All Hail the Bible! Down With Garriage!

So... apparently there's an election-thingy coming up here in North Carolina, with this really controversial bit called "The Defense of Marriage Act" that seeks to make garriage (that's a word I just coined for gay marriage) not only illegal - which it already is in this state - but also un-constitutional.

Local evangelicals are coming out in force, and even the venerable (read: seriously old) Reverend Billy Graham is urging people to go out and vote for the thing, on account of he wants them to defend a "Biblical View of Marriage." This is strange, because his Billyness doesn't usually get involved in politics. Neither do I.

Nonetheless, given that rant I wrote back in January about gay rights; and given a presumptuous desire to promote my own interpretation of "Biblical Marriage," I'm gonna speak my piece:

While Jesus did not say anything directly about homosexuals getting married (or homosexuality, for that matter), he did say something directly about divorce. In Matthew 19, Jesus said divorce was a no-no, and although it may be argued that he was using this as a rhetorical device to show how flawed our human relationships all are (although I, being super-spiritual, tend towards a more literal reading of the passage), if we're going to read the Bible as providing direct guidelines for the American legislative process, then it seems clear to me that we need to be taking this fight in a different direction. It's divorce that ought to be illegal and unconstitutional.

I propose, therefore, that we pass a law in North Carolina defining marriage as an indissoluble contract. It could say something like, "When you folks done get hitched, it's gone be til death do y'all part." 

Jesus also said that people who divorce commit adultery; and since the Bible elsewhere calls for us to stone people who commit adultery, I propose that as punishment, all currently-divorced people be forced to smoke marijuana, yea verily until they are dead ('cause that stuff's lethal, don'tcha know!).

If we're going to construct a Biblical nation here, my friends, we might as well start being logically consistent about it.


  1. I also propose that all divorced people be forced to smoke marijuana
    That's some good logic!
    Also: Secular law based on Old Testament laws, exists. It's called Sharia Law.

  2. Josh, saying that Jesus did saying anything about gay marriage or even homosexuality is for all practical purposes meaningless. It is at best an argument from silence. Which is no argument at all. Pointing out that Jesus did however say something about divorce is simply a diversion. At worse this line of reasoning, in order for it to have any weight at all must be based on assumptions that undermine tradition understandings and implications of the unity of the Trinity, as well as John's identifying the Christ with Logos.

  3. @Mr. P & Murfyn:

    If I say to you, "Why did the chicken cross the road?" and you rebut that the chicken did not cross the road because you know for a fact that all the chicken farmers in this town keep their hen-houses locked tight (and so on), then I think it would be safe to say that you've missed the point.

    Which is to say; the moment someone comes along and accuses me of making a cogent, well-articulated argument for some propositional capital "T" Theological Truth is the moment I begin to nervously look around for a banana-cream pie to shove in my own face to diffuse the tension.

    Jokes are funny because there's truth in them, but jokes do not exist to make rational arguments. My blog's never been about Systematic Theology, it's been a way for me to creatively explore the problem of how to better love myself, others, the universe and (although I hesitate to even mention it) God. If I have to "undermine tradition[al] understandings and implications of the unity of the Trinity" to do it... well, then so be it.

    I haven't been fond of tradition since that Tevye guy kept bellowing about it and making his daughter's lives miserable. Don't get me wrong - I love a guy with a serious beard - but seriously?!? Life's far, far too short to base it on tradition (Ask my pet mosquito, Buzz... the dude's got two weeks to live - and he was born yesterday!).

    POST SCRIPT: If you want a more rational argument, I linked to an earlier post on the topic, as well as a rather lengthy, involved youtube video that you should REALLY consider digging into. Peace, y'awl.

  4. I was just talking with someone today about this exact issue. If Christians are to go to the lengths that they do in order to preserve the sanctity of marriage as outlined in the Bible, then they do need to be consistent. There is no logical way to say that we must follow some standards in the Bible, yet completely ignore others. If we are to live quite literally within the confines of Biblical law, then you are right. If homosexuals cannot marry or even have civil unions, then there will be no divorce. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    It is completely baffling to me the way that people are able to twist the Bible into the structure that best fits their life and agendas.

  5. What I've noticed a lot as an art teacher, Nona, is that people see what they expect to see, based on their preconceptions of the Universe.

    So some folks'll read a verse describing the Bible as a double-edged sword and they'll think, "Cool! A sword is a weapon! I can cut people with it!" And as long as they, deep down, want to cut somebody, they'll always completely ignore things like "context" and "metaphor."

  6. Well it is good to know that you not trying to make an argument or say something meaningful. My bad.

  7. Funny too how it is always those we disagree with that "twist" the scriptures to make them say what we want them to say. You know, to fit our preconceived ideas of the universe and all. Or is that something only those we disagree with have, preconceived ideas of the universe?

  8. My apologies, Mr. P, for my snarky comment-tone. It's how I react to conflict. Tryin' to quit.

    Still, I think you continue to misunderstand me if you think I'm not trying to say something meaningful. I am. I'm just not trying to make a propositional argument, here, because to do that takes more time (and isn't as funny). I HAVE taken that time in the post I linked about my January gay-rights rant. As to the Biblical arguments regarding homosexuality, I believe that the gentleman in the youtube video I linked did that much better than I could.

    ALL I'm saying is: don't judge an apple by the same criterion as an orange. This post was intended to be a light-hearted poke. It's like going on Stephen Colbert's show and trying to have an argument about the finer points of eschatology... not gonna happen.

    Post Script: I am absolutely and completely full of preconceptions, ESPECIALLY when it comes to things pertaining to my religious upbringing. The ONE leg-up I have, I think, is that I am trying VERY HARD to reveal those preconceptions as often as possible. The truth will set you freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

  9. Josh, fair enough. For the record, my comments were mainly concerned with the substance of the argument/metaphor/joke presented and the assumptions it seems to imply, and not whether there should or should not be civil unions or gay marriages. Too, I am sympathetic to much of what you and others point out about the use, misuse, abuse of the scriptures and the inconsistency of it all.

  10. Just asking, are you for or against gay marriage, and why or why not?

  11. Ooooh! A question! I love questions, so thanks, Anonymousface(pants). The extremely short answer I would give at gunpoint would be "for," and "because I believe it's a civics question, not a moral one (inasmuch as any question can be a-moral)."

    But I would want to add that I HATE extremely short answers to BIG, complex questions, so it would make me happy to believe that you might follow this here appended link to an insanely long post I wrote explaining myself. Thanks again!:


Post a Comment

Popular Posts