Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
What I find ridiculous in this issue is the strange sense from the religious right that somehow "marriage" is this perfectly preserved, eternal institution that has not experienced any transformation over the thousands of years of civilized society. As if today's definition of "marriage" is precisely what god intended; in actual fact, we redefine "marriage" all the time, and this will never stop.
And thank god that institutions do change. At one time and in many places, the sole function for marriage was to produce children, and to ensure the survival of one's lineage. Most often this took place at the expense of anyone's own wishes or desires. "Marriage" was a contract between families, not individuals; it was about progeny and community solidarity and had little to do with companionship, love or affection. I don't know about any of the rest of you, but I am sure glad that my own marriage amounts to a hell of a lot more than that, and I am equally thankful that marriage has been redefined over and over through the centuries, and bears little resemblance to its ancient counterparts.
|
Exactly. Now if we are really going biblical, shouldn't we be allowed to practice polygamy? It's common in the Old Testament among the very patriarchs of the Abrahamic religions and there is nothing in the New Testament that ever commented on or rescinded this practice. Marriage is not an eternal institution. It is a cultural construction that changed and evolved throughout human history.
My great-grandfather in China had 8 wives and several more concubines. Perhaps I should claim a cultural right to that practice.