# Why Phil Gingrey can kiss my gaytheist arse (another gay marriage thread) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 27, 2004, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504 "2004-02-27T18:53:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/21 "2004-02-29T21:44:57Z")
Dear **MEBuckner** : > [@](#): > > 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. Respectfully, I think I’m missing some information here. _…Biblical references to adultery or fornication are really metaphors for idol-worship._ Here’s where my mental gymnastics came in. (By the way, thank you. It is a fascinating angle to pursue in Real Life discussions.) Adultery is prohibited by the 7th Commandment. In the most literal sense, to commit adultery is to pridefully/sinfully construct an idol – in essence, a tribute to one’s own body and its sexual gratification – and an idol that is more powerful to you than God’s own proscription. In another sense of adultery, as in Jeremiah 3:9\*, the people of Israel had backslid into idolatry by placing industry and commerce ahead of God. I hope I’m understanding you correctly, but the part I have the most trouble with is that you’ve used the 7th Commandment to invalidate the first four Commandments. This sounds a bit circular, but I definitely see your point. So in re-cap, since the Constitution allows Freedom of Speech, idol-worship is protected. And because idol-worship is protected, the Constitution is in direct violation of several of the Ten Commandments. Therefore, our laws are specifically NOT Bible-based. If I have misinterpreted your post, would you be so kind to clarify? If not, of course, you’re always welcome to commence the wrathfulness and the vengeance and the blood rain and the “hey hey hey it hurts me”. 🙂 Very truly yours, B - And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. . ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/22 "2004-02-29T21:57:57Z")
> [@El Cid Viscoso](#): > > So in re-cap, since the Constitution allows Freedom of Speech, idol-worship is protected. And because idol-worship is protected, the Constitution is in direct violation of several of the Ten Commandments. Therefore, our laws are specifically NOT Bible-based. Just watch who you use that argument on. To some people, God’s Law/Natural Loaw/The Law of Moses trump anything else. If an 11th commandment were somehow magically added that said “thou shalt not be clean”, your average fundie (as opposed to Fundamentalist) who owned a commercial enterprise would prerer violating OSHA to sinning in the eyes of the Lord. And of course if OSHA came calling regarding health code violations, then all Christians would be persecuted by the government for following God’s Law rather than artificial law imposed by the atheist politicians and liberal interest groups. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/23 "2004-03-01T03:29:15Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > I didn’t say anything about “Christian”. Our laws and government ARE based on religion, deal with it. Yes you did, and no they aren’t. And, as always, you’re an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Denis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5e9695/32.png) [@Denis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Denis)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/24 "2004-03-01T06:08:46Z")
When are religious zealots going to learn that “no law respecting an establishment of religion” means precisely that? Is it so difficult for you people to understand that the laws of this land are for _everybody_ in the U.S., not just the religious? How does someone, or a law, for that matter, utterly disregarding a principle you hold dear prevent you from practicing that principle in your life? Why do you insist on imposing principles (various “Blue Laws,” “Under God,” and sundry other trash) I, and many religious folk for that matter, find silly at best on the rest of us? Is it ever going to be enough that many non-religious people fought and died in defence of your freedoms? Does any of this mean anything to you, or is all the writing of the Founders and other Patriots regarding the subject of American Law and Freedom completely irrelevant? Remember: “Render unto Caesar…” As a heathen, I have some faith in the common sense and decency of the American People. I don’t see this amendment passing into law. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just another cynical political ploy by Shrub’s machine aiming for reelection. Much like his first campaign’s ass-kissing stop at Bob (Catholic’s ain’t Christian!) Jones University. Anyone out there eligible to vote: Please do. Nobody’s vote is wasted. Don’t let the zealots and freaks run the country anymore! ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/25 "2004-03-01T06:47:42Z")
> [@Twin](#): > > (think about it, Cain and Able had to marry their sisters). Sorry, Mr. Twin, but that’s a no-no. The bible mentiones no sisters, so you can not assume them to exist. Remember, the fun part of being a fundamentalist is that you are only allowed to use what the book expressly says, so no sisters. Try again, who exactly did Cain marry out there in Nod? ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/26 "2004-03-01T07:10:53Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Yes you did, and no they aren’t. And, as always, you’re an idiot. They are … just not the ones **milroyj** and others would have you think. And they’re not based out of religion so much as that the relevant societies sure had their share. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/27 "2004-03-01T11:08:18Z")
