The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has released something called the Nashville Statement. The name of the organization tells you everything you need to know about it. Here’s their first statement:
Yeah, no, no thanks. It’s just another homophobic, ant-transgender group of theocrats who want to deny the right to love and be happy to people who don’t fit their rigid dichotomy.
I was relieved about one thing: I first read it as the Council on Biological Manhood and Womanhood and was briefly horrified. Then, though, I realized that the people who argue for strict gender roles on ‘scientific’ grounds were no different, and Biological and Biblical have become practically the same thing to dogmatists, and I was horrified again.
At least the good people of Nashville are protesting the appropriation of their name for this poisonous document.
A few of those statements would fit right in on TERF forums.
Just one more group of religious troglodytes who believe their diarrhea of the mouth has meaning or relevance to the rest of us.
I’d like to see where their precious Bible backs up their assertions.
@#3 rietpluim – Yeah, me too. It is hardly an original suspicion, but it certainly appears they make stuff up to suit their oh-so-Righteous prejudices. Where those prejudices are actually acquired is a question of sociology/psychology.
Funny how it took Christians something like a thousand years to realise that their bible said anything about marriage at all.
*Cough*
I guess that means the Biblical patriarchs Abraham and Jacob, as well as the kings David and Solomon were not properly married in the eyes of these folks. What do you want to bet they have a nifty workaround for that little hiccup.
I’d like to know how many of the people who signed this document voted for the pussy-grabbing, thrice married, serial adulterer now in the White House?
Sorry in advance to verse quote, but the FFRF’s quiz on the babble has a couple questions regarding ‘family values’ that are germane to the OP:
“And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives. And his concubine that was in Shechem, she also bare him a son, whose name he called Abimelech.” (Judges 8:30-31)
“But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites . . . And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines.” (I Kings 11:1-3)
@ 1 Siobhan
What is TREF?
In general, I’d have to say these characters are up there with the Cornwall Alliance for nuttiness.
I was going to mention Solomon’s family situation but I see others got there first. Anybody know where in the bible monogamy is specified?
I wonder, is Solomon a role model for Mormon males?
I mean, it’s obvious and utter bullshit.
No one will deny that marriage can be a religious ceremony, and for those who are religious it contains religious significance. But no (sensible) person can deny that marriage IS a legal contract between human beings, which give the persons involved in the contract certain legal rights and responsibilities.
I don’t particularly care if any religion says that there can’t be a (religious) wedding between homosexual couples. They can scream it as loudly as they want, provided they aren’t doing so while denying those couples their legal marriage contract.
This is the epitome of a non-statement. It is full of fury and determination, but signifies nothing of merit. That said, as a polyamorous man, I’m tickled that they recognize me! If we can get enough stuffed-shirt bigots protesting against polyamory, maybe we can get poly marriage legalized sometime in the future (though I won’t hold my breath).
Kaintukee Bob
I do. I support the fight of homosexual couples to get married in the churches they are member of. Otherwise, it’s always the conservatives who make the rules.
@jkrideau #10: The acronym is “TERF” and it stands for “Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist.” As observantly defined in the Urban Dictionary: “That group of feminists that claims that trans women aren’t really women, as biological determinism is only a fallacy when it used against them, not when they use it against others.”
I’m confused. Marriage is just like Jesus’s covenantal, sexual, procreative, and lifelong relationship with the Christian church. Jesus fucked the Christian Church before they nailed hm to a tree?
This also confuses me: Marriage is not a mere human contract, it is a human covenant made before God.
I suspect all these people did was string together some feel-goodery in a way that manifests truthiness.
> God has designed marriage to be a covenantal, sexual, procreative, lifelong union of one man and one woman
Notice how they are willing to raise millions and campaign tirelessly to prevent gay people from getting married, but they don’t do much about the other parts of their affirmation. When they start campaigning to make it illegal to divorce, when they try to pass ballots to make premarital sex illegal, then I’ll believe they are sincere in their affirmation.
