The bible presents several “definitions of marriage”…which is the correct one? Appeals to “Cultural Context” only support a position that says it’s not a Moral Absolute.
Moral Absolute: “Gay Marriage is AGAINST the Law of God! Homosexuals, even if they are monogamous and in a committed relationship are “hated” by God! Gay Marriage is against God’s will!” scream the Christian Absolutists / Literalists / Conservative / Fundamentalists.
Interesting take, in light of the Old Testament and in light of what the universally accepted definition of “Absolute” is.
Absolute Truth defined: “Truth is considered to be universal if it is valid in all times and places in all contexts. A Truth that satisfies these conditions is known as an Absolute.”
What do you make of these verses in the bible?
2 Samuel 5:13 And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron, and more sons and daughters were born to David.
“Concubines” and Polygamy. Concubines are “mistresses”…basically women who were lower than a wife, who David had as sort of sex slaves and he fathered children with them.
Is having “mistresses” a Moral Absolute? Apparently not. Neither is Polygamy…either that or the bible is errant, fallible and Relative as it tells us that for David’s “Cultural Context” he was righteous and right to own women as sex slaves and to have multiple wives.
Leviticus 25:44-46 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.
Why were the American Slave Owners of the South “in sin” and against God? Is “slavery” wrong and a Moral Absolute? Were the Hebrews/Israelites unrighteous and wrong for making people slaves and making them “their property”? Christian Fundamentalists will appeal, once again, to “Cultural Context” in explaining away this supposed “truth” in the bible.
“Gays can’t marry! The bible says so! The bible defines marriage!”
Not really. The Culture defines marriage, the Culture defines morality, justice, etc based on Consensus Principle…the same Consensus Principle utilized to choose the Canon of the bible, same Consensus Principle to pick and choose “Christian orthodoxy” etc.
“Marriage” defined in the bible was at one time much different than today’s Conservative definition of marriage. It is not a Moral Absolute as is self-evident in the bible. If it were a Moral Absolute, “Marriage” would be consistently defined and exampled as an Absolute per the definition of Absolute Truth above. The example of several different definitions of “Marriage” in the bible disproves the thesis of Moral Absolutists who claim such…unless you toss out the entire Old Testament from your Canon of Scripture.
So, which “Marriage” is the Absolute definition in the bible? The one where we can have multiple wives and mistresses and sex slaves of the Old Testament…or the monogamous heterosexual non-divorcee “Marriage” (though Paul the Apostle speaks against marriage) of the New Testament?
You can dismiss the Old Testament Definition of Marriage by appealing to “Cultural Context”…but that has very interesting Philosophical implications about Truth in the bible…
I would assert that there are very few Moral Absolutes we can be sure of, due to the teaching and example of the Old Testament…if one appeals to the bible as “the Authority” for all Truth. Again, an Absolute, by definition, must be True in all contexts, all cultures, for all of time. Clearly in the Old Testament: Executing children and women with stones (like the Taliban) was right and righteous and even commanded. Having multiple wives and mistresses and sex slaves was right and righteous and commanded as well. Slavery? It was okey dokey. Killing unarmed men? Check. Samuel hacked King Agag to pieces with a sword (Agag was unarmed, living peacefully in captivity) “in the sight of God” and it was called righteous. You can appeal to “Cultural Context” and “that was then, this is now!” to explain away these uncomfortable facts…but that only supports my Position more.
I believe the Enlightenment was from God…and as such I believe we “see” Truth today more clearly than we did before. God is not the bible. If God is truly Love, if God is truly Good, if God is truly Merciful…if God is truly the God of Jesus in the Gospels…if God is truly the author of Truth and the devil is truly the “father of lies!” then we must follow Truth wherever it leads.
Was it ever “right” and “righteous” to execute women and children with stones? Was it ever “right” and “righteous” to make other human beings your property and to make women sex slaves and mistresses? Was it ever “right” and “righteous” to execute an unarmed man who was in captivity and not posing a threat? So many other examples…
I agree with the Conservative Christian argument and appeal to “Cultural Context!” to dismiss the Old Testament Levitical Law. I agree that God, as presented by men, is “not” the “same yesterday, today and forever” if the bible is the sole Authority as taken literally. God is much different in the Gospels than he is anywhere else in the bible.
I agree with the Conservative Christians that “Cultural Context” is an Authority and that Context and Consensus play key roles in determining what is Morally Right and Wrong in a particular Culture…which is in stark contrast to a Moral Absolutist position that seeks to pick-and-choose only one of the several “Definitions of Marriage” presented by the bible.
“Gay Marriage” may very well be a-ok with the real God. As we discover more about homosexuality and the fact that many are born with the predisposition for attraction to the same sex, as we discover that it is their “natural” desire…the way they are wired…we are forced to reconsider our position…much like we reconsidered Slavery, Concubines and Executing Women and Children with stones.
“Committed Loving Relationships” seems to be the Moral Absolute today. I would rather see a loving gay relationship, than an abusive heterosexual one…the former is much less a threat to Society than the latter.
Is homosexuality a sin?
I think it depends on the “Context”…just as Conservatives appeal to “Context” to explain away so many “simple” and “plain meanings” in the bible that present contradictions and very ugly things.
If you are born wired a heterosexual…and you go down the path of sexual deviancy, pornography, promiscuity to the point that you have to push the envelope to get off…and that leads you into homosexuality or bi-sexuality…then I think it is “sin” for you. If you are born or rather wired with the desire for the same sex, then that is “natural” for you.
