One of the arguments of the anti-gay forces that oppose LGBT equality and gay marriage in particular is that the laws must conform to reactionary religious dogma and that the civil laws should support "Biblical marriage." It's a refrain that we hear over and over again by professional Christians/hate merchants like Tony Perkins and Maggie Gallagher, et al. It's a main part of their propaganda campaign to win over the ignorant and simple minded. However, in making their case, they leave out the details that demonstrate that Biblical is actually something very ugly and not something the civil laws should be supporting. A piece in the Associated Baptist Press looks at what "Biblical marriage" really means. It says that "Those who claim the biblical model for marriage is one man and one woman for life apparently haven’t been reading the Bible." Here are excerpts:
Many Christians today speak about the traditional biblical marriage, but if truth be known, the traditional marriage is not a biblical concept. In fact, it would be hard to find a modern-day Christian who would actually abide by a truly biblical marriage in practice, as the biblical understanding of marriage meant male ownership of women who existed for sexual pleasure.
Upon marriage, a woman’s property and her body became the possession of her new husband. As the head of the household, men (usually between the ages of 18 and 24) had nearly unlimited rights over wives and children.
A woman became available for men’s possession soon after she reached puberty (usually 11 to 13 years old), that is, when she became physically able to produce children. Today we call such sexual arrangements statutory rape. The biblical model for sexual relationships includes adult males taking girls into their bedchambers, as King David did in 1 Kings 1:1-3.
Throughout the Hebrew text it is taken for granted that women (as well as children) are the possessions of men. The focus of the text does not seriously consider or concentrate upon the women’s status, but their identity is formed by their sexual relationship to the man: virgin daughter, betrothed bride, married woman, mother, barren wife or widow.
Her dignity and worth as one created in the image of God is subordinated to the needs and desires of men. As chattel, women are often equated with a house or livestock (Dt. 20:5-7), as demonstrated in the last commandment, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, wife, slave, ox or donkey” (Ex. 20:17).
Men could have as many sexual partners as they could afford. The great patriarchs of the faith, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah, had multiple wives and/or concubines, and delighted themselves with the occasional prostitute (Gen. 38:15). King Solomon alone was recorded to have had over 700 wives of royal birth and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3).
The book of Leviticus, in giving instructions to men wishing to own a harem, provides only one prohibition, which is not to “own” sisters (Lev. 18:18). The Hebrew Bible is clear that men could have multiple sex partners. Wives ensured legitimate heirs; all other sex partners existed for the pleasures of the flesh. A woman, on the other hand, was limited to just one sex partner who ruled over her -- unless, of course, she was a prostitute.
Biblical marriage was considered valid only if the bride was a virgin. If she was not, then she needed to be executed (Dt. 22:13-21).
As much as we do not want to admit it, marriage is an evolving institution; a social construct that has been changing for the better since biblical times. Those who claim that the biblical model for marriage is one husband and one wife apparently haven’t read the Bible or examined the well-documented sources describing life in antiquity. The sooner we move away from the myth of the so-called traditional biblical marriage, the better prepared we will be to discuss what constitutes a family in the 21st century.
Sadly, as seems to always be the case the self-congratulatory "godly Christians" are once again selectively picking and choosing what aspects of the Bible are to be claimed as "inerrant" and which ones can be conveniently ignored. Their lies and modern day Pharisee like hypocrisy is breath taking.
No comments:
Post a Comment