Tony Jones asks us: "Can you please explain to me WHY a gay or lesbian person who is in a long-term, monogamous relationship would not be able to wholeheartedly follow Christ?" He asks respondents to do so without going back to scripture passages lest it become another unproductive foray into competing interpretations and hermeneutics. Reviewing the 300+ comments it is clear that the assertion raised is that from design. Thus, non-heterosexual people are not following Christ because they are not following the laws that Christ himself observed – the one who fulfilled them but did not abolish them. I think this view suffers from myopia and needs to be corrected with a family systems economic approach. So what can we learn of God's design for family systems and what Jesus did to correct traditional assumptions of God's design for family?
Pre-Industrial Families
The assertion from design fails to take into account the economic assumptions in the family structures during the time of Jesus and Paul, among many others. The family was the center of the economy. Local currencies ran beside the central currency of the Romans. These local currencies were literally developed by the goods that a family produced. The more you put into the system, the more you would get out. Labor was the investment, not speculative investment like a home-equity loan or TIAA-CREF fund that produced interest dividends. The greater the labor force you could muster as a family, the greater the economic output.
Marriages were important for family economics because it was as much a labor investment as a way to regulate economic competition between families who owned fields and so forth. Families would arrange marriages in contracts in order to maximize and protect mutual economic prosperity. A bride was the greatest speculative investment a family of a groom would make. Boys were prized because they were the source of economic output for the family – they were cheap labor. When a family gave their groom a wife from another family, it was an investment with the promise that the bride would produce boys and thus more labor. So a dowry price for a bride was like an insurance policy in the family contract. If the bride failed to produce boys, or God forbid any children at all, that dowry would not be entitled to her should her husband die. A barren wife could result in similar ostracism. An unmarried daughter was a bad family product because she would not be entitled to the money from another family. Tax collectors were ostracized by local communities because they would leech labor production out of local economies in the form of centralized Roman currency; kind of like why the New World colonies were a bit peeved at the Brits for leeching their labor output and giving it right back to the king. At any rate, marriage was the original speculative investment for two families to make, it was not a romantic partnering no matter how romantic a few narratives paint that picture through our current relational lens.
Widows, barren women, and orphans not to mention those pesky tax collectors, were all outcast as a result of their economic leeching of the community. They could not be part of any family contracts, were not producing goods through labor to help family economies, and were economically useless. It was also why polygamy was accepted. Polygamy is a good way to maximize the number of children you have, increase the odds you will have boys, thus increase labor production, and is a great way to invest in local economies. We don't like to think of wives today as investment property, but that is exactly what they were in the time of Jesus.
Post-Industrial Families
Fast forward to the 21st century. It was only at the dawn of the post-industrial society (which we can start to see emerge with the founding of the US Federal Reserve in 1913) that we began to see women's rights, gay rights, and rights for people of color take on a full head of steam. Slaves were an important part of the labor force, but once released from slavery, there was no longer a guarantee that they would produce at the cheap price they were once producing. What to do? Ostracize them from the economy. Women were no longer investment property yet did not have equal share in the economy. All of this and more would bubble up in the civil rights revolution in the next 60 years which is as much a shift in the economy, as it is a new understanding of humanity. Women still make less on the dollar than men ironically this time because of child-rearing since that leads to less hours worked and larger fringe costs in healthcare.
So what does this have to do with same-gender relationships? With the economic assumptions that governed societies until recently, the same kind of association to a same gender relationships would have applied as to the barren woman, widow, eunuch, etc. There was no possibility for economic stability and growth and no possibility that an inheritance for a gay man would persist to a future generation of sons! If a man cannot produce a child with another man, yet is an heir to the family inheritance, it is far better for the economy to ostracize these men from the community by shunning or death. As women caught in adultery were stoned because they betrayed the family investment and could not remarry, gay men were ostracized as a matter of economic health for the community. This is likely why lesbianism was not as much of a concern and is not mentioned in the Bible. Men were the focus because the social system placed on men the greatest source of economic gain. Only economic loss would have been seen with gay men.
This makes as much economic sense as polygamy. If we travel to the Southern Hemisphere of the planet we see the same sorts of social structures operative in the various agrarian economies. Polygamy and wives that can produce sons are both central to family production of goods and labor. Hence, we also see rather consistent ostracism of gays, widows, adulterers, etc.
