Hah. I love when they come at you with the "traditional marriage" bullshit. And then they get their panties all in a bunch when you explain to them that that basically means that a woman is sold by her father (who owns her) to a potential husband (who then owns her after that), that the woman has no say whatsoever in the matter (which means that it's essentially paying for the ability to rape her), and that the only two things that give a woman any worth at all are either virginity or the ability to bear children. Boy do they hate hearing that xD Even better, when you then proceed to tell them that women were considered fit to be married back then at an age that nowadays would still be considered much too young - which basically makes the whole lot of 'em pedophiles and child rapists in our modern sense (and hey, let's not forget that the virginity had to be checked by the involved parties before marriage, right?), they like that even less. And when you brought up this particular passage you show here, they always try to rationalize it, always talk about how it's a punishment for the rapist and ensures that the victim has someone who will take care of her (she's worthless to her father now after all). When you then tell them that this is not much different than stealing a loaf of bread and taking a hunk out of it before being caught, then being forced to pay the bread because a bread with a big chunk missing can't be sold any more, after all. That's what this passage is about. Damaged goods. You steal it, you buy it.
I find it highly amusing that they don't even consider what this implies ... let's say this "law" was still in effect today. Let's say there's that girl I want, but her father doesn't want me to have her and she doesn't want me as well. So, I just go ahead, rape her, pay her dad and marry her and I get to rape her as much as I want, all day every day. How fucked up is that??
One of the countless reasons not to be religious. Their holy book is a hunk of shit.
As a gay man, I support gay rights obviously, but honestly, I have met a *lot* of gays and lesbians who see no reason or desire for gay marriage. At the end of the day, it is not really about the right to have a union recognized as marriage, it is about the social and legal rights associated with it. The right to inherit pensions and estates and the right to be granted power of attorney being among the biggest rights.
The rules that dictate "marriage" have changed a lot over the centuries and will change again.
Or like in Judges-- Evil ppls: "We wanna rape that man." Good (?) person: "*&%SD#^F$S%D^$#F#DS&F GODDAMN IMMORAL! ...rape my women." Evil ppls: "Lol ok." Next morning: *woman collapses on doorstep* Other good (?) person: "Get up, l0sr. ... ...she's dead. Lol whatevs. Time 2 go!!!" o________o
Laws do not come out of thin air. Like paying a blood-price, it is paying off the girl's family so they wouldn't kill the rapist, because if they killed him his family and friends would go about killing the girl's family, and it could go o for quite a while. So it was sensible for the time at which it was edicted. The barbarians are those who refer to a text written for a barbarous age and reason from it for today. ( btw, does somebody know what you could buy with 50 silver shekel at the time ? )
You're taking this from the Mosaic laws that don't apply in New Testament life. Here, I shall give a good example of what traditional marriage is as described in the New Testament. Colossians 3:18-19: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting to the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter towards them."; 1 Peter 4:8: "And above all things have ferment love for one another, for "love will cover a multitude of sins."; Romans 12:10 "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another."
Marriage wasn't designed to be barbaric, but in the Old Testament they had no knowledge of the love of Jesus that was yet to come .
Yeah, still not going to submit to my husband. Ever. Fuq. Dat. Sheet.
I am an equal to my husband. Just because I have a cunt instead of a dick doesn't make me lesser than him, or lower than him, or not as deserving as him. He does not own me.
Also, if God told them what to write, and God was all-knowing, then wouldn't God have know to tell them that this shit was not cool? If he's all-knowing and perfect, then why did he change his mind? Just doesn't make sense.
Actually... there are different laws in the Old Testament. Some are ritual or "cleanliness" laws, which were done away with in the New Testament because of Jesus' sacrifice, and marriage was defined by what the first person stated.
However, then there are the "moral" laws, which are stated again in the New Testament. This includes the whole "gay erotic behavior is not okay" dealio.
That's what the anti-gay fundies have been calling themselves.
Wait. . . are you not in America? I sometimes forget that not everyone on the internet is American, and this is mostly a reference to an American current events issue that now that I think about it, the rest of the world really has no reason to care about.