A 5000 year old look at marriage.......

Talk of a 5,000 year institution...

Whenever someone brings up the "5,000 year institution" bit, they always seem to forget how much it has changed from time period to time period. Brining up the 'age' of marriage just makes their argument sound right to anyone 'undecided'/'ignorant' o the issue.

---

by: saywhat? @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 11:20:40 AM CST

interfaith marriage

forbidden marriages were between the Israelites and anyone of another faith. Somehow this passage got warped into some States past laws forbidding interracial marriage.

well, since the fundies believe that their bible (which does forbid marriages between israelites and gentils) is the complete, literal and inerrant word of G-d, I do not know why they refuse to not only outlaw marriages between Jews and non-Jews and retroactively annul all marriages between them that have incorrectly been granted the rights of a legitimately married couple.  Of course, children of these inter-faith couples will have to remain in the full legal and physical custody of the non-Jewish parent - after all, we don't want them to grow up accepting being Jewish as normal or otherwise acceptable.

---

by: ol cranky @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 11:53:15 AM CST

Book of Ruth

I love this verse.  My wife wrote our entire wedding and I put the verse in. It was beautiful and we took as our own.  I have to say, I love all these people who use the bible when it is convient for them and ignore it when it isn't.  Brenda  

---

by: ripley @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:03:44 PM CST

Weird Isn't It

Ruth is the weirdest book in the bible.  I swear...it's all...death, murder, thou shalt not, rape, incest, more rape, a few love poems, more murder, some smiting, some bad directions, and a cute little "love" story.

My husband once compared the old testament to an overworked screen play...Let's see we need some smiting and rape to bring in the men...but how about a dash of poetry and a romance novel to bring in the ladies...

Cause one story the point of which is not that a woman is harmed makes up for all the other stories where harming a woman is the main plot line.

---

by: Kristen @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:32:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The thing to remember about the Bible

is that, despite appearances and despite the way it's usually discussed, it is not "a book" in the sense of a single, unified narrative.  Rather, it is an anthology of books written by various authors at different points in history and under varying social/political conditions.  No wonder so much of it is contradictory nonsense.

There's also the fact that the Old Testament lays down various fairly rigid laws for behavior within a marriage (pick whichever definition of that term you like).  For instance Leviticus states quite explicitly that when a woman is having her period she is "unclean"  and not to be permitted under her husband's roof.  Do you think that part of "Biblical marriage" is enforced round the Warren household?  Does Pastor Rick make Mrs. Rick sleep in a tent out back once a month?

It's all hooey.  How scary is it that so many people believe it?

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 14:00:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Look at how marriage laws

has been redefined time and again in America and last I checked, this nation isn't even 250 years old yet!

Every state has their own different rules of who can or cannot marry... Warren and his "5000 year old" crock- oh please.

Bullshit, every bit of it.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:04:09 PM CST

And it's not even competent bullshit!

That's what I can't stand about sloppy public statements about "5,000 year old traditions"!!  

IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE THAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN HET SEX, GO AHEAD AND BE SPECIFIC ABOUT IT, BUT DON'T, PASTOR FUNDY, SPOUT SOME SLOPPY, PANICKED NONSENSE ABOUT HOW IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!!!!!  

GRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

by: oddjob @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 13:35:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hell, in the New Testament polygamy in the congregation isn't even ever addressed!

THE ONLY NEW TESTAMENT RULES ABOUT MONOGAMY APPLY TO CHURCH LEADERS!

---

by: oddjob @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 13:37:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Redefining Marriage

The truth, as we already know, is that "marriage" has been redefined constantly throughout history, and it was only fifty years ago that the Supreme Court "redefined" it to allow interracial couples to marry in the aptly named "Loving v. Virginia.

Check out what Mildred Loving had to say on the decision's 40th anniversary ...

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Gotta love that.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:24:04 PM CST

If we all came from

Adam and Eve, then all marriages are based on incest. Can anyone deny this 'Bible fact'??

---

by: juicyjuice @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:37:51 PM CST

was it incest or masturbation?

after all, eve was supposedly made of adam's own flesh, so in a sense he was "doing unto himself" by "doing unto another".

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 13:04:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If that could happen

we'd have no argument about abortion being legal. Dang....most men would be pregnant constantly. They'd have to build abortion hotels! And I'm sure some phrase in the Bible would be conveniently 'translated' to uphold it.  

---

by: juicyjuice @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 21:07:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Also redefines

the wonderful phrase of "oh, go fuck yourself"! ;)

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 13:17:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

well done

As a former fundy myself, I love stuff like this. I intend to share it with my other fundy ex-friends.

---

by: MitchNYC @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 13:51:50 PM CST

Biblical traditions, continued...

Well, since humanity is traced back to one couple, their children HAD to marry/have sex with each other to create the following generations. Even if Adam/Eve couldn't be considered related, per se, their kids certainly were. But hey, there wasn't anyone else around.

Well, except for the people who Cain feared would know him for the brother-killer he was. Maybe there was an alt-creation in the garden a few miles away.

Anyway.

Abraham, father of the three big monotheistic religions, married...his sister. And it wasn't because there was no one else around the dude was from a big city at the time.
"And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."  (Genesis 20:12)" Later on, when Sarah couldn't get preggers, she handed over her maid to Abraham. Naturally, she had a kid later, with some divine aid; isn't that the way it always goes?

