the men of Shechem’s tribe into circumcising themselves so that they would show they adhered to the Abrahamic covenant. After they agreed and were sore, Jacob’s son turned on Shechem and his tribe and killed them. This is not a marriage, and shame on you for your dishonesty.

There is no such thing as a holy same-sex union. Marriage is between a man and a woman. See Genesis 2:24

It wasn’t the marriage that caused the trouble. The tempting of Satan and the sin of Adam and Eve brought the fall of man. The marriage was irrelevent (though it was between a man and a woman).

I am not sure that half-sister marriage was not permitted back then, as there was an age of grace due to the low population of the world that in order for the world to be populated, different marriages would have to be allowed (think about it, Cain and Able had to marry their sisters).

There was a seven-year separation of work between Leah and Rachel. Also, you need to understand why this was done. Back in this time, having sons was a sign of great blessing. Leah was able to bear sons to Jacob (due to God’s blessing her). However, Rachel was barren (at the time). Rachel got jealous, so she gave her handmaid Bilhah to Jacob to bear sons. When Leah had left bearing, she gave her handmaid Zilpah to Jacob. Finally, Rachel’s womb was opened and she bore sons to Jacob.

Not the first time. See Genesis 2:24

Gill’s commentary deals with this issue, so I will let him speak here:

“To lie with one in so near a relation is exceeding criminal, and for which the law curses a man, Deu_27:22; and to marry her is not lawful; for though it was necessary for the propagation of mankind that a man should marry his sister, for who else could Cain and Abel marry? yet afterwards, when there was an increase of mankind, and there were people enough remote from each other, it became unlawful for persons in such near ties of consanguinity to marry with each other; though the Egyptians did, in imitation of Isis and Osiris, and so the Persians, following the example of Cambyses”

Gill on Multiple crops:
“according to the Jews, was not mingled unless there be two grains of wheat and one of barley, or one of wheat and two of barley; or wheat, and barley, and rye: they also include herbs and trees in this law, and make an graft of them a forbidden mixture”

Gill on multiple fabrics mentioned (wool and linen)
For, as Josephus says, none but the priests were allowed to wear such a garment, and with which the Misnah agrees; in which it is asserted, that the priests have no other clothing to minister in, in the sanctuary, but of woollen and linen;"

Though this has nothing (obviously) to do with marriage.

He didn’t change the rule, he added for a special case

Gill on this issue:
“Though it was not allowed the Israelites to marry any of the seven nations of Canaan, nor indeed with any of other nations continuing in their idolatry; yet they might marry such as became their captives and servants, and were wholly in their own power; and especially if proselytes to their religion, and which this fair captive was to become before marriage, as is by some gathered from the following things to be done by her; though after all, this was only a permission, because of the hardness of their hearts, as is said of divorce; and that such marriages were not very grateful to God appears, as some have observed, from the ceremonies used before marriage, to render her contemptible; and the easy dismission of her afterwards, according to the sense of some interpreters.”

Essentially true. I’ll let it slide (as it is irrelevent to the topic of marriage)

II Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

You’re not gonna like this:

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Yes, He is saying that it does not exist in heaven. Marriage is an earthly institution. But that does not prevent from still being a holy, sacred institution laid out clearly in the Scriptures. I can rattle off countless married couples in the Bible. I can name no same-sex couples.

God condemned homosexuality as sin. This precludes Him from saying that a same-sex marriage is OK. He didn’t have to “write it in stone” to make it a law.

Different cultures have different laws. But we call ourselves (by and large) a Christian nation, and our laws (for the most part) seem to abide by the Bible. God did not change His mind on the subject of same-sex marriage.

In conclusion, there is a great number of errors in your post. Let’s try to fight ignorance, not spread it. And it is a mistake to try to use the Bible to support same-sex marrige.

Twin, besides all the shit about god and marriage, how in the freakin hell can you justify discriminating against some people who wish to enter a civil contract?

Have you ever heard of seperation of church and state?

