In Defense Of Marriage

In order to truly represent the Will of God as set forth in the Holy Bible it is needful and good to amend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) so that it truly represents the provisions required for this holy union. To properly adhere to the biblical standards for marriage the DOMA should be changed to reflect the following truths:

  • Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
  • Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21)
  • A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)
  • Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
  • Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
  • If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

For the source of this material plus other interesting bible quotes and relating to marriage and sexuality go here.

Related Reading:

The Defense of Marriage ACT: Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, Second Session on S. 1740 July 11, 1996
Fighting for Your Marriage: A Deluxe Revised Edition of the Classic Best-seller for Enhancing Marriage and Preventing Divorce
Doma Natural. Adiestramiento del caballo en libertad, pie a tierra y montado (Caballos / Horses) (Spanish Edition)
Healing Through Humor: Fabulous Jokes From the Happy Hunters
A History of the Women Marines, 1946-1977 - Legislation, Korean War, Pepper Board, Snell Committee, Recruit and Officer Training, Uniforms, Promotions, Marriage, Motherhood, Husbands

Tags: | | | |

19 Responses to “In Defense Of Marriage”

  1. Christy Says:

    Jonolan,

    You always post such drab topics; can you spice things up a little, please?

    😉

    I had to laugh in response.

    In a discussion forum, this exact same topic sprang up this week and its been giving me a headache; there are many who defend polygamous relationships but only polygyny not polyandry. But of course! What are we thinking, us crazy feminists?! We women cant have more than one husband, only the men get to have all the fun. (Fun? Seems like itd be quite the headache, dealing with two or more women ;). Now, if I can have two or more husbands, oo la la!! (But they can only have me.)

    Anyway, I take the stance that a marriage (not a civil union) is defined as between one man and one woman. For those of us who believe God created male and female and designed marriage to be between one man and one woman (think Genesis), when looking at the Scriptural support, it can be easily argued that while there was certainly polygyny (one man married to more than one wife) practiced in Biblical times and thus mentioned and spoken to throughout the Bible, but it only caused headaches and trouble and wasnt what God originally intended but humans tend to do their own thingand so you see men taking more than one wife. God warned many times against it, and those who practiced it were either brought down from positions of power (kings, etc.) or had major trouble/issues in their lives as a result fighting wives, headache, fighting children, etc. The laws applied in the Old Testament to polygamy were not condoning the behavior, but rather, because man was practicing it, was speaking to the practice.

    I havent researched or studied it all that muchbut from what Ive gathered when reading Scriptural texts, is that the command to marry your brothers wife was because in that time and culture, a widow was not taken care of in that society except through her husband or children and had no means to support herself; therefore, the next of kin was supposed to assume responsibility for her and because it was a male-driven society, and because children were so important, if the dead husband did not have any heirs, his brother was supposed to provide heirs to carry on his name. It wasnt ideal but it was meant to make sure that the widow was provided for in a society in which people were failing to take care of pressing needs. (Thank God this is not the case today!)

    The history is fascinating.

    AnywayI shall have to check out the link you provide when I have time.

  2. Christy Says:

    P.S. You forgot the best from that list!

    In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

  3. Christy Says:

    P.S.S. I must at least state that all of these are taken out of context, lest any unsuspecting individual think otherwise. Sorry if Im encroaching upon your humor, Jonolan. 😉

  4. jonolan Says:

    LOL Christy, you’re right in all points you addressed – way to stomp on my satire!

  5. Christy Says:

    Hehe. Whoops. Was that stomping?

    [It wasnt intentional, however; I was simply having a slow day at workI thus enjoyed the satire and then flipped into parsing mode. 😉 ]

  6. jonolan Says:

    Hehe…Yep, nothing stomps satire more than well thought out insightful commentary on the material presented! That’s OK though 😉

    BTW, I didn’t think you had slow days.

  7. Christy Says:

    Whoops. Ill work on providing non-insightful, not thought-out commentary in the future.

    Yep, occasionally I do. They hired an assistant for me, and then work started to lesson; so yes, now, some days are fabulously slow, which I welcome and appreciate, but only because Im working two jobs. =) Otherwise, Id be going nuts on the slow days.

