A rchive Date
[ 06-02-2005 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Marianne_Meed_Ward/2005/02/06/921848.html
The family template
Biblical text is very flexible on what constitutes a marriage unit
By Marianne Meed Ward -- For the Toronto Sun
Sun, February 6, 2005
I'm always a bit baffled by religious groups that argue against same-sex marriage on the grounds of protecting "the traditional definition of marriage."
And what definition would that be? And how far back do you want to go? Because the farther back you go, the broader the definition becomes. I'll show you what I mean in a minute.
Whether you look at theology or anthropology, marriage has always adapted to the times. That alone should be reason enough to support same-sex marriage. Here's another -- if religious folks are so committed to commitment, you'd think they'd encourage any two people who want to make a life together. Once upon a time, the argument against homosexuality was that gays and lesbians are promiscuous. They don't commit to one partner and that leads to instability and other ills. So you'd think that once gays and lesbians decided to settle down, religious folks would be the first to applaud. But it ain't so. A peculiar circular reasoning is employed that goes like this: Homosexuality is bad because homosexuals don't commit, but we can't let homosexuals commit because homosexuality is bad, and it's bad because homosexuals don't commit. And so on.
Why don't people want them to commit? Because it shatters the image people have of what marriage is supposed to be. That image purports to be based on religious texts. But the one man, one woman model is a relatively new convention even there.
Bigamy
Exhibit A: In Genesis 4:19, we read that Lamech, a descendant of Cain, the first son of Adam and Eve, took two wives. We'd call that bigamy today.
Exhibit B: Noah, Lamech's son, brought his wife, his sons and his sons' wives into the ark and only they were spared the flood that encompassed the earth. When the water receded, God told them to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" (Genesis 9:1). But if they're the only humans left, who do they breed with? Right. First cousins. That's legal in Canada, but if everyone did it we might have some problems with the gene pool. Also, it's worth pointing out that the command to bear children, which religious folk like to quote as both an imperative for heterosexual couples and another strike against homosexual ones, came after God wiped out the earth. There is no such threat of underpopulation today. That's why context is so important in reading religious texts. That verse was a command for a moment in time, not for all time. It's possible other commands are like that, too.
Exhibit C & D: Moving right along on our tour of "traditional" family models, we have Abraham, whose wife Sarah couldn't bear him a child, so she encouraged him to mate with their servant Hagar. He did. When Abraham eventually has a son, Isaac, with Sarah, he sends Hagar and her son Ishmael away. Talk about your deadbeat dad. Later, (Genesis 25:6) Abraham has concubines who bear him children. Is this the "traditional, biblical" model we are to emulate?
Or how about this: Exhibit E. After Lot, Abraham's brother, and his family escape the fire that destroys Sodom and Gomorah, Lot's two daughters get him drunk, sleep with him, and become pregnant. That's definitely illegal in Canada.
Exhibit F: Jacob, Isaac's son, had two wives, sisters Leah and Rachel, who were also his own first cousins. More bigamy. Furthermore, they were marriages arranged with Jacob's uncle Laban.
Such is the most traditional definition of marriage. Other religions and cultures feature similar conventions -- marriage among relatives, arranged marriages, multiple wives, concubines and mistresses, and blended families, with the care of widows and their children falling to the nearest brother.
Arranged marriages
Some will argue that by the New Testament, Jesus was advising that "a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh." (Matthew 19:5). But he was merely quoting Genesis 2:24 -- and we've already seen there was a broad interpretation of what that meant back then. Clearly, it didn't mean what it is taken to mean today: Two people falling in love, marrying and often living far from extended family. At the best of times, it meant arranged marriages between not-so-distant relatives living with extended family members.
Clearly, the marital form has adapted over the centuries to meet changing social realities. Even divorce was allowed, when the people's hearts were hard (Matthew 19:8) But there is an underlying thread: Do what works to ensure maximum stability and care for family members.
On that count, I'd say the Biblical pattern favours same-sex marriage.
Marianne Meed Ward's "In Your Faith" column appears Sundays. Her e-mail is: meed.ward@sympatico.ca Letters to the editor should be sent to: editor@tor.sunpub.com Home Page
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|