Start A Petition

The Top 8 Ways To Be 'Traditionally Married' According To The Bible

Society & Culture  (tags: marriage, traditionalmarriage, bible, slaves, concubines, slavery, women, virginbrides, stoning, abrahamicreligions )

- 1901 days ago -
I don't think "traditional marriage" means what you think it means.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Barbara Tomlinson (431)
Monday April 1, 2013, 3:11 pm
Actually, that illustration isn't Hebrew writing - it's Tamil -
never mind - it's Ancient Writing - probably a similar mindset of Ancestral thought!

Barbara Tomlinson (431)
Monday April 1, 2013, 3:14 pm
Love those little figures in the pictures!

Iona Kentwell (129)
Monday April 1, 2013, 7:50 pm
I am not married according to the bible, I am married according to my country's laws and according to my own agreement with my husband. Each of the types mentioned in this article involve the woman submitting to or being owned by the man. Certainly there are many out there whose views match this and so use the bible to justify their attitudes and actions, but to use the bible to justify a rape victim's enforced marriage and submission to her rapist is disgraceful, there is no justification.

Barbara Tomlinson (431)
Monday April 1, 2013, 7:59 pm
*I* *AGREEEE* !!!!!!!!!!!

This is what the Bible SAYS.
I actually looked up several of the Biblical Quotations cited in the pictures, chapter and verse.
Yup, they are THERE!
The person who drew this up, certainly did their homework....

We can't let the Biblical Apologists CHERRY-PICK only CERTAIN parts of the Bible, if the Bible is God's Authority, it has to be ALL - OR - NOTHING!!!
Sure would've BEEN AWFUL BEING A WOMAN in those Biblical "Traditional Marriage" Times....

John B (185)
Monday April 1, 2013, 9:19 pm
Thanks BMutiny for the wonderfully informative post. Read and noted.

JL A (281)
Monday April 1, 2013, 9:38 pm
Biblical historians indicate that even in Levitican Law, the sexual prohibitions were against demeaning, disrespectful, violent and/or unloving sex...and then came Hamarabi Law which replaced Levitican Law which in turn in the New Testament Jesus is quoted as having replaced with the commandments he gave....

The Croods M. (0)
Monday April 1, 2013, 10:37 pm

this is good one

Summerannie M (48)
Monday April 1, 2013, 11:26 pm
Wow...................... thanks!

David C (29)
Tuesday April 2, 2013, 2:59 am
People getting married in a Church in the UK is in fact is less that 200 years old, before then most people would tell the world that they was man and wife and started living together. This was down to the high cost of a Church wedding and most poor people could not pay it and one last little fact, in the UK the wife name last name does not change to her husband name, by law if she does takes her husband name, she in law is "Know as Mrs...".

Angelika R (143)
Tuesday April 2, 2013, 9:57 am
This is exremely educational and will have many stunned, perhaps in disbelief.
Anyone still wondering at today's bigoted right-wing stand on women after seeing this?
Thx BMutiny for an amazing post!

pam w (139)
Tuesday April 2, 2013, 7:06 pm
And fundamental Christians have the BRASS BALLS to claim same-sex marriage is wrong because it violates biblical laws?

Excuse me while I spit nickels!

Sheryl G (360)
Tuesday April 2, 2013, 10:12 pm
Ah, no thank you.

Joseph Miller (23)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 4:34 am
Nice thanks

Lindsay K (6)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 4:41 am
These examples are all from the Old Testament (or Hebrew Scriptures), and even during the time span covered by the Bible the concept of marriage evolved. Perhaps we should bear that in mind in dealing with situations today!

Frans Badenhorst (582)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 7:13 am
amazing post, thanks - appreciate this............this will surely cause a BIG debate...:)......

Dale B (24)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 12:40 pm
For a very funny video regarding traditional marriage check out and look under videos. The video on abortion is a must see also.

Fred Krohn (34)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 1:02 pm
Yet another problem introduced as historical distortion into 'Biblical Law' by defective edittors and translators. Further proof that NO religion is fit to be a government!

l L (1)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 1:24 pm
thankful for divorce..

Marriage is easy to get into and hard to get out of unless you are a man.
Love is not understood and along with the joys come sorrows, as well when one is locked into a relationship when it has soured. we argue and fight for something that is not perfect, safe or sound. Do we once think about what really are we fighting for? Is it something we really want/
Is it all that glamourous as we think?
And now; the religious right want to lock us in this whether it is safe or not.

Yest marriage is and was many things in times seasons and cultures. Just like posted.

And Angelika; women are the ones at the bottom of the totem poll and Jesus has his own idea about women to others...
Nevertheless; I hope all will weigh what is it you think you are getting or winning?
Who can be worthy of being judge or jury when it goes sour?

The conversations are good to be civilly had..... and hashed out.. so later .. you have already had the questions answered.
Fred Krohn;; sound points. and there are things we can agree to live by..

Lois Jordan (63)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 2:22 pm
Noted. Thanks. I had no idea....having never read the bible. Besides, whoever said the bible was the basis and foundation of US laws?....that is something that comes totally out of thin air.

Dotti L (85)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 2:44 pm
Great article, Barbara. Thank you.

James E (16)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 6:46 pm
I have always wondered exactly which form of "Biblical marriage" the anti-same-sex marriage crowd are referring to. I have always assumed that their factual knowledge of the history of marriage is extremely limited, and even non-existent; they prove it every day.

