Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Well, OK, but that hundred shekels sounds a bit steep.


And given that the Canadian wankersphere is getting all moist over the idea of the "Defense of Religions Act" yet again, it behooves us here at CC HQ to explain the etymology of the word "behooves." Um, no, wait ... wrong column.

Actually, since aforementioned wankers seem adamant that they would like to define "marriage" exclusively in the spiritual, Godly, Scriptural sense, it behooves us to point out just what sort of bad craziness that would get us into, Scripturally speaking.

Said wankers would love to convince us that the proper, Godly version of marriage is, naturally, between one man and one woman (you know, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, that sort of thing). They would, of course, be wrong (II Samuel 3, if I may be so bold):

1 The war between the house of Saul and the house of David lasted a long time. David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker.

2 Sons were born to David in Hebron: His firstborn was Amnon the son of Ahinoam of Jezreel;

3 his second, Kileab the son of Abigail the widow of Nabal of Carmel; the third, Absalom the son of Maacah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur;

4 the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital;

5 and the sixth, Ithream the son of David's wife Eglah. These were born to David in Hebron.

Well, now ... that's quite the stable of fillies David has there, isn't it? So, logically, the right to polygamy should be a no-brainer. Apparently, those Mormons were right after all. Go figure.

And there's this beaut (Deuteronomy 22):

13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [b] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Ooooooooh ... that's gonna put a serious crimp in pre-marital fun and games, isn't it? But far be it from me to argue with Scripture. And, not surprisingly, the Biblical marital awkwardness doesn't stop there, does it? Which inspires the following thought.

If and when the DoRA is brought up in Parliament, I think it would be only fitting that some member of the Opposition introduce a similar bill. It could properly be called the "Defense of Biblical Marriage Act," and it would seek to codify into Canadian law everything from both the Old and New Testaments related to marriage -- polygamy, a ban on divorce, stoning of non-virgins ... that sort of high comedy.

Said bill would, of course, have absolutely no chance of passing, but it would be tremendously entertaining to watch Canada's Biblically-inspired idiots have to publicly denounce the very concept of Biblical marriage. The amusement value alone would make the whole exercise worth it, wouldn't you say?

HOIST. PETARD. YOU KNOW THE REST. Commenter Mike writes:

Well, the religious nuts ought to be here any minute to explain that they ignore all that stuff in the Old Testament and only follow the New Testament proclamations on marriage.

Except that that strategy would still have a couple of problems. In the first place, Jesus himself was seriously down on the whole idea of divorce:

Mark 10: 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

so hiding behind the New Testament is still going to be a mite awkward, divorce-wise.

The bigger problem, though, is that every single Scriptural condemnation of homosexuality is found exclusively in (you guessed it) the Old Testament -- Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, which forces the idiotically devout into a thoroughly inconsistent and selective application of Scripture.

Not that that's ever stopped them before.

6 comments:

Mike said...

Well, the religious nuts ought to be here any minute to explain that they ignore all that stuff in the Old Testament and only follow the New Testament proclamations on marriage.

Now what were they again?

I wonder how the "Yeah but that's different" brigade will handle this?

Anonymous said...

I'd be cautious about that 'joke legislation' proposal - knowing the current lot in the CPoC, they might just pass the bill...

Mattt said...

CC, I believe you're incorrect about every condemnation of homosexuality being in the Old Testament. I'm fairly certain that Romans addresses the subject as well (I'd look it up, but I'm at work). It's important to remember that the New Testament includes many books beyond the Gospels.

CC said...

mattt writes:

"CC, I believe you're incorrect about every condemnation of homosexuality being in the Old Testament. I'm fairly certain that Romans addresses the subject as well ..."

OK, I worded that badly. While there may be such condemnations in the NT, I don't believe any of them were uttered by Jesus himself.

So my earlier claim of "Jesus never said a word about homosexuality" still stands unless someone wants to provide a counter-example.

Ti-Guy said...

Yeah, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. The closest I've ever seen is an interpretation of Matthew 5:22 that suggests Jesus condemned homophobia (or maybe just simple name-calling) but frankly, I find the Bible too wearying to pay close attention to. Besides, that's why God created Christopaths; if anything, they're a handy reference for Biblical crap-ola...er...minutiae.

Adam said...

The thing is, I'm pretty sure that the "family values" crowd would like to outlaw divorce, along with same-sex marriage, abortion, sex education, birth control, etc. Sodomy, masturbation and fellatio too, if possible....