Search
Polls
Latest Forum Posts
| Taking a Knee unclebuck 15-11-08 13:51 |
| Re:Football unclebuck 07-10-08 15:24 |
| Re:Football unclebuck 02-10-08 12:59 |
Login Form
| His Voice |
|
|
| Written by Scott McKinley / Community Columnist | |
| Saturday, 15 December 2007 | |
|
The sanctity of marriage Would you ever consider voting for the following amendment to the state or federal constitution?  Scott McKinley “In order to preserve the sanctity of marriage, all marital laws must follow the moral guidance and principles of the Holy Bible.” This is a common cry of many modern-day religious leaders who immediately try to turn this into rejection of specific types of marriages they wish to deny. Those range from marriages between religious denominations to unions between people of different races to gay marriage. But before accepting such arguments, let’s look at how the Bible defines the sacredness of marriage and see if that is really what is desired. Contrary to many recent interpretations, the Bible defines marriage as the union of one man and one or more women (Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15-17). This is pretty easy to see, because many of the major characters in the Bible are polygamists, and having more than one wife is never considered adultery in this context. God even takes credit for giving multiple wives to David in 2 Samuel 12:8. So with polygyny so apparent in the Old Testament, how do today’s preachers try to say that the Bible supports monogamy? There are two major passages they misconstrue. The first is the argument that God made man and woman “one flesh” from Genesis 2:24. However, 1 Corinthians 6:16-17 reveals that a man can be “one flesh” with a harlot, though the passage does not show approval of such behavior. Also, one flesh or spirit must apply to many people, or else there could only be one person united with God. The second major passage cited against polygyny is the command for kings not to multiply wives, taken from Deuteronomy 17:17. This is not a command against polygyny; it just says that a king should not have too many wives. There is an equivalent command right before this for a king not to multiply horses either, but no one is interpreting this passage as telling a king that he should only own one horse. Besides polygyny, what else would come with a biblical definition of marriage? Women would be treated radically different than they are treated today in the Western world. For example, if a raped woman is not engaged or married, a book in the Bible explains she must marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Also, if one’s daughter is not a virgin when she marries, she must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:20-21). Wives must also submit to their husband in everything (Ephesians 5:22-24). There are also many miscellaneous laws. For instance, a widow without a son must marry her brother-in-law (Deuteronomy 25:5), and believers should not marry unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14-15). Some people may even applaud a few extreme laws, such as stoning adulterers to death (Leviticus 20:10). But is this what people really want today? Some people want to justify cultural practices by citing an authority that people dare not challenge — such as the Bible — to teach prejudice. These people cherry pick pieces of the Bible to justify beliefs they want to be true. Should we really try to define marriage on a system that was used primarily to control lineage and to build family allegiances? Marriage has evolved to be an institution based on security, love, happiness and the basis of a family unit. Why not let this philosophy be our guide when dealing with the political and social issues surrounding marriage? Scott McKinley is a scientist and a local Patterson resident. He may be reached by e-mail at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 241 Comments
(2)
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