A "biblical family" is an economic one, not a romantic one. True, romantic love and affection can exist in these kinds of social systems, but that is not the purpose for which they are intended. This is one of the reasons why what Jesus did with those ostracized from the economic system of his day was so radical. He openly accepted widows, adulterers, and tax collectors into his new vision of what a community should look like. It is a community not founded under the economic assumptions of the law, but under the new Kingdom of grace and charity that God intends for humanity. Paul reiterates this new revealed economy in Galatians 3:
26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Something different is happening here. Jesus and Paul are both making proclamations that run directly counter to an assumed economic family system that was at the very heart of the societies in which they lived. They are revealing something radically different from the design that the people had understood God had intended for the family then. True, neither mention same gender relationships and still assume the economic importance of families that produce offspring. Even though Jesus and Paul opened the possibility for fundamental differences with respect to those ostracized from the economic system, the central unit for economic stability was still the family which required heterosexuality to be economically viable.
In post industrial societies where economies are rooted in centralized monetary systems, the family is no longer an economic unit that functions in the same way as it did in "biblical times." Children are no longer economically cost-effective for families since rather than bring revenue into a family, they are sources of economic cost. Children are thus not produced for economic reasons unless where exceptions such as welfare or prospective tax credits factor. Thrity-eight percent of heterosexual couples have no children while 90% of male couple and 77% of female couples are childless. Gay and lesbian couples also trend with more college degrees and higher median incomes compared to heterosexual couples where both couples work. Only men in heterosexual couples make the most income, but this is in large part due to the increase in income related to children. Lesbians attain higher market position, education, and incomes than other women. For total household income, gay male households earn the most total income while lesbian and heterosexual households earn virtually the same.* Thus, under post-industrial economic constraints, gay and lesbian households seem to fare as well or better in terms of economic attainment as heterosexual families. Yet adoption continues to be blocked where it is already more difficult and expensive for these couples to do when compared to heterosexual couples.
The thrust of this point is that the economic system in a post-industrial economy actually favors households without children and may favor households with same gender couples. This is not to say that the economy itself is a good to which faith should be made relative. However, the very economic structure itself has moved from family production to family consumption as what moves capital, increases income, and what makes full participation in the economy possible. It is within this kind of economic frame that we must understand the issue of homosexuality as it is in reference to the biblical notion of marriage. That we have failed to explore this fundamental difference with regard to the question of same gender relationships misses the intractable contextual frame of God's apparent design for families as a unit of economic production, to the relational purpose of family that persists in post-industrial societies.
Marriage itself is no longer an economic contract, but a relational fulfillment. To suggest that same gender couples ought not seek marriage and intimacy to pursue this same goal seems to miss the entire social structure in which marriage functions as an integral part of our psycho-social development. Rooted in the radical responses that Jesus and Paul made to their own socio-economic frame that defined "the family" it baffles the entire assertion from design today. If Jesus accepted such economically unsustainable persons then who were rejected due to their inability to produce children through marriage contracts, would Jesus reject gays and lesbians today? It would certainly be inconsistent if he did. Yet the assertion from design is ultimately tied to the economic constraints supposedly designed by God then that Jesus and Paul nonetheless disrupted and are now completely different in this day and age.
Neither Jesus nor Paul assumed the family to function in a purely economic function and thus, neither should we read our current social frame onto the assumptions about family on which they made their statements about family. But what we do know is that they welcomed those who were economic outcasts with open arms and commanded others to do the same. Christianity's de-legitimation of same gender relationships is thus an unfortunate irony rooted in a fundamentally flawed economic ignorance to the dimensions of the current family system as it compares to so-called "biblical marriage."
————————————–
*These data can be found here.
Related posts:
Génesis
Capítulo 19
19:1 Llegaron, pues, los dos ángeles a Sodoma a la caída de la tarde; y Lot estaba sentado a la puerta de Sodoma. Y viéndolos Lot, se levantó a recibirlos, y se inclinó hacia el suelo,
19:2 y dijo: Ahora, mis señores, os ruego que vengáis a casa de vuestro siervo y os hospedéis, y lavaréis vuestros pies; y por la mañana os levantaréis, y seguiréis vuestro camino. Y ellos respondieron: No, que en la calle nos quedaremos esta noche.