The bible seems to assert that “going against nature” or “going against what is natural” is the sin, yet the bible further defines promiscuity (in the New Testament) as sin, even though promiscuity is the “natural” default position for the male of the human species. The Old Testament recognizes the promiscuity of man and gives license for Concubines (sex slaves) and multiple wives…yet the New Testament forbids it. Both the Old and New Testament seem to speak against “homosexuality” yet the New Testament seems to present it in a plausible Context of “temple prostitutes” and homosexuality as promiscuity. Further, it is also very possible that Progressive Revelation and the Relative Nature of truth exampled in the bible on so many issues teaches us that “truth” changes and that today, as we discover more about homosexuality, it is not the Moral Absolute that Conservatives tout today.
At minimum, I think the issue of homosexuality is over-played and over-emphasized by Fundamentalists.
“God hates FAGS!” reads a Westboro Baptist Sign (kudos to them for keeping it real, like the Taliban and exampling in real-time the dangers of true Fundamentalism).
Well, turns out God “hates” pretty much everything if you take a browse through the bible.
God hates “liars”, God hates the “prideful”, God hates “unequal scales”, God hates “a false witness”, God hates “hands that shed innocent blood”, God hates “discord”, God hates “sin”…which is pretty much catches all of us in the net, if you take a Westboro Baptist/Taliban hermeneutic (interpretative model).
In fact, Sodom is often trotted out as “PROOF!” that God hates the gays. What was Sodom’s “great sin”?
Ezekiel 16:49 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
Wow, God must hate gluttons, the selfish, those who don’t help the poor and needy, the arrogant etc.
I’m sure God hates me and he hates you as much as any “fags”…but you get a different emphasis and a different vibe in Christian Fundamentalism. You’d think that God is somehow more concerned about the Gays than any other Group of sinners.
Government “Marriage” vs. Religious “Marriage”
We are not a Theocracy. The United States was born out of the Enlightenment, and like it or not, our “Founding Fathers” were largely Deists and Liberal Christians, not nearly the Conservative Fundamentalists who try to claim them today.
As a politically Libertarian leaning individual, I recognize the difference between Church and State.
Our Liberal Christian Founding Fathers were well aware of the dangers of a Theocracy and the necessity of providing checks and balances in our System to prevent one Group from dominating the System and forcing their particular brand of morality or political agenda on the rest.
As such, there is Government/Civil/Legal “Marriage” and there is a particular Religious Group’s “Marriage”.
In the Government Context, we are bound to do our best to provide Equal Protection Under the Law and not discriminate against a particular Group that views Morality in a different manner (with caveat, it isn’t perfect, there are many philosophical implications that defining marriage presents, like the rights of Polygamists, etc). Consensus weeds out and picks-and-chooses what is “OK” and what isn’t. Our System, while imperfect, is working. The DOMA controversy, like it or not, is defining “Marriage” for our Culture our Context. It does open doors for the Polygamists to present their argument…and ironically Polygamists have an Ally in the Old Testament…but I’m confident the System will probably hold the line on that issue as the Consensus seems to be against multiple partners engaging in a Marriage Contract.
From a Religious Perspective, the First Amendment protects the rights of a particular “church” to disagree “morally” and to hold their own definition of “Marriage” as long as it doesn’t incite violence or discriminate (from a Civil Legal perspective) the rights of the fellow Citizen.
“Majority Rules”, however, is not entirely the case…as our System provides checks and balances for the Minority Position measured against the Constitution. Think about Dearborn, Michigan and the influx and increasing dominance of Muslims there. Sharia Law may become the “Majority” take in that area…but it cannot be tolerated and must be resisted in light of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Sharia Law goes against US Western Law and as such an appeal to “Majority” in that area is nulled by our Constitution.
Similarly, a Majority Opinion with regards to the “Definition of Marriage” is not necessarily the last word on the issue…we must measure the issue against the Constitution.
A final appeal
The World is changing rapidly. “Democracy” is only as good as the people behind it. Iraq, Egypt, Libya…all glaring examples that “Democracy!” can sometimes just be a tool to promote barbarism like Sharia Law and extremism. If you bring “Democracy!” to a bunch of Fundamentalist Muslims…you’ll just create a much more powerful Fundamentalist Muslim State to have to battle against in the future.
In America, we are not a Theocracy. We are deeply diverse and divided on Religious, Ethnic, Political and Philosophical lines. We do have “enemies” and we do have Ideologies that we must oppose, or it’s Game Over.
The Gay Marriage issue is not one of those critical issues.
God is NOT “judging America!” because Gays are marrying. The “Bible Belt” is also Tornado Alley, Estonia (Atheist Nation) is the least likely place (statistically) on the planet to have a natural disaster. God doesn’t “hate” “Fags”…that’s the Christian Taliban’s spin on the contradictory and paradoxical nature of the bible. Jesus Loves homosexuals, Jesus loves me, he loves you. Jesus is the God of Unilateral Forgiveness and the God of Mercy and the God of Love.
If you disagree with Gay Marriage, no problem, you have that Constitutionally protected right to speak against it as what you believe is a Moral Issue, but please don’t make a Moral Absolute about the bible’s definition of “Marriage” when the bible defines “Marriage” much differently in the Old Testament.
Rather than beat the Anti-Gay Marriage drum with such fervor and effort and with such loud voices…let’s beat the Jesus Loves You! drum with the same effort and enthusiasm.
Jesus of the Gospels does in fact Love you, he loves me and he loves our homosexual brothers and sisters.
