Forum Discussion: Meaning & Purpose of Christian Marriage
This is a real problem because differences over the nature of marriage and gender roles have been a principal factor in debates over many other social changes over the past century, like interracial marriage, no-fault divorce, and so forth. Traditional religious assumptions about marriage and gender roles have been a pernicious influence, inhibiting important social progress, but there has been far too little public scrutiny of these assumptions.
I heard a radio show a few days ago on Catholic Radio that really surprised me. I knew that the Catholic church (and many other conservative Christian churches) were adamantly opposed to gay marriages or to any official recognition of gay relationships, but some of the comments on the show were still a shock.
Do you know that according to the "experts" on the radio show, a man cannot be married in the Catholic church if he is impotent? This is because marriage requires (according to them) that the couple be able to perform (and does perform at least once) the male to female sex act (penis in vagina) without any contraception or "intent to thwart conception" because a "true marriage" must be open to the possibility of life.
Now don't get me wrong. I am not denigrating the importance of sex to a relationship (though their narrow definition of acceptable sex is puritanical and contrary to public opinion to say the least), but is marriage really just about (or even primarily about) sex?
I had thought that (even traditionally) marriage was more about property rights, legal kinship, and mutual support than sex, but I could be wrong. And why is it that if the Catholic church feels that way they don't lobby as hard for banning impotent marriages and divorce (which they also don't allow) as they are for banning same sex marriages?
I haven't seen any polls relating to this, but do you really think that our society in general actually has a view of marriage similar to that of the fundamentalist Christian churches and Catholic church? What IS the purpose and meaning of marriage in today's society and how does it relate to cohabitation and to gay unions?
If anything is a shock, it's that Catholics will discuss this so openly. The Catholic Church has always opposed marriage when one person is impotent and it's one of the valid reasons for obtaining an annulment, but it's also an issue where they can find almost no sympathy or agreement from the rest of Western society. They can count on some support for their opposition to gay marriage or abortion, but almost no one agrees that impotent people should not be allowed to marry, or that marriage to an impotent person is in any way less valid or less legitimate.
That, however, doesn't quite explain why they don't fight to ban marriage to impotent people in the same way that they fight to ban abortion or fight to prevent legal gay marriage. They'd surely have even less success, it's true, but when was the last time the Catholic Church worked on the principle that it's not worth defending moral dogmas that are unpopular? A more credible explanation is simply that it's safer politically to avoid too many references to all the underlying assumptions behind their opposition to gay marriage — if people really understood where the Catholic Church was coming from, their support would dwindle even further.
Mo responds with a good point about why impotence is barrier to marriage in so many traditional religious systems:
It all makes a lot of sense if you analyse Catholicism (and most other religions) in terms of a feminist-scientific-historical perspective. ...
In order to create a means of passing on wealth and power to your offspring (if you're a bloke) you need to ensure that the women you fertilise don't stray. You can't do it biologically, so you have to do it socially. Hence religions and their almost universal denigration of women and subjugation of their sexuality. Female virginity is at a premium. Female promiscuity and adultery are abhorred.
You might be shocked that an impotent or infertile man might not be allowed to marry under Catholicism, but that's basically just collateral damage. The real deal is keeping patriarchal lines of wealth and power under control. Same reason they stopped priests from marrying in the 12th century. Keep the wealth and power in the church.
As with so many other things, it keeps coming back to retaining power over women and over female sexuality in particular. Add your thoughts to the comments here or join the ongoing discussion in the forum.
Comments
I always get a chuckle whenever I hear the “marriage is for procreation” argument. Besides impotence, would those right-wing-nut religious folks want to ban heterosexual marriages between the elderly, or if the woman had a hysterectomy (or is otherwise sterile), or the man had a vasectomy (or is otherwise sterile), or the couple simply didn’t want to have children? The right-wing-nuts never have a good reply to any of those arguments.
As a Christian Married Man, here is what I think marriage is intended for.(again, this is what I believe, and what I have found it to be true. Do with it what you like.)
