UPDATE: Mr. Spackman contacted me and assures me he did not create the image referred to in this post. My arguments against the image remain the same, even if not created by Mr. Spackman.
I’m writing about marriage today. You know, the kind of marriage between a man and woman and practiced and dreamed of by more than 99% of the earth’s population?
Yeah, that kind. The only kind really.
Gay marriage is a farce. It is against the laws of nature, common sense, historical practice, and the sensibilities of probably 98% of the planet.
A number of people I am Facebook Friends with shared an image [edit based on new information] mistakenly [end of edit ] attributed to Travis Spackman.
This image has chosen to make fun of people (like me) who believe in marriage by pointing out Old Testament scriptures related to marriage laws and treatment of women.
By pointing out some of these harsh by modern standards rules from the Law of Moses, it is intended to show that holding on to the definition of marriage and insisting that marriage should not be expanded to gay couples is a stupid and outdated idea.
My biggest problem with this kind of argument is that it ignores the rest of human history where marriage has always been between a man and a woman (or women). Polyandry is also practiced where one woman has more than one husband. The entire knowable history of the world has always and forever defined marriage as a union between man and woman. The Law of Moses is only a very small part of human history.
So why single out the Old Testament to make fun of people who support Marriage? It is intellectually lazy and certainly [edited in light of the above update] will not help win any people over to that side of the argument. [end of this edit]. It alienates his supposed opposition and is a way for people who already agree with him to virtually high-five each other over the internet.
Here is some historical context that actually shows the Law of Moses had some common sense to it [whether you believe it was God’s law or not], in spite of [edit again] this images’ [end of edit] wagging finger of shame.
4,000 years ago, women were not as empowered [or protected] as they are today. Marriage was a safe haven of sorts that placed women in at least some kind of protected status. Unmarried women were often taken advantage of and victimized in countless ways. Marriage was a blessing to these women who needed the legal protections and recognition of marriage. Men would often die young, were involved in armed conflict and died leaving widows and children. Non-virgins were often considered “damaged goods” as well. It was just part of the greater cultural norms and attitudes of the time. The Law of Moses was not binding or applied to gentiles in these matters and marriages were most often arranged for the young men and women in that day.
Leverite marriages were a benefit to the woman who would be without the protection of a marriage if she were only a widow. Also, non-virgins were considered “damaged goods” in the greater cultural norms and the obligation on the brother was a way of dealing with the shame/difficulty for finding a new husband.
Concubines were under the protection of the man although not of the same status as a wife. So, technically not part of the marriage.
Virgins have to marry their rapist? That one was news to me, so I looked up the scripture to see what it said. The determinative term was not virgin, but on the marital status of the woman. If a married woman is raped, the rapist gets killed. If a woman is betrothed and is raped, the rapist is killed. If the woman is not betrothed and is raped, then the rapist is ordered to marry the girl and cannot ever divorce her. Hmmm. To borrow a phrase from Whoopi Goldberg, the scriptures do not clarify whether the crime is like statutory rape or “rape-rape”. It is entirely possible that if the rape of a non-betrothed was forced, there would be no marriage but frontier justice instead. If it was more of a consensual thing, then it is probably not a big deal and would be a underhanded way of gaining approval to get married if the parents did not approve of the pairing already. It might also be a tactic if the marriage agreement negotiation was not going well. The penalty was marriage without the possibility of divorce. [Some of the unhappily married folk out there would consider this prison without the possibility of parole.]
Women as spoils of war? Apparently they only kept the virgin females from the otherwise wholesale slaughter of the Midianites from a war. The virgin females were to be integrated into society and eligible for marriage. There was a huge bias against marrying a non-virgin. Back in that day, people who were captured were often abused, the women were raped, then the captives were sold into slavery. There was to be no profiting from the trafficking of women as the spoils of war under the Law of Moses. It sort of makes sense. Would a marriage and children be better than rape, slavery, or death? It was comparatively humane for the time.
In a larger context, these rules also reduced the incidence of premarital sex, STD’s and a whole host of other societal problems when sex is undervalued and carries no legal consequence or penalty.
Marriage and married life leads to happier and healthier people with lower incidence of violence and abuse. Most domestic abuse is found with live-in partners, not married couples.
