06 Nov 09
Originally posted by telerionVery interesting was the case involving David and Bathsheba. Was David ever taken to task for having multiple wives - or even for adding to his already large number? No - it was because of the specific way he went about snagging Bathsheba. The underlying sense is that having huge numbers of wives was in of itself perfectly acceptable (at least if you were a king).
One of the benefits of being brought up a fundy Christian: I know my Bible (or Tanakh if you will).
1 kings 11:3
Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
2 Samuel 5:13 and 1 Chronicles 3:9
David had concubines.
QED
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by generalissimoYou said you wanted to go back to the "original definition" of marriage. Do you wish to go even further back in time? Or is there a particular time period that you consider to be "ideal", and we can use that time's definition?
who said I wanted things to be like they were in the old testament?
06 Nov 09
Originally posted by Sartor Resartussame-but-equal is discrimination.
Why call it 'marriage' when referring to a life-time oath of fidelity between persons of the same sex,thus attempting to chenge both the generally accepeted connotation and denotation of that word?
Why not just give it another name but give it a similar status in law so far as physiological differences allow?
for one thing, when does it really equal "equal"?
for another, the status of a marriage is a benefit.
06 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSuppose Kuti's fans started a church in the US that recognized Kuti's rotation system as a perfectly valid approach to marriage. Why (under the First Ammendment's position on religion) should the US government be allowed to discriminate against that church's definition of marriage?
You're free to get 300 concubines...
Nigerean musician Fela Kuti had 27 wives, but Nigerean law only permitted 12 wives. He therefore adopted a rotation system for his wives.
Later, he died of AIDS.