What I don’t get is, if Marriage is a religious based institution, why is it that someone dressed as Elvis in ‘The Little White Chapel Of Hunka Hunka Burnin Love’ can perform the mostly official and civil ceremony? What about Registry Service marriages? What about those performed for and by atheists? Are these not real true marriages? Should they also be banned? Can nobody who does not officially believe in God and adhere to all of the Bible’s teachings to theletter not do anything without the President saying so? That’s fucking bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/28 "2004-03-01T12:37:11Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Sorry, Mr. Twin, but that’s a no-no. The bible mentiones no sisters, so you can not assume them to exist. Remember, the fun part of being a fundamentalist is that you are only allowed to use what the book expressly says, so no sisters. Try again, who exactly did Cain marry out there in Nod? In fairness to Mr. Twin, he hasn’t labeled himself as a fundamentalist, has he? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/29 "2004-03-01T12:39:56Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > What I don’t get is, if Marriage is a religious based institution, why is it that someone dressed as Elvis in ‘The Little White Chapel Of Hunka Hunka Burnin Love’ can perform the mostly official and civil ceremony? What about Registry Service marriages? What about those performed for and by atheists? Are these not real true marriages? Should they also be banned? Can nobody who does not officially believe in God and adhere to all of the Bible’s teachings to theletter not do anything without the President saying so? > > That’s fucking bullshit. If marriage is a sacred institution and laws are based on religion, then shouldn’t divorce be against the law? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/30 "2004-03-01T15:15:40Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > 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. So was gay marriage. > [@iampunha](#): > > 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. Also did not recognize gay marriage officially. > [@iampunha](#): > > 1. Greece. Heavily polytheistic. Ditto above, with less emphasis on persecution. Also did not recognize gay marriage officially. > [@iampunha](#): > > 1. 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. Also does not recognize gay marriage officially. Although I suspect it is a serious overstatement to say that Celtic law is as big an influence on our legal system than Christianity. Look, I don’t have much of a dog in this fight, but the implication that the Bible is neutral about same-sex marriage, or that you are not making a almost unprecedented change to the term “marriage” by including gay unions, is just not justifiable. There may be a case to be made in favor of gay marriage, but pointing out things you don’t like in the Bible doesn’t make it. Neither does pointing to other societies that never based their morality on the Bible, unless you can find some that also recognized gay marriage. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/31 "2004-03-01T15:27:37Z")
Bottom line to me: My marriage is a sacred union before God, in which Barb and I pledged lifelong fidelity and constancy to each other, not merely in matters of sex but in all that goes to make up the spiritual union between two people. (And “spiritual union” is not playing a religious card here, but referring to the internal feelings that distinguish human beings from, say, robins or hamsters.) Therefore I do not accept the idea that it’s some sort of “civil union” – with our beliefs, it is something more, and more precious, to us than that. Now, I consider myself equal in the eyes of God and of the law to anybody else, not better and not worse – say, **Shodan** or **Homebrew** as two examples of that “anybody else.” Accordingly, for me to take a stand that my religiously-based marriage is somehow “better” than the marriage of two atheists or two gay men, is to raise myself to some sort of egotistic superiority over them. The only way in which I care what the term “marriage” means to you is what you mean by the marriage that you yourself are in or hope to be in. You don’t have the right to judge the validity of the feelings, commitment, or meaning invested in a word by anyone else. Period. If **Cajun Man** and **Dr Matrix** are somehow not “married” in some metaphysical sense, then presumably nobody else is, either. Because I fail to see how their investment in their relationship, their commitment and love, differ from mine and Barb’s, Mr. & Mrs. **Shodan** ’s, Mr. & Mrs. **Homebrew** ’s, or the one **Homebrew** may someday make with his SO, if and when. ---
**Author:** ![Twin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/85f322/32.png) [@Twin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twin)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/32 "2004-03-01T17:22:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Sorry, Mr. Twin, but that’s a no-no. The bible mentiones no sisters, so you can not assume them to exist. You are right. The Bible mentions no sisters for Cain and Abel. But that is meaningless. Does the Bible have to mention every single person born from the time of creation to be valid? The Bible doesn’t mention cats, either. I guess they don’t exist by your logic. > [@](#): > > Remember, the fun part of being a fundamentalist is that you are only allowed to use what the book expressly says, so no sisters. Try again, who exactly did Cain marry out there in Nod? That’s an odd standard to propose against fundamentalists (and yes, I guess I could be branded a fundamentalist, though I would call myself a Christian). As I stated above, though no sisters were mentioned, the existence must be assumed. In many of the genealogies listed in the Bible, only the sons were mentioned. God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. Do you really think they stopped after only three sons? I stand by my assertion that Cain married his sister. