I can understand how some people think that life had an intelligent designer, because life is intricate, delicate, complex and amazing. But I don’t understand how anyone could look at the Bible and think that it had an intelligent designer, because the Bible is a jumbled clusterfuck of atrocious stupidity.
For example, I hear an awful lot about how “God” [the Bible] defines a ‘proper’ marriage, and I have to point out that the Bible doesn’t define marriage the way the Religious Right wants to believe it does.
Today I have the honor of officiating another wedding. This will be the 3rd such ceremony I have performed. All three have been heterosexual couples, one man and one woman. I’m OK with doing gay weddings too. I especially look forward to lesbians kissing at the end. But so far no one has ever asked me to conduct a marriage the way the Bible defines it; between one man and several dozen head of suppressed human cows.
The Bible doesn’t require that the man limit himself only to a bevy of wives -even though they all have to patiently wait their turns with him; the man may also capture under-aged prisoners of war and enslave them for sexual purposes. He may also rape any of the female slaves belonging to any of his wives, though his wives don’t have the right to enjoy their own slaves the same way he can. The wives can’t even play mistress to their male slaves. To prevent this, male slaves might have to have their male-ness rendered inoperable or absent. Some interpretations require surgical procedures for the wives too -just to prevent them from being able to enjoy what only men are allowed to enjoy. Double-standards apply because the wives are just women and therefore not awarded equal rights or status under God’s infinitely infallible and infinitely just misogynistic laws promoting slavery, genital mutilation, and the molestation of minors.
In addition to his dozens of forcibly frustrated monogamous wives and all his assorted sex slaves, the Bible also permits that the man may have any number of concubines; those are essentially sexual pets that the man gets to keep on the side and use how he pleases whenever he wants regardless how any of his many wives feel about that. But concubines are also expendable, because he owes no legal or financial obligation to them -even if they bare his children. They are Commitment-free live-in adulteresses readily available for in-home fornication (whenever the man can find an extra minute or ounce of remaining energy) and these are made legal by an invisible loophole in religious law. Gotta have a few concubines around the house too, right? You can’t have too many submissive yet unsatisfied sexual receptacles, right?
How dare these religious fundamentalist fuckwits pretend to preserve the ‘sanctity’ of marriage “as the Bible defines it”.
16 thoughts on “Mawage”
You mean something like this?
True and I really like the ‘worlds smartest xtian’.
Heck, I’d be happy if these lackwits telling us what the Bible requires would READ the danmed thing first.
I like hearing “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” The biblical marriages were one man and a clone made from his rib, then one man and his sister, then whatever breeding females are around that you can afford. Steves didn’t even exist at that time. But I don’t have a sister, polygamy is illegal and I can’t name a traditional Biblical Character that only had one wife. The Bible states one man and his clone, that’s who I will marry once I have the technology to do so!
Traditional Biblical marriage: a man is entitled to as many women or girls as he can steal, capture, rape, inherit, or buy. (Buying includes a money-back guarantee, if she seems not to be a virgin, in which case the seller is the loser, as she is now damaged goods. That the woman may then be killed for her lapse is irrelevant.)
God hates divorce, so allows it only to the men; women may not divorce their husbands, but the man needs only to tell her to leave, for any reason that seems good to him.
Marriage is a contract involving only the man and father and/or brothers of the girl (only in the case of legal citizens); no government or priests are involved, or even notified. In the case of foreign women, the only requirement is possession. The girl’s consent is not required, in any case.
BUT! But! but! you just don’t understand!! That was the old testament that jesus made redundant and we no longer have to follow those rules. And jesus said marriage is between one man and one woman (beats me as to where it says this) and I believe!! Except for the gays! the OT says stone gays and that is still to be followed as we know that jesus (you know the guy who hang out all the time with 12 other guys) would want it that way!
And I actually had a dimwit xtain say most of that!
Well there’s always Paul… you know… remain pure… we should all do that.
And then Matthew: “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
Cut it off… for Jesus.
I’m sorry for the obnoxious youtube link. Remeber guys; the penis stands between you and oneness with the universe:
Bah… the video was supposed to start at 35:20. Embed fail.
I suspect that most of Solomon’s herd were not fucktoys but the sort of support people necessary to such a large household: cooks, scullions, laundresses, storekeepers, scribes (imagine trying to run an organization of hundreds of people without dedicated record-keepers)… Many of the official wives were probably there to seal deals with powerful families or neighboring kingdoms. It’s still a hoot to hear the Religious Reich go on about “Biblical Marriage.”
I present the most advanced defense of ‘traditional marriage’..
So no more doggie-style for Ofianeymeaney and me? DAMMIT!
Explanation of the Ofianeymeaney name here:
I hope you mean ‘bear’
Unless this is the foundation for Catholicism
I see this a lot on the web, and I’m surprised you made the same mistake: you “bear” children to give birth to them; you “bare” children to undress them for their bath.
But still a damn good read.
Daffyd ap Morgen