You can be skeptical and friendly at the same time.
Follow Patheos Atheist:
[Link to video]
I am age 78, once a Catholic priest for five years (in the 1960's), then a math teacher for 44 years up to the present day. I became an atheist a few years ago. My hobbies are music and chess.
Christians being hypocritical? Who would have thought it?
the thing EVEYONE needs to understand is that marriage is a LEGAL position and NOT a religious one.
If you remove the religious part of a marriage ceremony then you are still married… but if you remove the legal part, you are not married.
If an individual wishes to have their marriage defined by their god then that’s fine, if you want to stomp on a glass wrapped in a hanky that’s ok too, but don’t expect others to follow your beliefs.
I’m still mystified as to how on earth two men getting married will affect a man and a women getting married..
can someone explain it because I’m just wondering what the idea of gay marriage has to do with straight marriage.
What is there to explain the need for marriage between 2 people? Where did the concept of marriage come from? Since there is no absolute truth, what is wrong with group marriage? Isn’t variety the spice of life? Where does the concept of equality come from if not from the bible? Why one to one? If someone is rich, has very high IQ good looks, is he or she not doing the world a favor by having many spouses and spreading his or her superior genes around?
Good point! Why is marriage one to one? I wonder what the Bible has to say about plural marriages…
Haven’t had your coffee yet, EC?
Another great point by a ‘Guest’. Such insight and authoritative concepts! “Where does the concept of equality come from if not from the bible [sic]“? Wow. I never would have thought that the concept equality came from one book! Never. But, now we know. Thanks guest.
Now … about group marriage in the Bible …
Genesis 4:19And Lamech took unto him two wives.Genesis 16:1-4Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai … gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.Genesis 25:6But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had….Genesis 26:34Esau … took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.Genesis 31:17Then Jacob rose up, and set … his wives upon camels.Exodus 21:10If he take him another wife….Deuteronomy 21:15If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated….Judges 8:30And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.1 Samuel 1:1-2Elkanah … had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.2 Samuel 12:7-8Thus saith the LORD God of Israel … I gave thee … thy master’s wives….1 Kings 11:2-3Solomon … had seven hundred wives … and three hundred concubines.1 Chronicles 4:5And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.2 Chronicles 11:21Rehoboam … took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.2 Chronicles 13:21But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives….2 Chronicles 24:3Jehoiada took for him two wives….Mt.25:1Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.[Source: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/polygamy.html]Oh, and don’t get me started on ‘equality’.
First of all, your (or your source’s) last example with the 10 virgins is egregiously ignorant, because the virgins are guests to the wedding, not brides of the groom, in the parable.
Secondly, many of your examples show characters whose behavior was condemned in the scriptures, like Solomon for example: “As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been.” (1 Kings 11: 4)
Third, Jesus’ discourse on marriage with the Pharisees in Matthew, Chapter 19 allows the educated Christian to say that the Jewish civil law was not the fullness of revelation, nor endorsed the things it allowed, but, like bankruptcy law today, it was making the best out of a bad situation that occurred because men’s hearts were hard.
4″‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”Jesus not only defends marriage here, but condemns polygamy and gay marriage by implication, and He is the fullness of Truth and of revelation.
Though the other responses point to this being a troll, I’m going to forsake better judgment in my undercaffeinated stupor and actually reply honestly.
Your first two questions (explain the need, where did it come from) are beyond me right now, either because I’m A. not an anthropologist, B. not fully awake yet, or some combination of the two.
“What is wrong with group marriage?” Inherently? Nothing at all. Assuming all parties consent across the board and nobody’s personal autonomy or bodily sovereignty is violated, there is nothing wrong with it. I daresay that goes double with the state of the economy right now – more people living in one house, pooling resources, money, skills and energy to get by, seems like a practical thing to do.
“Isn’t variety the spice of life?” Indeed it is. While I think relationships should be treated with some extra care because human emotion and mental health are at stake, again, if all parties consent there is nothing wrong with more than two people sharing in mutual love, affection and respect for one another.
“Where does the concept of equality come from if not from the bible?” This is a stupid question and you’re a stupid person for asking it. Egalitarian societies and the concept of fairness existed before the buy-bull was written. Besides, that book doesn’t have the greatest track record itself with regard to treating people like people. Remind me again what it says about children, women and slaves?
“Why one to one?” Most of the time, because it’s easiest to form the deepest bond when you’re focusing your efforts on only one other person. However, not everyone is wired that way and, as you said yourself, variety is the spice of life.
“If someone is rich, has very high IQ good looks, is he or she not doing
the world a favor by having many spouses and spreading his or her
superior genes around?” Probably. This is one of those emotional kneejerk questions, and we’re used to drawing parallels between this and active eugenics or even ethnic cleansing, which aren’t the same. Yes, it seems arrogant for someone to acknowledge the blessings bestowed upon them by random assortment, but that’s evolution for you – advantageous traits are more likely to spread. High IQ contributes to a greater ability to solve problems that threaten the species and good looks increase the probability of attracting a mate. Wealth isn’t genetic but, at the same time, there is the concept of charity (which also existed before the bible) and so, if a rich person chooses to be a generous human being and share their wealth, that’s not usually a bad thing. And as long as we’re not actively forbidding people who don’t live up to some ordained genetic standard from reproducing at the same time, there’s nothing inherently wrong with an intelligent and attractive person trying to have a lot of children. All I’d ask is that she or he treat her or his partners with respect.
On the issue of multiple people getting married, I think the main issue is whether or not the arrangement enhances equality between men and women or decreases it. Polygamy usually boils down to wealthy men with high social status owning many women as property. So, if you could be sure that everybody is in it equally (like some kind of voluntary tribal affiliation) then I’d say no big deal. I know people in 3 person relationships of varying sorts and I’d see no reason not to grant them legal recognition.
The problem with granting legal recognition to such a relationship is that it’s very difficult. In countries that have polygamy it only works precisely because such relationships tend to be inherently unequal there. Men have all the power and the wives aren’t married to each other. Instead of trying to cover everything with laws, setting down an equal multi-person relationship would probably only work with an individual contract.
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2013, Patheos. All rights reserved.