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/33 "2004-03-01T17:44:20Z")
> [@Twin](#): > > The only reason I used the Bible is because that was the method Sampiro used to defend same-sex marriages. Twin, in case you missed my point, I honestly don’t give a shit what the Bible says about same-sex, opposite-sex, polygamous, endogamous, incestuous or any other kind of marriage or for much else. I’m attacking those who use the Bible to justify denying rights to same sex couples. Our legal system is **NOT** based on the Bible and our legislators should know that (if they don’t already; I suspect most do but realize that pandering is the way to get elected in a nation with universal suffrage and incredibly bad public education [as compared to other first-world democracies]). If our laws are Bible-based then please tell me: -What does the Bible say about speeding in a school zone? -What does the Bible say about regulations for hiring kids under 17? -What does the Bible say should be the penalty for noise pollution? -Why isn’t adultery in the U.S. punishable by stoning? -Why aren’t Buddhists arrested for worshipping false idols? To borrow a line from _As Good As It Gets_, “Sell crazy somewhere else. We’re all stocked up here.” PS- I’ll take the biblical critiques one by one when I have more time to spare. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/34 "2004-03-01T17:56:46Z")
> [@Twin](#): > > You are right. The Bible mentions no sisters for Cain and Abel. But that is meaningless. Does the Bible have to mention every single person born from the time of creation to be valid? The Bible doesn’t mention cats, either. I guess they don’t exist by your logic. A use of the “search” feature will find lots of comments on SDMB (many of them by me) about the legends concerning Cain and Abel and their sisters (Jumella & Aclima, each a twin to one of their brothers). It was actually rivalry over the sisters that in the myths led to the fratricide (just as in some myths the sacrifice of Cain was refused because he was not the son of Adam- Eve and the serpent were doing more than making fruit salad). Still, the notion that most humans derive from brother-sister unions would explain a lot wouldn’t it? (One thing it wouldn’t explain is how Cain founded a city when it was just him and his wife, or how his great grandsons were respectively “the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock” or “the father of all who play the harp and flute” when there descendants were either all killed in the flood or else descended via Noah and Na’amah, which would make Noah “the father of all who” did much of anything.) Cain’s grave is a tourist attraction in Kabul, incidentally. Back later, I promise. ---
**Author:** ![Twin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/85f322/32.png) [@Twin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twin)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/35 "2004-03-01T20:03:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Twin, in case you missed my point, I honestly don’t give a shit what the Bible says about same-sex, opposite-sex, polygamous, endogamous, incestuous or any other kind of marriage or for much else. I’m attacking those who use the Bible to justify denying rights to same sex couples. You could have fooled me. You sure seemed to be interested in what the Bible had to say about marriage. But I’ll take your word for it. > [@](#): > > Our legal system is NOT based on the Bible and our legislators should know that (if they don’t already; I suspect most do but realize that pandering is the way to get elected in a nation with universal suffrage and incredibly bad public education [as compared to other first-world democracies]). > > If our laws are Bible-based then please tell me: > > -What does the Bible say about speeding in a school zone? > -What does the Bible say about regulations for hiring kids under 17? > -What does the Bible say should be the penalty for noise pollution? > -Why isn’t adultery in the U.S. punishable by stoning? > -Why aren’t Buddhists arrested for worshipping false idols? I didn’t say our laws are based on the Bible. Our laws are likely based on British common law (likely based on Roman law). I said they seem to (by and large) abide by the Bible (as in do not conflict with). I admit that even that statement is a stretch, especially concerning some of the Levitical laws you mentioned. I can’t find every law our government has created somwhere in the Bible, nor would I expect to. And as I mentioned earlier, I don’t agree with any government involvement in the issue of marriage. I simply took issue with the inaccuracies in your post and what I perceived to be the use of a Biblical argument to support same-sex marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/36 "2004-03-01T20:20:48Z")
> [@Twin](#): > > You are right. The Bible mentions no sisters for Cain and Abel. But that is meaningless. Does the Bible have to mention every single person born from the time of creation to be valid? The Bible doesn’t mention cats, either. I guess they don’t exist by your logic. > > That’s an odd standard to propose against fundamentalists (and yes, I guess I could