Marriage is two people joining together and functioning as one. It is built on Trust and Respect, (without those fundamental pillars, your marraige is likely to fail.) Love, is both intimate(S-E-X) as well as a deep friendship, and companionship. For me as a man, it is about learning, constantly learning, a woman is much different than a man, and in order to think the way she thinks and feel the way she feels, you have to factor in all her emotions and needs,(almost impossibe,) and that is why I think marriage makes you into an UN-selfish being. If you truely are devoted to making your marriage work, and making it into the romantic fantacy that you and your wife have always dreamed of, it can happen. But it can’t happen until you realize how selfish you really are as a human-being, opening your eyes to how much you think the world revolves around you, and then making your world revolve and rely on her. Complicated stuff right…?
And then the part that will probably get critizied, but I am laying it out there because it has worked for me, and I am happy. God(Jesus) has to be the center of your relationship. He is the reason you can be unselfish to each other. The more you conform to HIS image of marriage, the more important and valuable your wife becomes to you. As you have all heard or seen quoted the popular 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, really is true about LOVE. If not, then tell me why it isn’t.
And I don’t know what the Catholic Church is thinking, for all I know you are right about their history and motives. I say, if your married and you want kids, then go for it, if you don’t want them, Or aren’t able to have them, there are other options. Adoption, foster kids, or just don’t have kids, that is just legalistic of the church to say that, and I would appreciate not being caught under their legalistic Umbrella.
… have been a principal factor … (Pet peeve.)
Mo:
In order to create a means of passing on wealth and power to your offspring (if you’re a bloke) you need to ensure that the women you fertilize don’t stray. You can’t do it biologically, so you have to do it socially.
The reason female virginity is at a premium, and female promiscuity and adultery are abhorred, also has to do with ensuring that the offspring carry the husband’s genes. The female is assured that any offspring carry her genes (except in some recent in-vitro fertilization cases where the doctor surreptitiously substituted another woman’s eggs before implanting the embryo in the unsuspecting wife). How would a woman feel if she unknowingly carried a child that came from another woman’s egg?
As you have all heard or seen quoted the popular 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, really is true about LOVE. If not, then tell me why it isn’t.
It’s also about the government. They want to keep tabs on your taxes and your estate, where your wealth is going, and swoop in on your estate once you die and leave it to your spouse to see what they can squander from you (even more than they did while you were living).
Joe, do you really honestly think that marriage is all about love? Can’t two people be in love without ever getting married?
Thanks for catching that, nal…
I can honestly say I don’t really care what anyone’s personal views about marriage are or revolve around.
A comment such as this is fine with me:
>And then the part that will probably get critizied, but I am laying it out there because it has worked for me, and I am happy.
I wouldn’t criticize someone for saying, “Here’s what worked for me, and I’m happy.” I think that’s a more than fair statemnt.
But then, a perfectly fine personal opinion about what works for someone personally gets all mucked up with this next statement.
>God(Jesus) has to be the center of _YOUR_ relationship. [emphasis mine.]
See the problem?
X works for me, so it HAS to be what YOU do.
It’s fine to say honestly that X works for you. But to overlay that onto the rest of the world, as though what works for one couple should be (”has to be”) what works for absolutely every other married couple, simply illustrates a lack of understanding about the fact that “other people” exist in the world who are unlike you and who may or may not have your same values and your same basic assumptions about the world and relationships.
Once you begin to project your situation onto others (just because it works for you is no reason to assume it will fly in any other relationship), you invite criticism–because now you’re prescribing to others what they should do, and that would be as insulting to someone else as it would be for them to tell you that you ought to try being a bit more polyamorous, because that really works for _them_.
People are individuals. And while you’re right that to some degree there is a common human experience, it’s unwise to blanketly assume what works for me will automatically operate with the same success for _everyone_ else. That’s presumptuous.
I actually have to adjust this comment that I just posted. Where I likened the comment to someone saying, “you ought to try being a bit more polyamorous,” that was actually too mild. It would be like someone telling you that you HAVE TO be polyamorous for your relationship to be successful–since that has worked in their own relationship.
I personally don’t give much weight to unsolicited advice from people who don’t know the first thing about me or my life.
tracieh—
Your right, I wasn’t trying to throw anything onto anyone. Poor grammar would be my real problem there and I appologize. “Our” relationship is what should have filled the “X” spot. Thank you for pointing that out.
David J–
Of course, two people can be in love without getting married. In my opinion it would be a big mistake to get married if you weren’t first..”IN LOVE”
Joe, do you treat your wife (wives?) like the ones in the bible?
