Forums

The purpose of marriage

Page:   1 2
 
 

orfeo
 
Joined in 2007
June 19, 2008, 13:22

Okay people, I need opinions…


I’ve been looking at some of the internet threads that are around discussing the legalisation of same-sex marriage in California. I know, I know, bad idea…


I’m fairly familiar now with the Bible quotes that people use to establish that homosexuality is wrong. I want to put those to one side.


What really struck me this time is that a LOT of people say a same-sex relationship can’t be a ‘marriage’ because marriage is for the purpose of raising children, and same-sex couples can’t have kids (at least, not in normal biology). And I thought: Never mind the fact that we let couples marry who are never going to have children, and the law has never required a medical check-up. Where in the Bible does it say marriage is about raising kids?


You see, I seriously suspect it doesn’t. I suspect that people are collapsing together two different passages.


In Genesis chapter 1 there’s the ‘go forth and multiply’ bit. Definitely about having children. Or cloning. πŸ˜‰


In Genesis chapter 2, there’s the quite famous passage saying ‘for this reason’ or ‘therefore’, a man will leave his father and mother and join with his wife and the two will become one flesh. But, for what reason?


Have a read of Genesis 2:18-24. It says God didn’t want Adam to be alone. He needed a companion. The passage is about relationship, and there’s no mention at all about the need for little Cains and Abels to be produced.


I have no problem with the idea that children are best brought up under the care of a loving, stable and committed relationship. But, isn’t a loving, stable and committed relationship a good thing itself?


Maybe I’m missing some other passage that suggests marriages are for the purpose of raising children (not just a good place to raise them). But given how central Genesis 2:24 is to people’s ideas of marriage, I suspect we just have yet another case of people not reading their Bibles all that carefully.


Show me I’m wrong, or I’m likely to start pointing this out to people on internet forums the world over…



sojourner
 
Joined in 2008
June 19, 2008, 14:52

I think its hard to use the bible as a source on this, considering that in its context, heterosexual sexual relationships without kids were generally not the norm given the absence of contraception–However, this society still dealt with issues like infertility, think of the story of Sarah and Abraham- together they were unable to produce children, now technically if Gods sole intention for relationships was procreation, then the relationship would have ceased to be valuable up until the time God healed her infertility- however, did her infertility stop them from spending a lifetime ‘getting in on’ with each other? apparently not… There are probably other examples in the bible of infertile couples- who probably had quite healthy sex lives, without any hope of having kids (what about Elizabeth, Mary’s cousin)


A passage in 1 Corinthians 7 also comes to mind, which refers to marriage as a solution for those who struggle with lust and self-control– Phrasing marriage in terms of being a place where our human sexuality can be expressed, without any reference to children seems to indicate to me that marriage has a created purpose outside of reproduction- Plus even if you take it all the way back to Genesis, while God commanded Adam and Eve to reproduce, that wasn’t the original reason why he brought Eve into the world and created the institution of marriage between the two of them… It was for the sake of companionship that God explained his reason for creating Eve- in my mind all this goes to show that having kids is only one of a range of goals God intended to meet in creating the institution of marriage…


I’m guessing your looking at the issue in this light because people on other boards are saying ‘Homosexual relationships can’t produce kids, therefore they are unnatural and thus wrong’… Far out, how many times have we all heard that one before!


All the best with that and I hope my 2c worth of mental scatterbrained-ness helps…


Chris



shirlmo
 
Joined in 2008
June 19, 2008, 15:16

[i][What really struck me this time is that a LOT of people say a same-sex relationship can’t be a ‘marriage’ because marriage is for the purpose of raising children, and same-sex couples can’t have kids (at least, not in normal biology). And I thought: Never mind the fact that we let couples marry who are never going to have children, and the law has never required a medical check-up. Where in the Bible does it say marriage is about raising kids? quote]


If marriage is for the purpose of having children then many hetro marriages are not marriages in that sense. I know Of Christians who have decided not to have children, so if the resoning is that same sex marriage is wrong, does it not make sense using the theory that marriage os for procreation then a hetro marriage where they decide not to have children it must also be wrong. I also have never read in the bible that marriage is just for procreation.


I have no problem with same sex marriage and I am hetro. All that is needed in my mind is real committment to the relationship for a marriage to take place, same sex or hetro and there is no guarantee that either will last unless the couple work on the relationship



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
June 19, 2008, 15:59

The bible does not say marriage is for the purpose of raising children. Marriage has many purposes, one of which is a stable environment to raise children, it is not the sole reason for marriage and marriage can exist quite happily without this component.


There are many social reasons why people believe marriage is for the purpose of having children. One is a throwback of Catholicism whereby contraception is unholy because man should not spill his seed. In a more contemporary setting, lets not kid ourselves, the “Christian Life” as portrayed by most mainstream churches is family focused. Marriage, children and happily every after is the ideal. While not theological, the mindset remains that if you are married, you should have children.


If people are saying that marriage is for the purpose of procreation it is a social norm not a theoogical point. If they are saying procreation should only occur within marriage, then that is a theological point, but by no means imperitive.



orfeo
 
Joined in 2007
June 19, 2008, 16:52

Okay, great, so I’m not crazy!


I really like your last paragraph, Sandy. But people on the main news website I was viewing are in fact, throwing the procreation bit around like it’s a theological point – saying that “God gave us marriage so that we could have families and raise children” or words to that effect.