be branded a fundamentalist, though I would call myself a Christian). As I stated above, though no sisters were mentioned, the existence must be assumed. In many of the genealogies listed in the Bible, only the sons were mentioned. God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. Do you really think they stopped after only three sons? I stand by my assertion that Cain married his sister. See, now you want it both ways. When it comes to something like biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, it’s an absolute, and forget context (for example, in one of the two places Paul mentions it in the NT, it’s clear he’s talking about grown men having sex with young boys, but through the years that destinction has been lost in translation), yet here you happily invent whole new people that the text dosen’t mention, likely because it’s obvious that Cain and Abel had to procriate with somebody, and rather than admit Genesis is a collection of creation myths from several different sources, you make stuff up to add to them. An honest biblical scholar ( like, say, Polycarp ) admits that that’s a problem but that the message is what’s important, a fundamentalist tends to make outrageous and inconsistant leaps of “logic” because he’s married to the idea that every word of the bible must\* be the literal truth, in spite of the fact that some of it is contradictory and much of it is demonstrateably inaccurate. ---
**Author:** ![Twin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/85f322/32.png) [@Twin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twin)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/37 "2004-03-01T20:39:54Z")
> [@](#): > > See, now you want it both ways. When it comes to something like biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, it’s an absolute, and forget context (for example, in one of the two places Paul mentions it in the NT, it’s clear he’s talking about grown men having sex with young boys, but through the years that destinction has been lost in translation), yet here you happily invent whole new people that the text dosen’t mention You really must believe that cats do not exist. It is dishonest to say that if the Bible does not mention someone’s birth then it cannot be assumed that it happened. > [@](#): > > , likely because it’s obvious that Cain and Abel had to procriate with somebody, and rather than admit Genesis is a collection of creation myths from several different sources, you make stuff up to add to them. An honest biblical scholar ( like, say, Polycarp ) admits that that’s a problem but that the message is what’s important, a fundamentalist tends to make outrageous and inconsistant leaps of “logic” because he’s married to the idea that every word of the bible must\* be the literal truth, in spite of the fact that some of it is contradictory and much of it is demonstrateably inaccurate Assuming that Adam and Eve had more than three children is an “outrageous and inconsistant leap of logic”? ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/38 "2004-03-01T21:16:56Z")
> [@Twin](#): > > You could have fooled me. I’m doubting that’s much of an intellectual distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/39 "2004-03-01T21:49:30Z")
Because I’m at work this will have to be piece-meal, for which I apologize. I’m going in point-by-point order. QUOTE=Twin]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. [/QUOTE] Bolding and capitalization mine. Adam was God? (That is Adam talking, you do realize? Not God. And how exactly did he know what a father and mother were, I wonder.) > [@Twin](#): > > Though I won’t defend Jacob’s actions, not all marriages end well. He desired Rachel, but was deceived into taking Leah. 1. Jacob’s actions don’t require defense- Laban was the deceiver (sorta kinda- it was an “exact words sort of thing”) 2. I never said all marriages end well. > [@Twin](#): > > 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. Okay, you have outright accused me of lying, a charge I take very seriously, so I am going to take this one in more detail than probably anybody cares about. My exact words were: > [@](#): > > 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. For me to have lied, the above phrase “the bride’s brothers kill the groom and all the men in his village during the honeymoon” would have to be correct. [Here’s a link](http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=genesis+34&search=&version=NIV&language=english&optional.x=0&optional.y=0) to Chapter 34 of Genesis so that you can play along at home. Yes, you’re right in saying that Schechem raped (or seduced) Jacob’s daughter Dinah, but I never said otherwise. (This translation says he “violated” her, others that he “lay with” her; whether it was rape or seduction is essentially unimportant [to all but Dinah] since the point is he took her virginity in an area of the world where being a virgin bride was and is of such importance that deflowered women had/have no value, monetarily or morally, as wives. That it was a seduction rather than a rape would be implied by the later admission that he is in love with the girl and by his father’s formal offer to pay any price that is asked even though she is no longer a virgin.) A contract is entered into by the fathers of the bride and groom. This is not a simple engagement as we know it but a legally binding contract for marriage that unites the nomadic tribe of Jacob with the townspeople of Hamor’s village. The men of the village agree to be circumcised (an INCREDIBLE concession- even with today’s surgical cleanliness that’s a very painful operation for