uh, so I was gonna comment saying that I can't speak for the history or practice of marriage and sexuality in non-Western cultures, but that the re-telling of Christian-marriage was just plain misleading -- but then Kristen said exactly what I was going to say! So ditto to her comment.
The problem with how politicians and many, many (probably most, if not all) social conservatives present this question, is that they speak about marriage 'as a whole' as if the institution hasn't changed at all, when really what they are trying to get at is the unique male-female relationship throughout society, which has been centered around family as a social institution, through marriage. Marriage takes many forms, but it is about the relationship between males and females -- certainly in Near Eastern, Mediterranean, Roman, and then Christian and European cultures; I can't speak to others, as I said above, although I haven't ever heard of a society where the majority of its people formed same-sex or multi-gender unions. But as far as Christianity goes -- I would like to pound into a lot of people's heads (mostly Catholics) that our current ideal of marriage is to a certain extent socially and historically constructed, and that is OKAY. Catholics, with their long view of Jewish and Christian history and their theology of grace-perfecting-nature, in theory should have no trouble with this. But anyway. I do think, however, that this article is misleading in terms of Christian history; as if Christians preferring celibacy to marriage somehow changes what they believed about the *nature* of marriage -- and if this author really has read the early Christians, he would know that the sole 'justifications' given for marriage by super-excited-pro-celibacy-types was that God made man and woman for it by nature, and that it is essential for society through reproduction. Whoops. I have read parts of the "controversial" book mentioned which argues for same-sex unions being sanctified by the early Church, and all I remember is the author presenting the icons of "paired" male and female saints embracing (Peter/Paul, Felicity/Perpetua, etc.) as evidence of the early Church's recognition of same-sex romantic/sexual unions. That is just a jaw-droppingly ridiculous claim; I can't say about his documentary evidence (he claimed he found specific same-sex liturgical blessings), but I am very skeptical. And as for the debates during the Reformation, they were about the nature of marriage vis a vis the sacraments; whether marriage existed on the supernatural order (the Catholic position) or only on the natural order. I would argue that Martin Luther's efforts to make marriage normative for all Christians, men and women, and his scornful opposition to the celibate life, have helped lead us down this path where the romantic-sexual relationship and the nuclear family is seen as the only life of true happiness/goodness and thus a right for everyone, regardless of what form it takes -- but that's a larger conversation. All of this has to do with the social placement and significance of marriage, but nothing to do with marriage as linked to male-female pairs and reproduction. I think that aspect of the nature of marriage is as clear as glass within Western culture -- but I *would* like to see more Christians making arguments for or offering historical understandings of monogamy over polygamy! That I would like to know more about.
I have an honest question, though, for people who ascribe to theories of sexuality that posit that human "nature" is fluid and totally subject to human needs and circumstance. Basically: is it possible, do you think, for humans to live together in society without a shared understanding of human "nature"? If human nature is what any individual decides to make it, but they also expect to be recognized and treated as whatever they make it, and to then instill it in children or other young people or groups of them, that are still being formed, etc. etc., how does that remain merely an individual choice which leaves everyone else free to make their individual choices? I think this goes both ways. Group A hates that Group B thinks human nature is 'x + y = z' and that they raise their children or teach others that this is so; Group A calls this "brainwashing" or "bigotry" or "perversion of the young." Group B fights for social recognition of their version of nature, while Group A insists that anyone who says nature is 'x + y = z' rather than 'y = mx +b' shouldn't be allowed to make the rules. Group C says there isn't any such thing as human nature and that groups and individuals just find whatever works for them, but because we live in a society where we affect each other at many levels, this ends up in trying to make everyone else believe or act like Group C.
no subject
The problem with how politicians and many, many (probably most, if not all) social conservatives present this question, is that they speak about marriage 'as a whole' as if the institution hasn't changed at all, when really what they are trying to get at is the unique male-female relationship throughout society, which has been centered around family as a social institution, through marriage. Marriage takes many forms, but it is about the relationship between males and females -- certainly in Near Eastern, Mediterranean, Roman, and then Christian and European cultures; I can't speak to others, as I said above, although I haven't ever heard of a society where the majority of its people formed same-sex or multi-gender unions. But as far as Christianity goes -- I would like to pound into a lot of people's heads (mostly Catholics) that our current ideal of marriage is to a certain extent socially and historically constructed, and that is OKAY. Catholics, with their long view of Jewish and Christian history and their theology of grace-perfecting-nature, in theory should have no trouble with this. But anyway. I do think, however, that this article is misleading in terms of Christian history; as if Christians preferring celibacy to marriage somehow changes what they believed about the *nature* of marriage -- and if this author really has read the early Christians, he would know that the sole 'justifications' given for marriage by super-excited-pro-celibacy-types was that God made man and woman for it by nature, and that it is essential for society through reproduction. Whoops. I have read parts of the "controversial" book mentioned which argues for same-sex unions being sanctified by the early Church, and all I remember is the author presenting the icons of "paired" male and female saints embracing (Peter/Paul, Felicity/Perpetua, etc.) as evidence of the early Church's recognition of same-sex romantic/sexual unions. That is just a jaw-droppingly ridiculous claim; I can't say about his documentary evidence (he claimed he found specific same-sex liturgical blessings), but I am very skeptical. And as for the debates during the Reformation, they were about the nature of marriage vis a vis the sacraments; whether marriage existed on the supernatural order (the Catholic position) or only on the natural order. I would argue that Martin Luther's efforts to make marriage normative for all Christians, men and women, and his scornful opposition to the celibate life, have helped lead us down this path where the romantic-sexual relationship and the nuclear family is seen as the only life of true happiness/goodness and thus a right for everyone, regardless of what form it takes -- but that's a larger conversation. All of this has to do with the social placement and significance of marriage, but nothing to do with marriage as linked to male-female pairs and reproduction. I think that aspect of the nature of marriage is as clear as glass within Western culture -- but I *would* like to see more Christians making arguments for or offering historical understandings of monogamy over polygamy! That I would like to know more about.
I have an honest question, though, for people who ascribe to theories of sexuality that posit that human "nature" is fluid and totally subject to human needs and circumstance. Basically: is it possible, do you think, for humans to live together in society without a shared understanding of human "nature"? If human nature is what any individual decides to make it, but they also expect to be recognized and treated as whatever they make it, and to then instill it in children or other young people or groups of them, that are still being formed, etc. etc., how does that remain merely an individual choice which leaves everyone else free to make their individual choices? I think this goes both ways. Group A hates that Group B thinks human nature is 'x + y = z' and that they raise their children or teach others that this is so; Group A calls this "brainwashing" or "bigotry" or "perversion of the young." Group B fights for social recognition of their version of nature, while Group A insists that anyone who says nature is 'x + y = z' rather than 'y = mx +b' shouldn't be allowed to make the rules. Group C says there isn't any such thing as human nature and that groups and individuals just find whatever works for them, but because we live in a society where we affect each other at many levels, this ends up in trying to make everyone else believe or act like Group C.