So, I’m going to challenge them on it from now on. While also pointing out that Shakespeare did NOT write “Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well” and that Humphrey Bogart never said “Play it again Sam”. πŸ˜‰



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
June 19, 2008, 16:56

Probably, what they mean is marriage is the only (Christian) acceptable place in which to procreate. Which is, in fact, biblical. But thats different to marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation. Marriage does not necessitate kids, but if your going to have them, marriage is necessary.



supercalamari
 
Joined in 2008
August 7, 2008, 19:06

I really don’t think marriage is just about procreation.

That can be a part of it if you want it to be, but really, I think marriage is about two people sharing their lives in some form of mutual agreement. It is whatever you make of it.


And the excuse some people offer of men and women being the perfect partners for each other, it can be true but often false. Plumbing is not really all that important when it comes to love.



orfeo
 
Joined in 2007
August 8, 2008, 15:32

Plumbing is not really all that important when it comes to love.


I’ve got to put that on a sticker or poster or something!



magsdee
Disabled
Joined in 2006
August 8, 2008, 18:54

πŸ˜† πŸ˜† since we’re on the topic of plumbing, mines getting some needed draino(ural) at the moment 😳 πŸ˜†



Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
August 9, 2008, 20:57

thought I’d through this little article into the discussion since its about the bible and marriage.


We’ve heard a lot about “biblical marriage” lately, largely as a defensive reaction against same-sex marriage. I read one letter to the editor written by a Lutheran pastor that claimed that “the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man to one woman.” How very applicable to the contemporary situation, I thought. If the Bible really teaches that (and in such modern language too!), then we all should be paying the Bible a lot more heed.


So I picked up my Bible and looked up all the passages that have anything to do with marriage (I had help: I used a concordance). I examined the scriptural use of all the words I could think of related to marriage: marriage, marriages, marry, marries, married, wedding, weddings, wed, husband, husbands, wife, and wives.


All told I looked up over 800 references. Exempting the references which are narrative (e.g. “Adam named his wife Eve” Gen 3:20) or metaphorical (Christ’s marriage to the church, Rev 21:9), I was able to distil those 825 verse references into 12 general principles: 12 Biblical “rules” or guidelines regarding marriage which encompass the gamut of scripture. I hereby present the list, with the applicable references.


12 Biblical Principles of Marriage

1. Marriage consists of one man and one or more women. (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).

2. Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have. (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).

3. A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.

4. If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned. (Deut 22:13-21).

5. A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) – unless she was already a fiancÈ, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town. (Deut. 22:23-27).

6. If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow. (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).

7. Women marry the man of their father’s choosing. (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).

8. Women are the property of their father until married, and their husband after that. (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).

9. The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work. (Gen 29:14-30).

10. Inter-faith marriages are prohibited. (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).

11. Divorce is forbidden. (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).

12. Better to not get married at all – although marriage is not a sin. (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).


How many of these Biblical principles are followed by Christians today? Not a single one [with the possible exception of number 3 – some Christian women may still have no choice in their marital partner]!


Nowhere in the Bible does it say that “marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man and one woman;” in fact, it says explicitly to the contrary! The Bible lists at least 15 polygamists (not including Herod, who is known from the historical – but not Biblical – record to have had 9 wives), and in not a single place does polygamy carry with it any sense of opprobrium. Unfortunately, the pastor mentioned above would have been far more correct to say that “the Bible teaches that marriage is a covenantal union of one man to as many women as he might want and can afford.”


So the next time your favourite politician or preacher claims to use the Bible in support of traditional marriage, ask him or her which of these 12 principles he or she is actually advocating. Probably none. Anyone who claims to use the Bible in support of a strictly monogamous union of one male and one female based on love, mutuality, and commitment will be hard pressed to find 2,000 year-old Bible verses in support of that very modern position. In fact, I daresay they cannot. The Biblical view of marriage is not monogamous: it is not necessarily based on love, nor on any amount of mutuality.


Most Christians would consider these Biblical principles of marriage to be misogynistic and repulsive – and judging by today’s standards, they’d be right. Views have changed since Biblical times, as has our concept of marriage. Some would claim that this is the result of the Holy Spirit working in our world; most agree that just about all of the changes are a good thing. But if we concede that our concept of marriage has evolved, is it not potentially arrogant to summarily discount the possibility that marriage should continue evolving, or even that it might be God’s will that it do so?


From the looks of the above list, it’s a good thing our perspectives have changed from the Biblical model. Thus as we continue to dialog and prayerfully discern God’s will in the area of same-sex marriages, we obviously cannot consider 2,000-year-old statements made in other cultures and contexts to be all that is important.


Please do not misinterpret that I am claiming that the Bible is not important – of course it is. It is central to my faith, as it should be for any Christian. But to rely on solely the Bible is to dangerously ignore two millennia of progress in the areas of science, technology, and human rights, a sin which we dare not let ourselves commit if the church is to remain relevant to contemporary society at all.


To rely solely on Scripture for church policy is to ignore the possibility that the Holy Spirit has been active at all in the sixteen centuries since the canon was closed in 405 CE. Indeed, we need to consider that the Holy Spirit may be actively encouraging us today to move beyond a literal reading of the Bible and to refuse to become modern Pharisees.


While of course the Bible is integral to who we are as Christians, we do ourselves, the church, and yes, God a disservice if we ignore even the possibility of a revelation more recent than 2,000 years old. While we cannot and would not want to ignore the Old and New Testaments, we also cannot ignore the Now Testament. Praise God that, consistent with the spirit of almost every Biblical narrative, God even today continuously and patiently calls us ever forward.


Page:   1 2
 
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | LucidCrew
Version: 99.9; Page loaded in: 0.077 seconds.