Biblical Marriage Definition?

I do not know from which Bible all knowing preachers preach from, but here is an interesting little tidbit I found that should shock the shit out of some people.


Given the controversy regarding gay marriage and the calls to retain the biblical definition of marriage, would you support the following:

A. 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)

B. 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 Chron 11:21)

C. 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)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. 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)

F. 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)

G. 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)

Marriage, as defined by the Bible

From the Penn State Colegian:

When a homosexual or atheist makes an attack on Christianity or any other
religion, the response is they are 'progressive.' I will listen to any
homosexual's argument that they put forward, but I don't have to support this. I
tolerate their views, even if I don't agree.
Contrarily, Christians are put down by these groups with no rhyme or reason intact. That is intolerance in the true sense of the word.

I do not support gay marriage and here is why: Marriage is not a
'civil' thing, it is something that is given to a man and a woman from a church,
because marriage is defined in the Bible. Therefore it supersedes what your view
of marriage may be.

Without a church, as far as I'm concerned, it is a civil union. I have
no problem with gays getting civil unions and having the same rights as a
married couple in the eyes of the state.
I do have a problem with a religious word being applied to people who are not following the word of God as Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all clear on their definition of marriage as the unison between a man and woman.

It really concerns me that the Christian right has done such a good job as presenting themselves as the only viable form of Christianity, and that others seem to believe them. This guy is talking about "atheists and homosexuals" attacking Christianity, which raises a few questions. First of all, what constitutes an attack on Christianity? Attacking the politics of the Christian right and attacking belief in Jesus Christ are very different things. One attacks bullshit intolerance, which is fine, and the other attacks personal belief, which is not. Another question raised by this idea is why can't homosexuality and Christianity coincide? I know LiturgyGeek, who'll be marrying gays any second now, is pretty confident that a person can be both gay and Christian. Why does the Christian right get to define for everyone what Christianity is? You know, people really amaze me sometimes...

Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that this letter to the editor talks about marriage as a purely religious institution (which it most certainly is not), and presents his definition of religious marriage as the only option (which it most certainly is not). Since his definition of religious marriage is so firmly rooted in scriptural precedence, I thought we'd take a look at how the Bible defines marriage.

Genesis 4:19 says:

Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah.

Genesis 28:6-9 says:

Now Esau learned that Isaac had blessed Jacob and had sent him to Paddan Aram to take a wife from there, and that when he blessed him he commanded him, "Do not marry a Canaanite woman," and that Jacob had obeyed his father and mother and had gone to Paddan Aram. Esau then realized how displeasing the Canaanite
women were to his father Isaac; so he went to Ishmael and married Mahalath,
the sister of Nebaioth and daughter of Ishmael son of Abraham, in addition to
the wives he already had.

Genesis 29:16-30 says:

Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. Leah had weak eyes, but Rachel was lovely in form, and beautiful. Jacob was in love with Rachel and said, "I'll work for you seven years in return for your younger daughter Rachel."
Laban said, "It's better that I give her to you than to some other man. Stay here with me." So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her.
Then Jacob said to Laban, "Give me my wife. My time is completed, and I want to lie with her."
So Laban brought together all the people of the place and gave a feast. But when evening came, he took his daughter Leah and gave her to Jacob, and Jacob lay with her. And Laban gave his servant girl Zilpah to his daughter as her maidservant.
When morning came, there was Leah! So Jacob said to Laban, "What is this you
have done to me? I served you for Rachel, didn't I? Why have you deceived me?"
Laban replied, "It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one. Finish this daughter's bridal week; then we will give you the younger one also, in return for another seven years of work."
And Jacob did so. He finished the week with Leah, and then Laban gave him his daughter Rachel to be his wife. Laban gave his servant girl Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her maidservant.
Jacob lay with Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah. And he worked for Laban another seven years.

Exodus 6:20 says:

Amram married his father's sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses. Amram lived 137 years.

Exodus 22:16 says:

If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her,
he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.

Deuteronomy 22:13-20 says:

If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 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," then the girl's father
and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the
gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage
to this man, but he dislikes her. 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, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a
hundred shekels of silver 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.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be
found, 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.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 says:

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds
something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives
it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she
becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and
writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his
house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed
to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the
eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you
as an inheritance.

Joshua 15:16 says:

And Caleb said, "I will give my daughter Acsah in marriage to the man who
attacks and captures Kiriath Sepher."

So, according to the Bible: polygamy is cool, selling your daughters into marriage is cool, marrying your aunt is cool, women who have been raped get the awesome prize of marrying their rapists, women who get married and can't prove their virginity get to be stoned to death, men can't marry again after divorcing their wives unless their wives successfully re-marry, and offering your daughter in marriage as a prize for murder is totally kosh.
So, the question becomes, how much of this Biblical definition of marriage is acceptable by the standards of modern Christianity? Many on the right argue that allowing gay marriage is just a hop, skip and a jump away from allowing polygamy, so clearly they're not down with that. Incest is not so hot in anybody's eyes, and I also find it unlikely that the majority of Christian fathers would want their daughters marrying men who raped them. Christians also don't stone people to death (mostly), even if they weren't virgins when they married. That rule about men not marrying again unless their ex-wives find a new husband and stick with him is just ridiculous, and I doubt anyone who has been divorced - whether Christian or not - ever even thinks about following it. It's also been a while since I've heard about anyone offering their daughter's hand in marriage as a prize for anything, let alone murder. Even fundamentalist Christians do not subscribe to these ancient, irrelevant marriage laws. Women now are free to choose who they marry; and the virginity thing is the exception, not the rule. Almost nobody is killed for fucking that one up (in the west, anyway).

What this means, of course, is that Christians have been re-defining marriage for a long time now. What, then, is so fucking hard about extending that re-definition to include homosexuality, which is barely mentioned in the Bible (but for some reason, is vilified by the right as the worst sin ever)? Once again, my friends, we have a big steaming pile of hypocrisy coming from the Christian right. Fuck that shit. WTFWJD?