The sexual revolution of the 1960’s and modern day feminism has not helped women or men to be happier or more secure. If anything, the ongoing neuroses, insecurity, depression, suicide, illegitimacy, and many other problems we have today go straight back to the “empowered woman” who “does not need a man”. By cutting her ties to a husband and family, she has been uprooted and is drifting in the metaphorical sea of society without an anchor to keep her planted and secure.
The real answer to these problems is a culture that values family relationships and marriage.
Comments Welcome
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 12, 2011 at 6:49 am
Laura
<>
So…unmarried, strong, independent women lack a moral compass? Is that true of unmarried men as well?
Feminism is the revolutionary idea that women are human beings who should be treated as such instead of property (of her father, husband, son, etc.). Feminism is NOT at odds with marriage. I am a better wife and mother *because* I know that I am valuable and valued as an independent, intelligent person. I need my husband in the sense that my life is better with him than without him (for a lot of reasons), but I also know that I would survive if he died. I’d be heartbroken, but I would be able to take care of myself and my children without having to rely on a man to do it. Not being terrified of widowhood is a good thing.
WRT gay marriage, I just don’t see any reason why the government should prevent two consenting adults from entering into a legal contract. The real solution, I think, is to make marriage an issue for churches and for civil unions to be what *everyone*, regardless of sexual orientation, obtains when they want to set up a household.
December 19, 2011 at 9:22 am
mistah charley, ph.d.
You say “The entire knowable history of the world has always and forever defined marriage as a union between man and woman.” And yet there are MANY polygamous marriages in the Bible. These are marriages between a man and more than one woman. Why do you say something which you know is not true?
December 19, 2011 at 5:11 pm
David
You might also take note that I did not say “one man” and “one woman” either. It was intentionally vague in a way that would be reasonably inclusive of polygamy/polyandry inasmuch as some cultures have one woman with multiple husbands.
Cheers.
February 8, 2012 at 11:20 am
Jersey
The issue is not about marriage. It’s about equal rights for everyone. It’s a legal matter, not church. Based on your blog I can see that you have no ability to think for yourself so I can understand why you are confused.
February 8, 2012 at 5:31 pm
David
Disagreement is not the same as confusion. Cheers.
February 8, 2012 at 11:50 am
Travis Spackman
I just want to go on record saying I did not create this image. I just simply shared it. You might want to research the source of the image before you start a blog of defamation.
February 8, 2012 at 5:14 pm
David
Mr. Spackman,thank you for clearing up that you did not create the image. I made some edits to the above post to reflect this information.
If I did somehow defame you [or anyone else] I will happily remove the defamatory language.
February 8, 2012 at 3:53 pm
jaysen
dear David ~
no wish to engage in argument or debate from my end, seeing that you are pretty settled and confident in your view. we don’t see eye to eye on this and we have a different approach to knowing and seeking out relationship to the great and beautiful mystery that is God, Life, and Love. and although i may not connect with your spiritual journey i have great faith that God connects with us where we are despite any possible misnavigation on our part. so i wish you well on your journey to knowing God more fully and personally, i wish you much happiness and peace.
i do want to clarify that the image of which you speak is an image that is being widely passed around FB and the internet. you are attributing the image to him in error. Travis was merely passing it around as many others have. tagging his name to draw attention to him personally, seems a bit provocative and confrontational…and ultimately not necessary to prove your point, unless you are wanting to direct your readers to him….for what purpose? you say you have mutual friends? perhaps you could have engaged them in conversation and found out a bit more info before attributing it to him? just a suggestion to be careful and kind, even in your judgement or condemnation.
i happen to know Travis and work with him. he is a great individual with a good heart, finding his way through life like so many of us. no one is exempt from the pain and suffering that happens in life, as well as everyone has a right to finding their meaning, their purpose and enjoying the great blessing – the sacredness of having this life.
i cannot preach or teach to you that there is a vast spacious Love when communing with God, when we meet God in that place of silence and stillness, where the truth of those words…”Be still and know that I AM God”…comes to Life. it is something you have to experience yourself. but, it is my prayer for you as it is with all of us, that life brings all of what life can to your journey to grow you into all that you have possibility to be.
i will close with this quote from the beautiful poet, Rumi ~
“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field, i will meet you there.”
peace to you.
~ jaysen
February 9, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Mariah
This article is extremely articulate and fair minded…which clearly you are not.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/feb/09/mormons-gay-marriage-proposition-8