Actually, it’s a mistake to use the Bible as support for anything, as that is just an appeal to authority. In addition to which, it’s just a friggin’ book - a millennia-old one at that - and you can’t use it to argue anything without beginning the question. :stuck_out_tongue:

That doesn’t say a word about same-sex marriage one way or the other. Oh wait, you mean we’re stretching an ancient book to fit a situation which the people who created it couldn’t have possibly envisioned? Huh. Go figure.

All that about God and marriage is the whole point. It is a sacred institution. I don’t want to discriminate against anybody. I don’t even believe the government should have anything to do with marriage. The reason I posted this was the attempt by Sampiro to use the Bible to support his position.

Since the Bible defines marriage, it seems reasonable to use it to support it, but I understand your concerns.

Man = male. Wife = female (as referenced in the verse). Remember, this verse is referring to Adam and Eve. You are right that it doesn’t say a word about same-sex marriage. But the Bible does condemn homosexuality (as I already mentioned), so the concept of a homosexual marriage is not addressed in the Bible (as such a relationship according to the Bible is an abomination, much less entering into a formal marriage).

Come on, this thread was started with an argument that had a biblical basis. You can’t fault him for countering that with the bible.

Twin, I hope you realize that you are going to get flamed. Badly.

No, some Christians call this a “Christian nation”, but that’s lying bullshit if it means anything about our laws and government being religiously based. For example, our laws don’t abide by the Bible. If there’s one sin the Bible harps on constantly, it’s idolatry or the worship of false gods. Even many or even most Biblical references to adultery or fornication are really metaphors for idol-worship. And in the United States idol worship is a Constitutionally-protected right. There go the first four commandments, and any pretense of this being a nation with “Bible-based” laws.

Of course, murder and theft are against the law; they were against the law in pagan Rome and are against the law in Shinto Japan, too.

Christians didn’t invent marriage and they don’t have any exclusive rights to it. Marriage in some form or another seems to be found in just about every culture in human history–not just Christian cultures and not even just in monotheistic cultures. Pre-Christian Greece and Rome, Hindu India, Shinto Japan, Confucian China–everywhere. Of course, its form has also varied widely: monogamy, polygyny, polyandry, arranged marriages, divorce permissable, divorce forbidden–hell, the Bible doesn’t even record only one form of marriage. We have our own version of the institution nowadays–monogamous, based on mutual love, initiated by the parties involved, between consenting adults only, legally egalitarian, with divorce an option–and it isn’t really very Biblically based at all. Since our laws aren’t based on the Bible, any argument over whether to change our institution of marriage can’t be trumped by anyone thumping the Bible.

At least one of the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree:

John Adams

How beautifully that single sentence sums up the entirety of a man’s thought on government, religion and morality, milroyj!

And what a fascinating insight that, in milroyj’s mind (or what passes for it) “moral and religious” can only mean “Christian.”

Whatever. To say that our “laws and government” are NOT based on religion is “lying bullshit” IMO.

You know what? You’re right. Let’s examine the cultures from which we derive much of our current government system and look at their religious practices.

  1. Rome. Heavily polytheistic. Known for their enslavement and persecution practices regarding those who opposed them.

  2. Greece. Heavily polytheistic. Ditto above, with less emphasis on persecution.

  3. Our legal system … now that’s decently heavily based on English law, and England was shaped as much by Celt and Scotch folk (not to mention Rome) as anyone else, so again we’ve got people rife with polytheistic practices.

I believe we all owe milroyj a debt of gratitude for this brilliant point of his which I have dutifully explicated!

I didn’t say anything about “Christian”. Our laws and government ARE based on religion, deal with it.

Okay, if we’re gonna play the quote game…

“I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.” -Thomas Jefferson

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” -TJ

“Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents.” -John Adams

“[T]he government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” […] “The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.” -Treaty of Tripoli, signed by Adams

“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies.” -James Madison

“The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity…
“Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.”” -Rev. Dr. Bird Wilson

I’m gonna stop now. Thanks for yet another excellent post, MEBuckner.

The only reason I used the Bible is because that was the method Sampiro used to defend same-sex marriages.