Some people would have you believe that marriage began with Adam and Eve. But in the account in Genesis where Adam and Eve become one flesh (presumably through their mutual commitment and sexual intimacy), there is no mention of an “institution” of marriage nor any liturgy, vows, promises or other ritual used to solemnize their relationship. This prehistorical account can only serve as a backdrop to the meaning (not the “institution”) of marriage that developed over time.More re biblical marriage and the subsequent evolution of the concept at the Salon link.
The fact of the matter is, marriage has not been consistent or unchanging over time. Indeed, even in biblical times, we see a constant evolution in the practice of marriage. One man and one woman, united in marriage for life, mutually exclusive and “faithful” sexually, and joined because of their love for each other, is a relatively modern notion of marriage. Such was not the case in ancient times.
From the earliest Old Testament accounts, polygamy seemed to be the practice of the day. Or, to be more accurate, polygyny (the practice of polygamy by males, not females) was practiced. In the ancient Hebrew culture, having more than one wife was commonplace. In addition to multiple wives, men who were wealthy enough to have slaves or concubines had sexual relationships with them. Even Abraham — father to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity — when he was unable to produce an heir with his wife, Sarah, had a son by his slave Hagar. Abraham’s grandson Jacob married two sisters, Leah and Rachel. King Solomon was renowned not only for his wisdom and wealth but also for his 700 wives and 300 concubines! Over the years, marriage customs evolved, and by Jesus’ time divorce was discouraged and monogamy increasingly became the standard...
Jesus is quite clear that marriage is to be for a lifetime and that divorce is a serious issue, permitted to a man only in the case of “unchastity.” For either a man or a woman to marry anyone after divorce (“except on the ground of unchastity”), Jesus tells his disciples, is to commit “adultery” (Matthew 19:9; 5:31– 32; Mark 10:11– 12; Luke 16:18)...
18 September 2012
Marriage in the Bible
It's not as simple as some would suggest. Here are some excerpts from a column at Salon written by an Anglican bishop:
Yeah. I always ask people who oppose gay marriage on biblical grounds if they favor the abolishment of divorce on biblical grounds. It's even more fun if you know that someone has been divorced [Newt Gingrich anyone?]...
ReplyDeleteYes, marriage for a true christian should not happen except based on Biblical grounds.
Delete@ Dinepo: The problem is not what "true christians" do; they can get married. The problem is that people (mostly religious people) want to enforce their beliefs on the lives of others (gays in this case). And worse, they're hypocrite about it. They do not want a small segment of the population to get married, but they do want to be able to get a divorce themselves.
DeleteWell, I think it's a bit more complex than that. Marriage began as a religious institution. Assuming civil ceremonies offer the same legal benefits as marriage, I'm not sure why non-religious people want to get married at all (regardless of sexual orientation).
Delete@ Rob Pomeroy: Assuming civil ceremonies offer the same legal benefits as marriage, I'm not sure why non-religious people want to get married at all
DeleteI am not sure what you mean. Would you want to have identical legal benefits for religious and non-religious people, but using a different word? What sense does that make? Why would the government distinguish between the two? Who would determine who is religious and who is not? Also, why is it your matter why someone else marries?
See the comments re religious/civil ceremonies below.
DeleteEvolution? It's very simple, first there was no formal law. Then the Mosaic law covenant was established (which did tolerate and regulate polygamy). Then Jesus came and fulfilled that law covenant and established a new one. The basic principles weren't changing, but were being refined as events progressed. Just the same as the exact "laws" are not applied to you from infancy to adulthood. With better understanding comes different regulation.
ReplyDeleteBetty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
Hermeneutic fail. That's liberal theologians for ya.
ReplyDeletePS Hate this new CAPTCHA. What a nightmare.
In Mexico, religious marriages are not recognized by the state. Only a civil marriage is the legal marriage. Religious ceremonies are only for religious purposes.
ReplyDeleteBarb:
DeleteAccording to what my sister has said, that also applies to France. From what she has said, the Bride and Groom first go to the Justice of the Peace (or its French equivalent) to become legally married, and then, if they also want to, they can then also go to a church to have the marriage recognized in the Religious Sense, but if they marry only in the church, then they do not receive the legal benefits of being married, which is what Gays are looking for here in the United States.
From a position of faith, I think I would prefer this on balance. In the UK's post-Christian society, the connection between religious precepts and legal statutes is not as close as it once was. The religious ceremony would be, for me, the point at which a couple were "married". The union for legal purposes could come before or after that as far as I'm concerned.
DeleteOriginally, I guess that it was considered that special protection/privileges should be afforded to a union that was capable of procreation. I lament the death of that view in society, but trying to impose the view upon others seems futile.
"Originally, I guess that it was considered that special protection/privileges should be afforded to a union that was capable of procreation"
DeleteRob, could you explain to us what kind of special protection and privileges are you talking about, and why they should not be afforded to people unable to procreate?
Paulo,
Delete"Why they should not": It's difficult to answer that question without mentioning views that are abhorent to one group or another. My personal preference is that traditional marriage be afforded special status, but that is for reasons of faith, hence I cannot expect others to share this view.
As to the kinds of protection that were afforded: I suppose there have been many, over time. Typically, tax breaks of some kind or another would be involved. The reasoning might at one time have related to the capacity of women to bear children and breast feed them. For a woman to be released from the necessity of undertaking paid employment for a time was (and still is in many cultures) deemed desirable for the sake of the wider community. Of course, the farther science advances, the more such arguments are weakened (e.g. formula milk is pretty good these days).
Rob, I would still be interested in reading about what are the reasons you think what you call "traditional marriage" on the last comment (which seems to be the same you call "union (...) capaple of procreation" on the previous) should be afforded special status. We are talking here about law, and the role the State plays in people's lives. The way I see, to give certain people a kind of access to the State and to State's resources that is greater than that given to other people (i.e. a privilege) is something that always need to be justified, since we are talking about something that belongs to everybody, hence being on everybody's interest.
DeleteDo you believe the government should work in other to fulfill your religion's predicaments specially? I ask you this because you said you are not trying to impose your view to society. The way I understand, to favour a kind of government that creates or mantains privileges based on reasons of faith is doing precisely that.
Sorry, I think you're looking for something you're not going to get from me. My point is that in a post-Christian society (or in a society where the church and state are fully separated), no one can expect legislation to be driven by religious concerns. Nevertheless, as a member of the community ruled by a secular government, it is still open to the person of faith to use the democratic process to lobby for legislation that reflects that person's convictions.
DeleteRob, let me se if I am understanding what you are saying; in this case, I think we agree completely. I believe that since normative legislation applies for everybody, and not only the members of a certain religion, it is not only expected, but desired for religious concerns to stay out of this part of the legislative process. But I think you are correct if you are saying that there is a part of what we call the legislative process that consists in acts that are promulgated with the pourpose of creating policies - the federal budget act, for example - and that it should be created accordingly to the demands of society. Nonetheless, I believe the better churches and other kinds of social organizations work on demanding these implementations of policies, the better and more democratic society is.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, it is not being proposed that laws that regulate the way people are supposed to behave, like the ones regulating marriage, should be affected by religious principles: they are normative laws that apply for eveybody, not only for those that abide to a particular religion. It is against the legal principle of equity to discriminate people in official issues, like documentation and access to public services; and from that I believe it should be forbidden for the State to say what kind of people is allowed or not to get a licence to marry. Of course, such a proibition can be done in the premisses of a church, where the definition of marriage is of the sole interest of its community; and in the same way each church is free to define marriage according to its own beliefs, even if it means allowing same-sex marriage or poligamy, which sometimes is the case.