AEON said:
It seems the main reason why some feel that a redefinition of marriage is necessary is based on a desire to receive the “benefits” bestowed on traditionally married couples. If this is the reason on which to refine marriage – then I see no “reason” to open the floodgates all together. Why not? What reason do we have to limit these benefits to anyone? Please offer an answer not based on personal preference (most here are sickened by incest, but there are a few souls out there that really enjoy it – what are your reasons for denying them the benefits of marriage?)
For me, all of this is dealt with quite nicely by my faith. I have a source for my definition. What is the “source” for the definition for gay marriage other than feeling, societal trend, secular humanism, or moral relativism? I am not willing to put my faith in man or manmade ethics. Because you are Jewish – we share some scriptural foundations for values – and one of them comes from Proverbs 3:5 “5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.”
It's not just the benefits, it's also the responsibilities, before the state and (in the case of religious "redefinition") before God and one's faith community. I don't myself see it as "redefinition" really, any more than I'd see the transition from arranged marriages to freely chosen ones as "redefinition"--the rights and responsibilities of spouses do not change.
As far as incestuous marriages go, Irvine already mentioned the major "secular" objection--the dramatically increased risk of birth defects, or more technically, creating an inbreeding depression, with resulting steep increases in infant and child mortality, stunted growth and development, severe immunodeficiencies, and incidence of congenital disorders. In addition, there is the problem that sexual relationships between close relatives are likely to be of dubious consensuality, which in a culture like ours (unlike, say, that reflected in the Bible, where marriages were arranged) presents an additional ethical reason not to sanction them. Incidentally, according to the Bible it is perfectly fine for you to marry your niece (though not for a woman to marry her nephew), yet all 50 states forbid this as incest. Do you then object to this prohibition?
As far as polygamy, I don't myself in principle object to legalizing it, so long as such marriages would be consensual and the right to take multiple spouses allowed to women as well as men. However, what relatively little is known about the practices of the several thousand American fundamentalist Mormons living in polygamous households is not encouraging in this respect: check the "Polygamy" archives of the
Salt Lake Tribune, for example, if you have the access--a disturbingly long list of legal cases involving marriages which violated US or state laws pertaining to incest, age of consent, and educational neglect (with girls invariably being the victims). Although these marriages are themselves, of course, not legal either (i.e., sanctioned by religious authorities only) they are in fact seldom if ever prosecuted on those grounds.
Besides, I'm still unconvinced that a decisive Biblical case can be made for criminalizing polygamy. It's true that it was never permitted to Roman citizens, as it was forbidden by Roman law (and the imperial Greeks before them forbade it to their citizens also), but up until the 6th century, the Romans generally allowed subject peoples the option of following their own customs in such matters. So for example, in Jesus' day, Jews in Judaea had the option of securing either a religious-court marriage contract (which *could* be for a polygamous marriage, as Jewish law permitted that) or a state one--with the caveat that any spouses after the first would not be considered spouses in the eyes of Roman authorities, though since women had no legal standing anyway, the impact of this would've been simply to further a cultural preference for monogamy already begun under Greek influence (if not before). And there
were rabbis at the time who wanted polygamy made illegal under Jewish law as well--the Hillelite Pharisees, who as I've mentioned before Jesus seemed to share much common ground with philosophically, argued that it should be forbidden as a
khillul ha-Shem ("it disfavors God's name"), since it was not a command anyway, rather a custom (
minagim) and one which made the Jews seem morally inferior to neighboring people, to whom they ought rather seek to exemplify good moral behavior. (Unfortunately, the School of Hillel did not carry the day on this issue, and it was not until the 10th century that Gershom of Germany, chief rabbi of the Ashkenazim, managed to get this by-then-rather-moot reform enacted; the Sephardim though, living primarily in the Muslim world where polygamy was quite acceptable, did not accept the ban until the 20th century.) However, neither Jesus nor Paul explicitly stated a blanket opposition to polygamy, as Hillel had. The passages from Matthew and Mark you quoted--which pertain to a dispute over terms for divorce ongoing amongst the various rabbinic factions at the time--do not present themselves as authoritative legal definitions of the form a marriage may take, nor does the Genesis passage Jesus cites in them; men with multiple wives would've been subject to any relevant limitations on when they might divorce one of them, just like anyone else. The Ephesians passage invokes the image of the loving husband and wife as a metaphor for the relationship between Jesus and his followers; it does not say that one cannot have such a relationship with more than one wife. I'm not sure where the list of requirements for deacons you refer to is and can't find it at the moment (something in my memory says Timothy? but I'm not certain), however, I would think the fact that monogamous marriage is stipulated as a requirement for deacons if anything tends to give the impression that some ordinary church members did indeed have polygamous marriages, in which case why not explicitly forbid it if that's the idea.
Also, so far as I can tell, you have not indicated any position as to what a Biblical basis for age of consent laws might look like. Do you think it should be legal for 12 year old girls and 13 year old boys to marry? If not, then by what authority do you declare it wrong (and therefore demanding of being forbidden), since this was standard in Biblical times and nothing in the Bible forbids it? My own reasoning would be that while there's nothing particularly problematic about such a custom in the context of a society where people do not choose their own professions or determine their own destinies through education--what's the point in waiting until 18 if your future as a homemaker or farmer is already written in stone anyway?--it is indeed problematic in a society like ours, where men and women alike are free to choose these things, and required to undergo many years of schooling to prepare them for that. But of course this line of thinking would've struck most Jews and Christians of 2000 years ago as self-indulgent nonsense, just as would our ideas of romantic love and one's "right" to choose one's own spouse. And if you're not willing to put any faith whatsoever in "manmade ethics," why then forbid what the Bible permits?
As for the place of human "understanding" in Jewish law, the most succinct explanation I can think of is that we view it as a necessary complement to observance--not a substitute for it. Interpretation and application of law through debate among the learned is central to Jewish life. And the oral law does give our religious leaders the authority to abrogate the law, under certain circumstances and in accord with the principles of legal hermeneutics supplied in the oral law. While this authority isn't exercised often, it is an ancient one, and several abrogations had already occurred before (e.g., overturning the Deuteronomic injunction against killing a rebellious son) and during (e.g., overturning oral law prohibitions against healing the sick, or sharing food with the poor, on Sabbath) Jesus' lifetime. Ensuring that the interpretation of the letter of the law does not contradict that of its spirit, so to speak. My own determination (Conservative) will be voting in December (the rabbinical assembly, that is) on whether to permit gay marriages and the ordination of gay rabbis.
Finally, unlike yours, our religion is not a universalizing one--we do not believe that the practices we structure our lives by are the only legitimate way to honor God. Even if I did believe that gay marriage was terminally irreconcilable with an observant Jewish life, I would see no reason to oppose the state approving it, unless I believed that the resulting marriages would not be consensual or would otherwise cause harm in some quanitifiable way.
Holla!
I don't know who I am and what to think anymore.