Joe, since you agree that people can be in love without getting married, then you have to concede, at least a little bit, that people can be happy and live in a loving relationship without the sanction/authority of the state or a church in the form of marriage. Some people only view marriage as a piece of paper, but still love each other much more than you and your wife do. It’s all about perception; marriage does not provide a metaphysical change in the relationship.
God(Jesus) has to be the center of your relationship.
Joe, I’m going to make the assumption that you were born Christian. If that’s not fair, then stop reading. If so, then how do explain the loving relationships your pre-Christian ancestors enjoyed? Does it bother you that they were (probably) married by the village wizard under the authority of Thor (or Odin, or Mithras, or Zeus, etc.), and still had the opportunity to live in the same type of loving relationshp you enjoy but without Jesus?
Come off it, man.
DeGeorgetown–
“Joe, do you treat your wife (wives?) like the ones in the bible? ”
Thank you for your sarcastic question. Well, since there are many wives in the bible, and many stories(it is history), and many cultures, what exactly do you want me to say…? If your implying about Polygamy, I would hope that is obvious to you that I don’t particapate in that, for one it is illegal, two:it is hard enough to satisfy just one woman(why have more)three: Are you confusing christians with past day mormons?
If you want to find out what the bible says about marriage, I can give you specific passages, but your implying that we live in the same time that the bible was written, and your question just doesn’t make sence.
David J
“Joe, I’m going to make the assumption that you were born Christian”
Go ahead and assume I was born a Christian David. Even though it is impossible to be born a Christian, I will let you assume I was. And I appologized earlier for my grammar if you read my second post, so I don’t know what your getting so upset about, when I am not pushing my “God” onto you.
By “born Christian,” I meant raised in a Christian home/family. I suppose I took the figure of speech too metaphorically, or you took it too literally (to avoid answering the question?).
Regardless, you know what I meant and didn’t answer the question about pre-Christian love/marriage. Your ancestors (millions of them, if you’ve ever seen a family tree) seemed to do just fine without Jesus at the center of their marriages or without a state-approved marriage license.
When Marriage Between Gays Was a Rite
As the churches struggle with the issue of homosexuality, a long tradition of gay marriage indicates that the Christian attitude towards same sex unions may not always have been as “straight” as is now suggested, writes Jim Duffy.
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The “husband and wife” are in fact two men.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual “marriage” is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that “we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life”. More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the “sweet companion and lover” of St. Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their “marriage”.
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual “marriage” did exist as late as the 18th century.
Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.
Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the “Office of Same Sex Union” (10th and 11th century Greek) or the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).
These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.
Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union”, having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to “vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints”. The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded”.
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union”, uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.
While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.
At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope’s parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were “married” at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, “taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together”, according to a contemporary report.
Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.
Boswell’s academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality.
For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.
It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.
Jim Duffy, writer and historian.
Joe says:
God(Jesus) has to be the center of your relationship.
Bullsh!t. Ive been happily married for seventeen years, and I don’t believe in “God(Jesus)”.
Joe says:
there are many wives in the bible, and many stories(it is history)
Yeah, and so is The Hunt for Red October.
Seth, I saw that remark Joe made, too, about god/jesus having to be the “center of your reliationship.” I was similarly outraged by that remark (and I am not married). God has no part of my life, no more than the Flying Spaghetti Monster has a role in any relationship of mine or Joe’s. When I read comments like Joe’s, my first thought is, “Stop drinking the Kool-Aid!”
I’m going to come to Joe’s defence here.
Firstly, he was big enough to admit a mistake - something most people on the blogosphere never do.
Secondly, he’s polite and respectful towards other points of view. I think this is exactly the type of visitor on this site that should be treated respectfully in turn. Unfortunately, instead of leaving this site with an increased sense of respect for the opinions of the atheists he has conversed with, I’d bet he’s gone away with a negative perception.
Very few people will change their mind based on one internet thread; but many will remain where they are if they find those with other ideas treat them rudely.
“If your implying about Polygamy, I would hope that is obvious to you that I don’t participate in that, for one it is illegal”
So, law/religion/morality are separate entities?
Drew,
Being respectful is Austin’s job. The rest of us are not so gentle. However, you won’t hear any of us wishing death and/or eternal damnation upon a Xian. Which many Xian posters have done here.
Telling people how they should run their marriages is likely to evoke some ire.