Alex Frantz at Public Nuisance discusses how the Bible defines traditional marriage:
Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen. 29, 17 – 28; II Sam. 3, 2 – 5)
Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam. 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut. 22, 13 – 21)
Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25 1 – 9; Ezra 9:12; Neh. 10:30)
Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38 6 – 10; Deut 25 5 – 10)
Frantz’s point, of course, is to challenge the religious right’s claim to own the definition of “marriage.”
Frantz admits his approach is a bit weak on Biblical scholarship. But then so is the political religious right’s approach to the Bible.
The more I see of biblical ‘scholarship’, the more it reminds me of Tarot reading. Only more pretentious. To my mind, the kind of marriage the bible talks about is an economic or commercial transaction. The virginity requirement is about sprucing up the product. The execution of the non virgin woman is about product recall. Just take the defective bride to the door of her parents’ home and stone her to death. Like returning a defective VCR.
How christians make the leap from this market transaction to the ‘theology of marriage’ is beyond me. The bible clearly shows marriage as a system for peddling your daughter’s hymen, nothing more. Just make sure she is a virgin and who cares about anything else. Pleasant disposition, good cooking, presence of ooozing sores, who cares.
Nor do I see anywhere that men need to be virgins. Instead men can whore around endlessly with numerous wives and concubines and slave beings. NOT A PROBLEM.
The christian ‘theology of marriage’ strikes me as utterly plucked out of the air. Having no clear relationship with the bible. But having a great deal to do with the customs and practices of the pagan Romans, Celts and Teutons. There is a great comment that I suspect applies here: the phrase ‘bible scholar’ is an oxymoron.
The current popular “Biblical” concept of marriage is simply that–a currently popular theology with its roots in the Industrial Revolution. Man as breadwinner, woman as homemaker, two-plus kids. (The addition of home, picket fence, pet and minivan are simply post-WWII amendments.)
This brings up a few points on this subject I’d like to make, some of which are broader than just the marriage issue.
1. Why do Christians always go to the Old Testament to “prove” their position on marriage and sexuality? This shows a profound Biblical and theological ignorance on the part of most Christians. If they knew better, they’d understand that we are no longer bound to Mosaic Law, but rather have spiritual freedom under Grace. That doesn’t mean we have moral license to do anything we please–Paul made that pretty clear–but it does mean that Christ’s commands trump everything. Um, why is this so hard to comprehend?
2. The view of marriage today, as illustrated above, is a curious by-product of a uniquely American spin on Christianity, one that is heavily influenced by materialism. I personally think that right-wing Christians’ concern over marriage is less about morals and more about economic matters. Married couples receive numerous financial benefits, privately and publicly; it is an elevated social status that can solidify one’s movement up the corporate ladder; have enough dependents, and your taxes are lower; life insurance rates are lower for those who are married, etc. Gays and lesbians threaten to invade that economic privilege. Ironic, since a casual reading of the Old Testament clearly shows marriage as primarily an economic transaction.
3. New Testament Christianity promotes singlehood as the best course of living–using Jesus as an example–with marriage for those who are unable to contain their sexual desires. Many right-wing American Christians are guilty of idolatry by holding up marriage as the sole acceptable blueprint for one’s entire life. The Bible certainly respects marriage, but doesn’t elevate it to that status. Yet another deviation from Biblical teaching that right-wing Christians deftly avoid thinking about.
4. Lastly, regardless of one’s feelings on the validity of homosexual sex, doesn’t it make sense to promote stable relationships? If two people want to make a lifetime commitment to each other, why is that such a frightening thing? Could it be that gays and lesbians may turn out to be better in the commitment department than straight people, and “show them up”? (I personally think that people are people, and GLBT people’s success at marriage will be about the same.) Perhaps if gays and lesbian couples proved to be just as ordinary as straight couples, it would blow holes in the argument that GLBT people are sick and perverted, and perhaps that’s the fear that motivates right-wing Christians in this arena. Who knows.
Chris
I admit that this is not the subject of the thread, but could someone explain to me the meaning of
“regardless of one’s feelings on the validity of homosexual sex“?