Tom Edgar (56)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 7:10 pm
When I married a Catholic girl (She became an enlightened Quaker later). I said I would marry in her Church providing the Priest gave me a Civil ceremony. Compromise was the Registry office where my bride took the oath, and I put the office in turmoil whilst they searched for the Affirmation papers for which I had asked. I always found it amusing that the chief Registrar Timothy Del La Salle Scott was also the leading Lay Catholic Preacher of Brisbane.
That Quaker/Atheist alliance lasted 46 years with never an argument, and I'll not claim that was down to me.
Eileen was a Quaker by choice, and temperament. The only religious mob for whom I have total respect.

That Judeo/Christian idiots insist that you can only be married according their particular traditions is ludicrous with most of the world's population not being Christians. Then you have the Morons who even try to convert the dead of other faiths to Mormonism, how that effects their previous marital status I know not. and I didn't misspell the first Mormon designation. As a previous enlightened contributor pointed out. The marriage ceremony for the great unwashed is a relatively new occurrence. Gypsies jumped the broom stick, many settlers in the wilds of the U S A and other countries were often married when a Priest turned up, sometimes baptising the many children that had arrived before he did. The only thing that a certificate of marriage does is legalises the situation for inheritance convenience. and that is what "Gay" marriage is really all about. Legalising a situation that pre exists, just as the delayed marriages of the settlers of days gone by, for a happy "Marriage" the certificate is neither needed nor required, it just simplifies, legally, the situation. and for some it is also emotionally satisfying.
For me, 16 years after the death of my only lover, that negation, by death, of the wedding certificate hasn't terminated my marriage.

Marie W (67)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 9:41 pm
Enlightened- NOT!

Barbara Tomlinson (431)
Wednesday April 3, 2013, 10:36 pm
I just finished reading a FASCINATING Fiction book I got from the Library - Title of this Novel, is "One Hundred Philistine Foreskins", by Tova Reich.
Well, with that TITLE, I just HAD to take a look at the book!
Turns out, it is ALL ABOUT "Biblical Traditional Marriage" - as practiced NOW, in Brooklyn, NY, and in modern Israel.
It is both funny and very sad, both. Non-realistic, but true-to-life anyway! SATIRICAL.
The 100 Philistine Foreskins, refers to, in the Bible, David giving that as the bride-price for his wife Abigail {actually he gave 200 foreskins.} As the book points out, doesn't say whether from living or dead Philistines.
The cover is a painting by - Leonard Nemoy! and the photo of the author - looks like me! {Not like my avatar.}
It is about women's position among the ultra-orthodox Jews - and I come, by a few removes, from such a family, my great-great grandfather was a Rabbi from one of those sects.
I recommend the book. Don't need to repeat the title - it's unforgettable! ;-P

Arwen Woods (207)
Thursday April 4, 2013, 3:25 pm
Excellent article. Thank you!

Winnie Adams (179)
Friday April 5, 2013, 12:43 pm
Great article!

David C (129)
Friday April 5, 2013, 5:23 pm
very good, but unfortunately in many of these cases the GOP would actually agree......all the stuff about interfaith, submission, etc.....

Eternal G (745)
Friday April 5, 2013, 9:04 pm
The bible, for men , by men?.... that's why it's losing so much ground... hahahaha... let's make progress on evolution!

Teresa W (782)
Saturday April 6, 2013, 9:36 am
This is shocking. However, what surprises me is that a man was supposed to marry his brother's widow. I thought marrying one's brother's widow was regarded by the Bible as incest, that's why King Henry VIII decided to divorce Catherine of Aragon, whom he'd married as his brother's widow.

Barbara Tomlinson (431)
Saturday April 6, 2013, 10:11 am
Teresa: The Ancient Hebrews, who WROTE the Old Testament, practiced "Levirate" Marriage - marriage of a widow into the brother-in-law's family, ensured the "continuation of the brother's line" - by substitution! Since these were polygamous marriages anyway, it simply meant that the widow was not left destitute, but that her erstwhile brother-in-law, now her husband, was responsible for taking care of her [and her children]. No Social Security in those days! so it was a system that worked.
SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS LATER, that custom was OBSOLETE - and had never been practiced in England, or in Europe, anyway! And most Europeans, Catholics, in the 1500's had NEVER READ THE BIBLE, but let priests interpret it for them.
When Henry VIII married his brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon, it was like his brother's marriage, a POLITICAL alliance of England with Spain. The whole question at that time, revolved around whether Henry's brother Arthur had actually ever had sex with his bride. [He was in his early teens at the time.] Arthur was of course dead and couldn't be questioned. They HAD spent time alone together... but for political expediency, it was decided they HADN'T had actual sex, Catherine of Aragon was a Virgin, and could marry Henry. {They were too polite to ask Catherine!} Later on, when Catherine couldn't conceive any live Male children, Henry decided that maybe the WRONG decision had been made..... and that God was PUNISHING HIM for committing incest with his brother's widow... Henry REALLY WAS OBSESSED with needing a Male Heir...

Point is, even 500 years ago, "Traditional" Marriage HAD GONE THRU LOTS OF CHANGES.... Henry wasn't allowed to be POLYGAMOUS, for example - which would've SOLVED his problem without divorce! Just take a second, younger bride! In the Old Testament times, Henry could've done that...

Charlene Rush (79)
Saturday April 6, 2013, 3:38 pm
AND, we should follow the rules of the bible because.............?

Craig Pittman (52)
Saturday April 6, 2013, 7:20 pm
Very interesting indeed. Thanks BMutiny. Myself, I am a non-traditionalist.

Sergio Padilla (65)
Wednesday April 17, 2013, 9:45 am

Eric Straatsma (3802)
Sunday May 5, 2013, 10:47 am
good one.. Who would be left, if everyone violating the 'traditions' were stoned to death, as is required by the Old Testament?
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Society & Culture

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.