I recently had a discussion on Facebook (a perfect arena to discuss moral issues) with an opponent to same-sex marriage. [As a general rule, I think that if your opponent decides that WRITING IN ALL CAPS is meant to be a marking of civilized discussion, any further debate is meaningless.] To me, if you are against same-sex marriage, you are discriminating against humans just like you for principally religious reasons. It’s disguised as a moral issue, but resembles bigotry more closely.
One of the common arguments against same-sex marriage is that it will degrade the “sanctity” of marriage. Well then, why don’t we take a look at how marriage is represented in the Bible:
None of these conceptions presented in the Bible sounds like something worth protecting. In fact, I would go so far as to say that none of these represent what most people think of marriage, and that proponents of the “sanctity” argument do not take the time to read up on the ideas they so fervently promote in order to keep out people different from themselves, lest they realize their failures. Socially, we have moved far beyond what the Bible considers “sacred” in marriage, so why don’t adherents pick up their stakes from the Iron-age camp they set up in?
LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex) couples are humans just like you, mammals just like you, and afford the same recognition for the same love that they share for each other. To offer anything less under the guise of “sanctity” is to willfully obstruct moral progress. In my mind, marriage as presented in the Bible is not something worth praising. We all should be able to enjoy the security and benefits of a recognized marriage, no matter what our sexual orientation.
Well said!
Reblogged this on I Want Ice Water and commented:
Sanctity? As defined by who?
Very enlightening!
Thank you Kyle, that was a great post!
Fantastic post!
Great article, you cover all the bases. I too am for gay marriage and am disappointed in Obama as he could have been the Abraham Lincoln of our time. As Ab freed the slaves, Obama could have freed the LGBTI community!
Something to hope for in the next term. *fingers crossed*
Interesting post, I hope to pose a humble rebuttal;
Whats important to keep in mind with this post, is that all the of the examples brought forth in the image, though factual and biblical, are all from the Old Testament, a part of the scriptures which are historically true, yet are doctrinally superseded by the teachings of Christ. As long as the bible is being brought up as a reference to establish guideline for the sanctity of marriage, it is essential that we look at the whole book for this guideline. In particular, the doctrine by which Christians live by; the one taught by Christ.
For example, 1st Corinthians 7:2 states that because of rampant sexual immorality, a man should have his own wife and a woman should have her own husband. A monogamous relationship. Furthermore, Ephesians 5:12 makes clear that a husband is to “love his wife as Christ loves the church… to love his wife as he loves himself”. In addition, to ” love [his] wife and never treat her harshly” (Colossians 3:19) and to “give honor to his wife, to treat her with understanding as you live together”. (1st Peter 3:7)
I wish this to clarify some misconceptions regarding what people may believe the Bible teaches about marriage. It’s not that the Old testament examples (from the article) are not biblical they just are not doctrinal. It is the New testament’s teachings (essentially the 2nd half of the Bible) by which Christians live by. Of course, I’m not advocating for picking and choosing what one wants to believe from the Bible, simply noting the literal structure of the Bible in the sense that it was written with the Old Testament being historically contextual and figuratively pointing towards the teachings of Christ as being the seminal doctrine.
I don’t like to reply to other people’s posts, because this is not my blog, but I could not resist this time. Dan does not even come close to a rebuttal. It’s the classic twisted interpretation of the bible as containing, somehow, a moral code. Is the old testament the word of god or not? to whom did god say that you should forget his “old” worlds and only take his son’s (i.e. Jesus) words? why don’t get rid of the old testament altogether? Are you really trying to make sense of gross inconsistencies in the bible? Of course you are picking and choosing. If you start a bit sooner in your quotation of 1st Peter 3:7, here is what you can find “In the same way, you wives must accept the authority of your husbands…” I assume you are saying that the seminal doctrine of the Church says women have to be submissive, right?! Again, the same Ephesians 5, if you start your quotation earlier, here is what we can find “For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; he gave his life to be her Savior. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything”. (everything!?!) You cannot pick and choose, you either take the bible as the hole, or simply dismiss it as the word of god. As the great Christopher Hitchens would say, I rest my case.