So...biblical marriage - to sisters and half sisters, check. Also, it's good to have a spare nubile woman around if the wife doesn't get knocked up.

Funny how they leave that out of the traditions of marriage...

Lot! The only decent man in all of Sodom! His daughters get him drunk and sleep with him because they are worried about the local boy shortage. (Yeah, like we haven't heard that before...) So..no marriage, but daughters and fathers are biblical!

Jacob! Marries two sisters and gets their maids knocked up, too. Apparently, maids aren't just for times when the wife isn't producing, they are also good for wifely competition.

Moses! Two wives, one of them dark skinned. His siblings weren't too happy about the biracial thing and complained; but you know that was a long time ago, people had these weird prejudices. Oddly, only his sister got smacked around for it, though. Typical.

and of course, Jesus...
never married. hung out with guys, encouraged them to leave their families to hang out with him. Liked sex radicals, had a talent for bartending.  

---

by: Lantoniou @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 14:22:30 PM CST

Talk of a 5,000 year institution...

Let's not forget one other minor detail that marriage was primarily a contract between two men for the transfer of property, that is the woman from father to husband.  Among the nobility, who are the only ones who mattered, the main purpose of this marriage was to unambiguously define the  first-born son as the legitimate male heir.  Second or third wives, mistresses, etc., and their offspring had no standing.

---

by: annwsc1 @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 15:18:26 PM CST

The New Testament has some interesting insights as well

From the Revised Standard Version:

Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife... - I Timothy 3:2

Let deacons be the husband of one wife... - I Timothy 3:12

It is interesting to note that monogamy was a requirement only for clergy and not for rank-and-file believers. The implication is that polygamy was not only tolerated, but occured often enough that Paul had to place special restrictions on bishops and deacons. (The office of priest evolved a few centuries latter, as certain deacons were given some of the responsibilities that had previously belonged to bishops.)

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 17:18:59 PM CST

speaking of 5000 years of traditions

I wonder if Warren and friends have now stopped eating shellfish, wearing mixed fibers, trimming their beards, etc.

---

by: zythyra @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 18:00:48 PM CST

Thanks for posting

The "5,000-year-old institution" think makes me want to scream. "Marriage" has traditionally been between one man and as many women as he can afford, and it's traditionally been about a transfer of female property from one man to another, usually for purposes of cementing an alliance between families or nations. Insisting that it's always been "one man one woman" makes the person doing the insisting look like a liar, an idiot, or both.

---

by: Darkrose @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 18:04:25 PM CST

Is it worth mentioning . . .

. . . that Warren's gross generalization, as well as all the discussion that follows, is entirely "Western" (Middle Eastern and Mediterranean), whereas the majority of the world's population has never been part of this tradition?

Even if Warren were correct about the Middle East of the Old Testament - and others have pointed out he is not - the assumption that precepts and behaviors there can be automatically applied to the inhabitants of, say, India, Scandanavia, China, Japan, Australia, the Pacific, Africa, and the Americas is an extraordinarily ambitious and tenuous one.

Is he claiming that all of these people always understood "marriage" in the same way?  In that case, he should either be teaching Anthropology 101 (if he has evidence to support this proposition) or taking it (if not).

---

by: dr ngo @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:18:31 AM CST

Fundy Funds

We are a convenient "icky" way for the Ricky Warrens to raise money to live their lavish lifestyles. Gay sex for many ignorant white trash is a perfect scapegoat. That's all this is about. Raising cash from white trash.

---

by: bostonian queer in dallas @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:32:35 AM CST

Fundie Think Part 2

Oh, the fundie will say, polygamy is a sin. It involves acts of adultery with every wife after the first. It's not in accordance with God's plan of one man, one woman for life.

That's why bishops and deacons could have only one wife. We can't have polygamists committing the sin of adultery in leadership positions in the church, now can we?

So when Warren says 5000 years of one man, one woman marriage, he's talking about only the God approved ones, sinful polygamists don't count.

Similar "logic" applies to the other named cases as well.

See how fundie think works?

---

by: Bill Ware @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:40:54 AM CST

Divorce in Jesus' day had different impact on women

Women could be divorced for any reason. Once divorced, she had to hope that her family would take her back, and would expect to be equivalent to a family servant if she did get taken in. If abandoned by family, her options were to beg, to become a concubine or prostitute, to become a chattel slave (men were indentured servant-slaves and were eventually freed, whereas women, once enslaved, were enslaved for life). In most cases, women simply couldn't afford to become divorced.

Why would husbands seek divorce? Most Jewish men of Jesus' day were married to, and could afford, one wife. Only noblemen had the money to support additional wives or concubines. A man's social status within his broad economic or priestly class depended largely on being able to sire a male lineage. Economic status also depended on male heirs being available to help with the farm, craft, business. If the average Jewish man's one and only wife was barren or produced only girls, it was perfectly acceptable to ditch wife #1 in search of another fertile (?) woman who could bear a (male) heir.

Less honorably, a man could divorce a wife because he wanted a sexier one. A man was expected to divorce an adulterous wife.

I think that Jesus' injunction against divorce could be interpreted as an injunction against abandoning women to poverty and shame. The exception for wifely adultery was likely pragmatic, since the alternative to divorce, in matters of male honor, was murder of the woman.

---

by: NancyP @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 18:16:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]