a grown man to undergo, trust me) and while they are still doubled over in pain **DINAH’S BROTHERS, SIMEON AND LEVI, WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR FATHER** slaughter every man in the village. They then return with their other brothers to loot the village. Jacob, who you claim was part of the planning and execution of this, is in fact furious with his sons: > [@Genesis 34:30](#): > > Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought trouble on me by making me a stench to the Canaanites and Perizzites, the people living in this land. We are few in number, and if they join forces against me and attack me, I and my household will be destroyed.” This is because the sons have violated their father’s personal honor by refusing to allow the marriage that he had **AGREED** and which the men of Shechem’s village had not only agreed to but undergone a very painful process as part of their bride-price. So, I’ve established that the union between Shechem and Dinah ends when her brothers kill all the men in his village. Perhaps my use of the word “honeymoon” is inappropriate, but I hardly think it would be “dishonest” either. You meanwhile have stated that Jacob orchestrated the attack/murder/looting of the village to avenge his daughter when in fact he agreed to the match and was outraged by the action. This makes you the dishonest one, hon. More to follow. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/40 "2004-03-01T22:33:42Z")
> [@Twin](#): > > There is no such thing as a holy same-sex union. Marriage is between a man and a woman. See Genesis 2:24 This is in reference to a typo of mine (it should have read “holy **OPPOSITE** -sex unions”) that completely altered the meaning of my sentence. As evidence that it was a typo, all of the unions referred to after I mentioned it were opposite sex unions. I understand your confusion and I sincerely apologize for not proofreading better. (I have no problem admitting that there are no same-sex marriage like unions in the Bible or even that the Bible condemns homosexuality.) > [@Twin](#): > > 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). Adam (aka God, by your definition) seemed to disagree with you: > [@Genesis 3](#): > > 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? > 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. > 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. > ………… > 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Adam clearly believes that he wouldn’t have strayed had he not been “married”. God seems to agree. As I’m sure Adam reminded Eve many many times in the 900 years to come, things were paradise when he was single. An aside: as part of their Punishment Package, God tells Eve: > [@](#): > > I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Based on these verses, should a woman still be submissive to her husband? Do you think it is sinful for a woman to take painkillers when she gives birth? (There was a MAJOR debate over this in the 19th century, one that quieted down significantly in England when the often pregnant Queen Victoria basically said “Screw fundamentalism, knock me the hell out” with her fifth child.) > [@Twin](#): > > I am not sure that half-sister marriage was not permitted back then Obviously it was permissible; I hardly think God would have chosen as the parents of the chosen people who were living in Sin. However, by making this comment, you’re admitting my point: even the Bible and even God himself are inconsistent (or at least mutable) on what does and doesn’t qualify for a valid marriage. We’re right back to Euthyphro: does God permit it because it’s right or is it right because God permits it? And if it’s the latter (which it would seem to be), how can we know that tomorrow God might not decide that we should ONLY marry our near relatives or ONLY wear clothing that is orange and made of nylon? > [@](#): > > There was a seven-year separation of work between Leah and Rachel. **WRONG. ENNNNXXXX… THANKS FOR PLAYING.** He had to **serve** Laban seven more years for Rachel, but he married her the same week that he married Leah. > [@Genesis 29](#): > > 20 And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her. > 21 And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her. > 22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast. > 23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her. > 24 And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid. > 25 And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me? > 26 And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn. > 27 Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years. > 28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also. > 29 And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid. > [@Twin](#): > > Also, you need to understand why this was done. Please don’t condescend; it’s very rude. Besides, it seems to me you’re the one whose reading comprehension is lacking. > [@Twin](#): > > Not the first time. See Genesis 2:24 > [@Genesis 2:24 (again)](#): > > **nd 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. > 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh… Again, that is **NOT** God speaking; it is a quote from Adam followed by a quote from the author of Genesis (traditionally Moses, though it’s doubtful; whoever wrote it was even by Fundamentalist standards writing many many centuries after the events and after the Flood, so it’s odd to imagine that exact words traveled that far down the road anyhow. To be continued (though, I’m sure, pointlessly) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504.md?page=3)