About this iReport
  • Not verified by CNN

  • Click to view butteredstuf's profile
    Posted November 8, 2008 by
    Portland, Oregon
    This iReport is part of an assignment:
    Same-sex marriage: Civil right vs. states' rights

    Traditional Marriage?


    Maybe you are caught up in the lie that a concept known as "traditional marriage" exists and that somewhere it states that "one man and one woman" make a marriage. Sad to say, you

    ARE FLAT WRONG.  So let us examine together what makes a "traditional marriage," even though you may THINK you know what that is...





    Here's a "traditional definition" of marriage from the Jewish bible: "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free…If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do." Should we author an amendment to the constitution to make all wives the property of their husbands? I guess we need an amendment to differentiate between the "servant" status of sons versus that of daughters. If this is a "traditional definition" of marriage then I guess we have to.  How else can we "defend the family structure" without a literal interpretation of the "traditional definition" of marriage?
















    I know what you are thinking: "That's the old Jew-testament. Jesus was a loving Christian and thought differently." Really?! Think so, huh?? Have you read this bible or do you just regurgitate what people tell you to think? Here's St Paul's version of "traditional marriage" from the new testament: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of

    which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Any takers? Isn't

    the new testament the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD, or do you Christians only say that when it's convenient? So, is THIS the traditional marriage

    that we should amend our constitutions to define? You tell me... Any women reading this email feel like they should legally submit to their

    husbands for EVERYTHING? For ANYTHING? Thankfully, I am not a woman, but if I were a woman I think I know what my answer would be: a swift kick to the nuts of whatever man suggested the idea













    Since it is the Utah Mormons who sent their money to fund

    hatred in California, perhaps you might think that it is the Mormon definition of "traditional marriage" we should enshrine into the

    constitution. Here's Mormon founder, and pedophile extraordinaire, Joseph Smith to define "traditional marriage" once and for all: "Now if

    any of you will deny the plurality of wives polygamy and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned..." There you have it! The

    "traditional definition" of marriage is polygamy. Guess we need a new constitutional amendment to define marriage as "one man and as many

    woman as he feels like sleeping with." *Interestingly the Mormons saw fit to

    re-write their "traditional definition" of marriage to eliminate polygamy, but yet THEY now feel that it would be wrong for anyone else to update their own definition.*  Not that hypocrisy in the Mormon

    religion should surprise anyone, but HOW STUPID DO THEY THINK WE ARE?













    Maybe you think the "traditional definition" of marriage is not religious. Maybe you think that it is a secular tradition defined by centuries of convention ("tradition" if you would). Interesting loophole, but wrong.  In the "traditional" times of the 1880s a judge (Valentine) issued a decision defining the tenants of marriage, and "according to Judge Valentine, the "essentials" of marriage included: "life-long commitment, a wife's obedience to the husband, the husband's

    absolute control over all property, the wife taking the husband's last name, the right of the husband to force sexual intercourse on an

    unwilling wife (that would be rape, by the way), and the right of the husband to control and have custody of any children." So there you have

    it, the secular "traditional definition" of marriage.  Sounds good, right? Rape, theft, beating your wife… AH, THE GOOD OLE DAYS! I can't wait for these progressives to go away so we can make everything "traditional" again!


    So what is YOUR "traditional definition" of marriage? Are you willing to subject YOUR MARRIAGE to someone else's "traditional definition?" Which religion do you want to define marriage in your house, with the person you love? Don't keep your wife and children as slaves? Sounds like you've modified the "traditional BIBLICAL definition" of marriage! What if you don't rape your wife? Then you violate the "traditional LEGAL definition" of marriage! Have only one wife! You aren't abiding by the "traditional MORMON definition" of marriage! IS ANY OF THIS GETTING THROUGH? DO YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE MAJORITY RELIGION IMPOSES ITS "TRADITIONAL DEFINITION" OF MARRIAGE ON THOSE WHO BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY??? If you still don't see the light maybe you should try a vacation in Iran, and see how one religion's "traditional definitions" agree with your own



    Meanwhile, tens of thousands of married Californians just had a majority-issued, religiously-decreed divorce imposed upon them. Maybe some of you would welcome a state-ordered divorce, but I'm guessing there are a few of you who love your spouse enough to imagine the heart break this might cause.  I personally don't even like the idea of marriage and I can still feel their pain…


    Don't think we have the right to change the "traditional definition" of marriage? Well, we did redefine what it meant to be human when we gave women and blacks equal rights, but that's not relevant enough apparently. Here's just a



    Legalization of divorce

    Criminalization of marital rape (and recognition that the concept even exists)

    Legalization of contraception

    Legalization of interracial marriage

    Recognition of women's right to own property in a marriage

    Elimination of dowries

    Elimination of parents' right to choose or reject their children's mates

    Elimination of childhood marriages and betrothals

    Elimination of polygamy

    Acceptance of the unmarried modified from the original

    Women not taking the last names of their husbands

    Changing emphasis from money and property to love and personal fulfillment


    See anything on this list we should drop from our "traditional definition" of marriage? Speak up now because Americans are as busy as bigoted bees writing these definitions into the constitution of our country! Isn't it about time we add the RIGHT TO MARRY WHOMEVER YOU CHOOSE, REGARDLESS OF GENDER to this list?!?????


    Please help at  www.invalidateprop8.org


    And I'm telling you again, for the last time, GET YOUR GOD OUT OF MY SECULAR GOVERNMENT!





    Add your Story Add your Story