It’s interesting that in the current marriage debate, conservatives are fighting for the traditional Judeo-Christian (Biblical) concept of marriage. One man and one woman. So if we look at what the Bible has to say about marriage, it should fit with what conservatives are fighting for, right?
The Old Testament is full of stories of polygamous marriages, concubines, sexual access to female slaves, etc. The New Testament just says that you can’t get divorced and that if you want to be an Elder/Bishop you can only have one wife. There is nothing in the Bible that prevents the laity from practicing polygamy.
In the Hellenistic world those who could afford to would practice polygamy, but the early Christian church recruited almost exclusively from the disfranchised, namely the poor, slaves, and women. Poor men couldn’t afford to have more than one wife and I’m sure some of the affluent women in the church were jealous of their husband’s other wive(s), so it’s no wonder that monogamy became the norm for Christianity. If you want to find the earliest support for a man being limited to one wife, it would be from pagan Rome, but even then wealthy men were permitted slave girls and mistresses.
So in the debate over marriage equality, not only do those against it have no secular argument against same sex marriage, but they aren’t even following the Biblical model of marriage. So unless they want to start pushing for legalizing polygamy, they need to just admit that they don’t care about marriage, they just don’t want to give gays and lesbians the same rights as everybody else.
(Image via Religion Poisons)
Permalink
actually that is Old Testament which Christians are no longer bound to. If you’re going to make an argument trying to find a “flaw” in Christian practices, look in the New Testament.
And yes the New Testament indirectly describes marriage….
Matthew 5:27-28″You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”… It’s kind of spelled out right there in the passage. If a “man” looks at a “woman” while married, it’s adultery…
you and your flawed logic… shame you can’t even pick up a book at read it to the extent that it was written…
Permalink
1. I was addressing “Judeo-Christian” principles, such as the Religious Right claims to promote, since Jews don’t accept the New Testament, you couldn’t really call it Judeo-Christian without the “Judeo” part.
2. There is so much detail in the Pauline Epistles, such as how to relate to non-believing spouses and the marital requirements for elders and deacons, I’m sure that if Paul cared, he would have said something directly.
3. Actually that passage doesn’t talk about how a married man looks at a woman, it describes how any man, married or not, shouldn’t look at a woman. Just like how assault isn’t murder, but any violent thoughts are the same as murder. This is just prime example of the absurdity of thought crimes.
4. I have read the Bible, cover to cover at least three times, as well as about 25% of the New Testament in the original Greek. As far as my logic, the only flaw was a little intentional hyperbole for satirical effect.