I have seen this “validity” more than a few times–mostly from homo-haters (and this is not to imply that Chris is a homo-hater, since I have no idea who he is)–but I have never understood the issue of the validity of homo-sex. Or of hetero-sex. I have asked the question many times of the homo-haters when they bring it up, but have never received a response. Ever
What makes one kind of sex valid, and another kind presumably invalid?
As far as I can tell, that is merely a subterfuge–avoiding the use of words such as “right” and “wrong,” since they would imply a largely Judeo-Christian-Muslim moral imperative.
BTW, conservative christianity–of the Paulist variety–is largely anti-sex. If this Paul really existed, it is fairly clear that he would now be considered phobic as regards sexual relations. It is interesting to speculate why the early founders of the christian church dogma chose sex-phobic texts for inclusion in their scripture, but I’ll pass.
Not all of scripture is sex-phobic. It isn’t even totally homophobic, as the only mention of lesbian activity comes in the New Testament from Paul. There are parts that are down right pornographic and other parts that are quite problematic in our modern age (Can we say marriage at age 13?). The problem is that people tend to read the scriptures with modern eyes and tend to forget the issues of the day. Rather than use the bible as a guidebook to be reinterpreted as society changes, they try to use it as a rule book frozen in time. To them there is no need to come up with a reason why two people of the same gender should not have sex or get married. Homosexuality is immoral; cause so and so said so. No need for thought provoking debate, or need to search for a deeper meaning. No need to understand the assumptions that the writer had when he was writing. No need to think for yourself at all.
Hi, Raj… as an openly gay man, I am by no means a “homo-hater.” When i mentioned the validity of homosexual sex, I was recognizing two points:
1. Some people, including some GLBT people of faith, do not believe that sexual expression of their orientation is appropriate, given their personal interpretation of Scripture; therefore, they pursue a celibate life. While I disagree with that position and believe that sexual expression can be a natural and healthy outgrowth of one’s orientation, I do recognize that they are also our GLBT brothers and sisters, and deserve the same amount of respect for their decisions as those of us who feel the freedom to fully express ourselves sexually in our romantic relationships.
2. Why I say they deserve respect is because of my second point: gay marriage is no more about sex than straight marriage is about sex. However, right-wing organizations focus almost solely on genital connection rather than emotional, spiritual and social connection, which are the main reasons that two people choose to dedicate their lives to each other. Whether they choose to sexually express that in their relationship is beside the point.
So, whether you’re a right-wing Christian whose Biblical understanding condemns gay sex, or a GLBT person of faith who has chosen a celibate life, your ideas on sex have really nothing to do with the basic right of marriage for all.
Chris
Chris:
I don’t know that anyone deserves respect, but one should not be denigrated merely because one does not want to act in accordance with his or her sexual orientation. As long as they don’t lobby government to deny me the rights equal to those accorded straight people, I frankly wouldn’t care one way or another. Or religious people, for that matter.
The problem is that, as regards more than a few of these “ex-gay” groups, they do. Lobby government to deny me equal rights, that is. That is why they are anathema to more than a few gay people. Query why a homosexually oriented person who wants to eschew homo-sex would want to encourage government to deny equality to those of us who see no reason to eschew homo-sex. Over the years, I have thought of a few reasons why they might want to do that. I wonder what reasons others might have to offer.
You are correct regarding state recognition of relationships of same sex couples (so-called “gay marriage”–although the state does not inquire into one’s sexual orientation before granting a marriage license) not having anything to do with homo-sex. On numerous fora populated by conservative religionists, I have pointed out that forbidding state recognition of relationships of same sex couples will not stop them from having sex. Their comments made clear that they had never considered that possibility.
BTW, you should be aware that the basis for conservative condemnation of homo-sex has nothing to do with religion–although they use religion to justify it. It is all about sexism.
I would be careful to avoid the massive missinterpretaion of scripture as an offence against Christians. Rank generalizations are as damaging to your cause as they are to ours. Perhaps you should read the whole book first.
Jason–
I’m not sure what you mean… or to whom you were addressing your statement. If you could clarify your point, that would be most helpful. 🙂
Chris