19:3 Mas él porfió con ellos mucho, y fueron con él, y entraron en su casa; y les hizo banquete, y coció panes sin levadura, y comieron.
19:4 Pero antes que se acostasen, rodearon la casa los hombres de la ciudad, los varones de Sodoma, todo el pueblo junto, desde el más joven hasta el más viejo.
19:5 Y llamaron a Lot, y le dijeron: ¿Dónde están los varones que vinieron a ti esta noche? Sácalos, para que los conozcamos.
19:6 Entonces Lot salió a ellos a la puerta, y cerró la puerta tras sí,
19:7 y dijo: Os ruego, hermanos míos, que no hagáis tal maldad.
19:8 He aquí ahora yo tengo dos hijas que no han conocido varón; os las sacaré fuera, y haced de ellas como bien os pareciere; solamente que a estos varones no hagáis nada, pues que vinieron a la sombra de mi tejado.
19:9 Y ellos respondieron: Quita allá; y añadieron: Vino este extraño para habitar entre nosotros, ¿y habrá de erigirse en juez? Ahora te haremos más mal que a ellos. Y hacían gran violencia al varón, a Lot, y se acercaron para romper la puerta.
19:10 Entonces los varones alargaron la mano, y metieron a Lot en casa con ellos, y cerraron la puerta.
19:11 Y a los hombrs que estaban a la puerta de la casa hirieron con ceguera desde el menor hasta el mayor, de manera que se fatigaban buscando la puerta.
19:12 Y dijeron los varones a Lot: ¿Tienes aquí alguno más? Yernos, y tus hijos y tus hijas, y todo lo que tienes en la ciudad, sácalo de este lugar;
19:13 porque vamos a destruir este lugar, por cuanto el clamor contra ellos ha subido de punto delante de Jehová; por tanto, Jehová nos ha enviado para destruirlo.
19:14 Entonces salió Lot y habló a sus yernos, los que habían de tomar sus hijas, y les dijo: Levantaos, salid de este lugar; porque Jehová va a destruir esta ciudad. Mas pareció a sus yernos como que se burlaba.
19:15 Y al rayar el alba, los ángeles daban prisa a Lot, diciendo: Levántate, toma tu mujer, y tus dos hijas que se hallan aquí, para que no perezcas en el castigo de la ciudad.
19:16 Y deteniéndose él, los varones asieron de su mano, y de la mano de su mujer y de las manos de sus dos hijas, según la misericordia de Jehová para con él; y lo sacaron y lo pusieron fuera de la ciudad.
19:17 Y cuando los hubieron llevado fuera, dijeron: Escapa por tu vida; no mires tras ti, ni pares en toda esta llanura; escapa al monte, no sea que perezcas.
19:18 Pero Lot les dijo: No, yo os ruego, señores míos.
19:19 He aquí ahora ha hallado vuestro siervo gracia en vuestros ojos, y habéis engrandecido vuestra misericordia que habéis hecho conmigo dándome la vida; mas yo no podré escapar al monte, no sea que me alcance el mal, y muera.
19:20 He aquí ahora esta ciudad está cerca para huir allá, la cual es pequeña; dejadme escapar ahora allá (¿no es ella pequeña?), y salvaré mi vida.
19:21 Y le respondió: He aquí he recibido también tu súplica sobre esto, y no destruiré la ciudad de que has hablado.
19:22 Date prisa, escápate allá; porque nada podré hacer hasta que hayas llegado allí. Por eso fue llamado el nombre de la ciudad, Zoar.
19:23 El sol salía sobre la tierra, cuando Lot llegó a Zoar.
19:24 Entonces Jehová hizo llover sobre Sodoma y sobre Gomorra azufre y fuego de parte de Jehová desde los cielos;
19:25 y destruyó las ciudades, y toda aquella llanura, con todos los moradores de aquellas ciudades, y el fruto de la tierra.
19:26 Entonces la mujer de Lot miró atrás, a espaldas de él, y se volvió estatua de sal.
