Saturday, November 8, 2014

One Thing Leads to Another...

The New York Court of Appeals has unanimously overruled the state’s prohibition against marriages between uncles and nieces, saying that there was not a universal stigma against the marriages like the stigma against other incestuous marriages.

I was just teaching Mark 6:15 in my Adult Bible Study at church.
John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod Antipas because Herodias (his wife) demanded it.
Herodias was his (Herod's) brother's wife first and the brother was still alive, and John preached against that.

Herodias was also the niece of both of her husband's.

She was married off to the first uncle by her grandfather because she was orphaned when grandpa (Herod the Great, who had all the babies killed in an attempt to get Jesus) killed her father! 

So he married her off to her deceased father's brother, her uncle.
Later, she left him for Herod Antipas, her other uncle for a better deal.
Of course he had to get rid of HIS wife to do that.
One thing leads to another.

John preaching against that, threatened her position. Herod regarded John and listened.

So she plotted to get rid of John the Baptist.
An opportunity came when her daughter did a lap dance for her uncle/husband and his friends at his birthday party.
After all, he was only her step-dad (being the daughter of the first uncle/husband).
Herod got so excited he said the daughter could have what she wanted up to half his kingdom (that half was probably her mom's half).
Mom said, "Ask for John's head" instead.
And she did.
Later, Herodias' first uncle/husband attacked the kingdom of her current uncle/husband and she and he lost all when he won.

Maybe marrying your uncle is not a good idea.

Next thing you know men will be marrying men, and vice versa.


  1. We've already taken several steps down that slippery slope. Taken to its logical conclusion, why bother defining marriage at all? In time, men will be married to philosophies, Jesus, dogs, Tinker Toys, anything and everything. Women too. Once you toss out the definition of marriage which has been understood as one man and one woman for thousands of years, Katie bar the door...

  2. We stopped teaching morals to children at least one generation ago.
    We are now reaping that fruit, eh?

  3. a seriously disturbed bunch. They'd fit right in to today's culture and have a reality show right after the Kardashians.

  4. Whatever the particulars of this case it doesn't have anything to do with same sex marriage.

    Last time I looked uncles were men and nieces were women. Even Obama can't change that.

    1. You're correct Dih --

      Neither of these unusual couplings were former cultural taboos, so there's no connection between the two at all. None.

      And the radical left has never for a moment thought of undermining our culture, Not one iota. Never

      -- politically correct.

    2. Marriage has always been adjudicated. Polygamy, Miscegenation are examples.

      Your culture, spotter? Which culture is that?

  5. Given the holistic history of marriage, and indeed in New York until 1893....this fit's in under the "traditional" definition of marriage. Yet, predictably, this routine case is being used [and not very well] as some sort of ammunition to restrict the civil liberties of fellow Americans.

    1. I know your position on gay marriage.
      I can't tell your position on uncle/niece.

    2. I had thought I answered this above. Given the dynamics of the blood relations in this case, it's not any different than what exists in other states with respect to cousins marrying. These types of marriages predate gay marriage immeasurably, yet some of the comments, and even implied in your own words....this should be used as a defense of allowing your fellow Americans to marry?

    3. "Allowing" should read "denying", but I can't edit.

    4. Just another example of cultural norms decaying.
      Fellow Americans marrying is just fine with me.
      Remember the actual meaning of the word "marrying": joining.
      Now, imagine two lesbians "joining".
      I won't ask the other....

    5. If this is an example, it's preceded by others going back to biblical times. I know full well the definition of marry; "joining" is but one aspect of that definition. It's not restricted to the sexual aspect.

    6. Thanks for the reply.
      Let's agree to disagree.