Hugo, I too wouldn’t typically reply to others posts, but I feel as if my opinion would’t be complete without answering some of the elementary criticism you bring fourth in your comment.
I fully understood the verses entirety when I posted them, in other words, I am aware of where it is stated that women should submit to their husbands. It is unfortunate that the word submit carries such a negative vibe in todays society. To submit in biblical terms is to recognize the head of a household or to understand that the husband is to spiritually lead the family as the wife and children follow. The dichotomy created here however, is not complete when simply put that the wife is to submit, it also must be understood that the husband is to love and cherish and care for the wife as she follows his leading. (The same way Christians are to follow the teachings of Christ, in other words, submit to him)
Regarding picking and choosing, I to despise when people skew or manipulate scripture or neglect to recognize certain parts of it, allow me to explain that I have no intention of doing such a thing.
The bible is constructed on such a way that the Old Testament prophesies and leads up to the coming of Christ. Examples of Levitical law, though biblical indeed are not Gods intended rules for us to live by since the coming of Christ. If you’ve spent any time in the New Testament, you would see how many times it speaks of freedom from the law, meaning freedom from the Pentateuchal laws. That is what I mean when i say the teachings of Christ ‘supersede’ the teachings of the Old Testament, it’s not that the OT laws are not biblical, canonized or inspired and recognized as scripture, they are simply not, the guidelines for life since Christs coming. They are kept as Historical documentation and examples of God’s workings and as Israels history as a people. The Jews still live by these laws as they do not recognize Christ as the being the OT prophesies about, the Christians do.
I do appreciate your comment and I hope this addresses some of the issues you raise.
I’ve known some wonderful gay/lesbian couples and some horrible straight couples. Of course, it works the other way around as well. We shouldn’t base our country’s view on marriage on a religious document or idea. We should push for equality and modernize our view on marriage regardless of what religion says. Gay rights have come a long way since the Stonewall Riots. Look for more acceptance in the future.
Let me first start by saying that I completely respect your point of view on the matter. But I personally think that taking examples that happened and were mentioned in the bible does NOT mean that this is the Bible’s or God’s idea of marriage and sanctity in marriage. I’m sure that being a scientific person you must have reviewed and studied all the bible before refuting it let alone the whole concept of creation itself. And I’m sure that when you studied it you must have come across the definition of marriage that is not for us to customize as we deem fit. This being said, it seems to me that you only remembered the parts that would back up your idea, while completely forgetting to mention the essential parts that would utterly refute it. I’m sure it’s an honest mistake because any man of science would be very diligent in giving all the data he has found and has thoroughly studied before giving his scientific conclusion on the matter.
I recently wrote a blog post about marriage that I think is worth taking into consideration. If you are interested, here is the link and let me know what you think.
http://valiant-sheep.blogspot.com/2012/08/marriage-or-whatever-that-still-means.html
Having spent the last 13 years in private religious schools, I can assure you that I am familiar with the Bible.
In summary, if you are going to use the Bible to support your view of “traditional” marriage, you must also take the other views of marriage that it presents. If you pick and choose what is “essential” from the Bible, you are supporting your own views, not the text’s. For example, if you hold to the fact that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and by extension homosexual marriage, you should also hold to the idea that you should kill your wife if she is not a virgin on your wedding night.
Dude just read the bible and stop making a fool out of yourself. Seriously, you’re a man of science, being “familiar” with the bible because you “spent the last 13 years of your life in private religious schools” is the silliest argument I’ve ever heard. It goes on to show how much you know of life, Mr. I just graduated from high school science guy. Excuse me for being a bit harsh, but it’s just that “science” people like yourself make me so angry when they go on making claims they so lightly consider as scientific thinking when in fact they don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. Please do me and yourself and every dumb follower you have a favor and examine the WHOLE data you have in your hands before making up your own “scientific” conclusions. Stop misleading people.
I see that you have a lot to say about me, but do you have an actual argument against what I said in the post? You can claim that I do not now what I am talking about or call me “Mr. I just graduated from high school science guy,” but it is far more persuasive to show some of this “data” that I am supposedly omitting.
In Matthew 19:4 Jesus states: “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
In 1 Corinthians 7:2 Paul states: “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband”.