  8. Olivia Martinez Says:

    It’s called the seperation of church and state!!! That’s one of the basic tenets this country was built upon. We all have our religiously based opinions or not, but the law is to be seperate so as to cover all citizens. Not to mention…According to same constitution you are wanting to see amended, it states…”All men are created equal.” Are you to say that gay Americans are less than any other citizen??? How well did that work with the black population…in case you don’t remember that amendment…3/5 a citizen. I’d also like to ask you a question regarding your choices in porn…Do you watch porn that contain 2 women engaged is sexual relations??? Have you ever engaged in a sexual act that also included 2 women? If so, then sir, you are a hippocrite. Being gay is not my cup of tea, but I believe all citizens regardless of race, creed, religion, sexual preference, etc…should ALL have the same rights. Would God have you treat your brothers and sisters without mercy? When you are judged remember it will include how you treated ALL of God’s children. May he have mercy on your soul as you do not have it for all his children.

  9. Olivia Martinez Says:

    As to the rest of your caveman thinking, your same God gave me free will, a brain, and a voice to opine back against your unintelligent thinking. Way back when…with wars, famine, enslavement, etc…women were in abundance and men were not. To take on more than one wife was to protect the group as a whole, so that all members were taken care of. It was more of a welfare state type of action to ensure the groups survival. Two, any man who cannot keep his own virginity for marriage, should not look down upon any female who does the same. Her sexuality is hers and hers alone to give and to whom she deems worthy of it. YOU DO NOT OWN IT!

  10. jonolan Says:

    Olivia,

    You’re one of the most comical commentators I’ve had on this blog. Are you that much of rampant secularist, or that much of a rabid feminista? LOL Try reading the previous comments to yours; they state the post was satire! It’s strange really – I was hoping to goad the DOMA supporters, not its detractors.

    In point of fact I’m polygamous – polygynous to be specific – so yes I have regularly engaged in sexual acts that involved two women. I’d like you to look at another post on this blog – Marriage: A Contract – it contains some of my non satirical views on marriage and/or civil unions.

    So sorry to have “pushed your buttons”; you seem by your rant to be exactly the opposite sort than my intended target.

  11. Sara Says:

    Hey Jonolan! Thanks for the comment and stopping by my blog, I’ve just recently decided to become more frequent with it (I kept another pretty regularly for nearly four years and I’ve been – albeit reluctantly – trying to switch over for several months now, so I definitely appreciate it =) And I agree, only if you’re standing in a mosque!

    Interesting post you have here :p Having never read any of your others, I thought you might be serious at first and had a whole slew of comments about Jesus abolishing the law and all that – but I realized pretty quickly it was satire and I laughed a lot. Headed off to read more now!

  12. jonolan Says:

    Thanks, Sara. Sadly at least one woman took it seriously! She wrote a well crafted bit of vitriol in response though. I may actually want to reference it in some of my other postings.

  13. Christy Says:

    Oliva, your response made me crack up.

  14. Pat Says:

    Jonolon;

    Absolutely hilarious! Thanks for the smile!

    Speaking of one man – many wives, I worked in Southern Sudan where this is as one writer indicated a necessity. I asked the women of one “clan” about this and they were VERY happy with the arrangement. Of course the survival of their children and their own is at stake, this they admitted. The fun began when they “not so sheepishly” said that the men always wanted sex and they’d rather trade him around. When asked why, they were very upfront and indicated it was a question of lubrication! Remember that this tribe lives in an EXTREMELY hot environment and they are all, by nature, somewhat dehydrated!

    Just thought I’d throw that in for fun! – Cheers

  15. jonolan Says:

    Pat, thanks for stopping by. I’m glad you got a smile out of it.

  16. Abdul Kargbo Says:

    Jonolan,

    This post is one of the cleverest things I’ve seen in a while.

    Can I link to it on my blog?

  17. Nabiha Meher Shaikh Says:

    This is quite insightful and very funny! Surprisingly similar to the Islamic point of view on marriage.

  18. jonolan Says:

    Abdul, certainly and thanks for stopping by.

    Nabiha, Yeah I thought it was hilarious. It’s really not that surprising that it’s similar to the Islamic view of marriage; most of the Bible verses quoted were Old Testament and there’s a lot similarities between it and the Qur’an.

    It’s really just satire though. I was poking fun at the people who passed the Defense Of Marriage Act in the US.

  19. Biblical Marriage | Mizozo Says:

    […] the past I’ve made some sarcastic posts about DOMA and traditional aka biblical marriage. To continue in that vein here’s an […]

Leave a Reply