> God has designed marriage to be a covenantal, sexual, procreative, lifelong union of one man and one woman
I forgot to add this part. My wife can’t bear children, due to a wrestling match with cancer back in her 20s. I guess God was testing her, because, you know, God can be a dick that way. Anyway, does that make my marriage a sham? Does that mean I’m not really married and I have a free pass to marry someone else?
So, no divorce for anyone? That will make lawyers sad. Also, no marriage for the infertile or post-menapausal women? There must be some divine reason they deserve the sexless, loveless, companionless lives God planned for them.
Timberwolf @ 14 The church didn’t nail Jesus, the Jews did. That’s why it’s ok for Christians to hate Jews and follow the gospel of brotherly love. And yes they see the Church as the bride of Christ. They interpret The Song of Solomon as a metaphor for that rather than ancient pornography which couldn’t possibly be in the Babble.
jrkrideau @ #10
I don’t think Mormon’s use Solomon per se but the OT in general which describes many of the major characters as polygamous. Therefore polygamy is OK…for men. Not OK for women. Much like the Bible, and by extension the Koran.
Someone hasn’t read their bible. Polygamy part especially.
ps: Need help. Please pharingulyze this poll: http://fox43.com/2017/08/29/poll-should-kids-who-are-not-up-to-date-on-vaccines-be-able-to-attend-school/
rietpluim @ #3
The Knowing Jesus website lists 32 Bible verses they say are about monogamy. Based on a quick scan most of them seem like a stretch to me, but these four may be valid if the translations are reasonably good representations of original intent:
1 Corinthians 7:2-4
1 Timothy 3:2
1 Timothy 3:12
Titus 1:6
As you would see, these are generally describing the conditions for being a church officer.
The other side of the coin is even more ambiguous: No where does the Bible explicitly condemn or ban polygamy. What’s a good Christian to do? Pull out the apologetics and rationalizations, and start waving your hands.
tigerprawn @ 17: At least some Christian sects have that covered: unmarried infertile and post-menopausal women can take the veil.
So they think trans folk are going to hill?
So we’re having a Clayton’s referendum on marriage equality in Australia. This is the No vote’s first ad.
As you can see their strategy seems to be based on transphobia. It’s disgusting and I hope it loses.
#18
Wasn’t that the Romans?
Jim Thomas@16, I would imagine at least some people would argue your marriage is legitimate because God could give you and your wife a miracle, and allow her to get pregnant. Of course that reasoning fails because God could give two cis women married to each other a miracle, and let them conceive with no semen involved. Or two cis men, despite neither having a uterus.
Holms, #25:
The guy with the hammer may have been Roman. And the one who passed sentence, and the ones who enforced the whole thing… But they were led on shamelessly by the Jews. That’s why the Romans are OK and it’s entirely the fault of the Jews – a doctrine that, strangely enough, came from Rome.
timgueguen , #26:
Doesn’t the bible state that the foetus could gestate in a box? Or maybe I’m getting confused with some other religious source.
Holms @ #28
Like Colin J said, the Romans blamed the Jews…they apparently liked blaming marginalized people…and excused themselves. Actually, it probably didn’t happen at all, certainly not anything like the myth. Plenty of people were killed by the Romans, and sometimes at the behest of various factions in local populations (not just in Judea), but the particulars of this event are almost certainly a complete myth.
@28, I heard it was Obama that put Pilate up to it.
So do they deny the gobernments ability to make legal contracts with regards to marriage? That would mean no one could be legally married.
Obligatory
CaitieCat — That’s right, centuries before he was born and he caused Katrina.
DanDare — My impression is that’s not far from what they think, that is among some people I know. God before state. The marriage is the part with the preacher, family, friends, holy words, bad music. It’s the important part. The legal part is done apart and after the ceremony, almost as if it’s an embarrassment.
I actually quite like article 6. It’s completely inconsistent with almost all the others, but if you strip back the god bothering language, it is quite sensible.
It’s like there’s a decent person, inside the one that wrote the whole thing, struggling to make him/herself heard.
Well pardon me, but if it was the all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God’s plan to have Jesus tortured to death, it makes little sense to blame the Jews for it.
@34 rietpluim
Now you are asking “Jew Haters” to be logically consistent? Isn’t that unfair?