So if you pay attention carefully to these 2 instances, you’ll see that God’s original design was for marriage to be between 1 man and 1 woman only! (Notice the male and female part in the first quotation and the act of becoming one flesh in marriage which is sex btw, and notice how Paul says to avoid temptation to sexual immorality each man should have his own wife and vice versa). So if there has been other instances in the bible where polygamy was accepted, I can assure you that this wasn’t what God wanted but it was because of the hardness of the people’s hearts. And when someone slept with his concubine or his woman’s “property” it was for the sole purpose of having descendants because of the barren womb of the woman.
So you see Kyle, you can’t just take bits and pieces of the bible to prove your point, you have to understand the whole picture. And you can’t really understand the old testament without seeing it in the light of the new testament. “These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” – Colossians 2:17. You have to realize that it is simply impossible to fulfill the old testament without Jesus. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” – Matthew 5:17. “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” – Romans 8:3-4
Kyle I really appreciate your enthusiasm for science and what is true and factual in the absolute, but being a man of science does not mean you have to be an atheist, and science and God do not oppose each other because simply you’re studying what God has created! When it comes to questions of morality, you can’t just do what you believe is right in your own eyes or in society’s eyes. Examine the whole facts of the bible before deciding to refute it on the basis that it’s obsolete and from the stone age. This book might be complete rubbish to you, but truth of the matter is that it has changed my life and the lives of many people I know. Trust me if you take the time to understand it you’ll realize that this book is not a set of unreasonable rules you have to obey but it is in fact a book that will set you free to live the life you were meant to live. I’ll leave you with this final verse and I hope you would ponder on it for a while: “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” – 1 Corinthians 2:14. Think about this verse and try to relate it to why the bible is rubbish to you. I pray that one day this will change. Bless you Kyle and btw I really like your blog :)
So cherry picking two verses out of many that support 1 man and 1 woman marriage is justified? What reason do you have for invalidating other verses which also define marriage?
You say:
How could you possibly know what “God wanted?” If you look to the text to see what he wanted, you still find other verses which define marriage differently. Taking bits from the Bible to support a point is exactly what you are doing. The graphic that I posted has many more verses supporting it (representing a wider view of the text) than the few which you provide.
I want to dissect your last paragraph more closely:
“…being a man of science does not mean you have to be an atheist”–True. My atheism comes from the fact that I see no evidence for God’s existence anywhere in the universe, not my profession.
“When it comes to questions of morality, you can’t just do what you believe is right in your own eyes”–See this post and try my little thought experiment. I’m sure you’ll have something to say about it.
“This book might be complete rubbish to you, but truth of the matter is that it has changed my life..”–The fact that a book changed your life does not make the content of the book true. Moby Dick has changed a few lives, I’m sure.
“…and the lives of many people I know.”–This is an argument from popularity. Just because many people believe something to be true does not mean it is. For example, many people think that giving children sugar makes them hyperactive. The studies looking at this prove otherwise.
“…this book is not a set of unreasonable rules you have to obey but it is in fact a book that will set you free to live the life you were meant to live.”–Let’s take one example. The bible has a rule that you cannot touch a woman during her period or else you must go through a cleansing ritual and that the woman cannot come in contact with anyone for a week and must purify herself because she is “unclean.” This is exactly the kind of dictation that we would expect from an iron-age patriarchy, not divine inspiration. These kinds of rules are hardly freeing.
Faith, or the lack of good evidence, is not something I wish to live my life by. I follow Socrates: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
Thanks for your kind words about my blog. Though we disagree on theology, I hope that you have found at least some of my natural philosophies interesting.
Kyle, again man, please read the bible because I see everything I’ve said about the old testament not being fulfilled except by Jesus just went down the drain with your obstinance in giving me examples out of context. The only reason I said that the bible changed my life and many other’s as well is not to convince you of its veracity, but to tell you that if you truly understand it, things will drastically change for you. I won’t go on in this argument any further because we’ll only be wasting each other’s time. Btw I highly recommend reading this book, written by someone I’m sure as an atheist you must know: Antony Flew.
There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
God bless you Kyle.