19:27 Y subió Abraham por la mañana al lugar donde había estado delante de Jehová.
19:28 Y miró hacia Sodoma y Gomorra, y hacia toda la tierra de aquella llanura miró; y he aquí que el humo subía de la tierra como el humo de un horno.
19:29 Así, cuando destruyó Dios las ciudades de la llanura, Dios se acordó de Abraham, y envió fuera a Lot de en medio de la destrucción, al asolar las ciudades donde Lot estaba.
19:30 Pero Lot subió de Zoar y moró en el monte, y sus dos hijas con él; porque tuvo miedo de quedarse en Zoar, y habitó en una cueva él y sus dos hijas.
19:31 Entonces la mayor dijo a la menor: Nuestro padre es viejo, y no queda varón en la tierra que entre a nosotras conforme a la costumbre de toda la tierra.
19:32 Ven, demos a beber vino a nuestro padre, y durmamos con él, y conservaremos de nuestro padre descendencia.
19:33 Y dieron a beber vino a su padre aquella noche, y entró la mayor, y durmió con su padre; mas él no sintió cuándo se acostó ella, ni cuándo se levantó.
19:34 El día siguiente, dijo la mayor a la menor: He aquí, yo dormí la noche pasada con mi padre; démosle a beber vino también esta noche, y entra y duerme con él, para que conservemos de nuestro padre descendencia.
19:35 Y dieron a beber vino a su padre también aquella noche, y se levantó la menor, y durmió con él; pero él no echó de ver cuándo se acostó ella, ni cuándo se levantó.
19:36 Y las dos hijas de Lot concibieron de su padre.
19:37 Y dio a luz la mayor un hijo, y llamó su nombre Moab, el cual es padre de los moabitas hasta hoy.
19:38 La menor también dio a luz un hijo, y llamó su nombre Ben- ammi, el cual es padre de los amonitas hasta hoy.
Genesis
Chapter 19
19:1 They, therefore, the two angels to Sodom at sunset, and Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. And watching them Lot, arose to receive them, and bowed down,
19:2 and said, "Now, my lords, I ask you to come to the house of your servant and you hospedéis and lavaréis your feet and in the morning you levantaréis and follow your path. And they said: No, that we will stay on the street tonight.
19:3 But he obstinacy with them a lot, and went with him and entered his house and made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and ate.
19:4 But before they go to bed, surrounded the house the men of the city, the men of Sodom, all the people together, from the youngest to the oldest.
19:5 And they called Lot, and said, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Get him out, so that we know.
19:6 So Lot went out to them at the door and closed the door behind him,
19:7 and said, I pray, my brethren, that you can not do such evil.
19:8 Behold now I have two daughters who have not known man; you draw the outside and make them appear to you as well, only that these men do not blame me, who came in the shadow of my roof.
19:9 And they said: Get there, and added: He came to inhabit this strange between us, what will become a judge? Now that you will do more harm to them. And did very violent man, a Lot, and came to break the door.
19:10 Then the men extend the hand and put a Lot at home with them, and closed the door.
19:11 And the hombrs that were at the door of the house with blindness from the injured child to the couple, so that the door is looking tired.
19:12 And the men said to Lot: Are you here any more? Sons-in-law, and your sons and your daughters, and all you have in town, get him out of this place;
19:13 because we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has risen point before the LORD: therefore the Lord sent us to destroy it.
19:14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who had taken her daughters, and said: Arise, come out of this place, because the Lord will destroy this city. But his sons-in-law and seemed to be mocking.
19:15 And at dawn, the angels were rushed to Lot, saying, Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, not to perish in the punishment of the city.
19:16 and stop, men asieron his hand and the hand of his wife and hands her two daughters, according to the mercy of the Lord for it and took it and put it outside the city.
19:17 And when those were taken away, they said, Escape for your life, do not look after yourself or in pairs across this plain, beyond the mountain, lest they perish.
19:18 But Lot said to them: No, I beg you, my lords.
19:19 Behold now your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have magnified your mercy that you have done me in giving me life, but I will not be able to escape to the mountain, lest evil reach me, and die.
19:20 Behold now, this city is near to flee there, which is small, now let me escape there (Is not she small?), And save my life.
19:21 And she said, Behold, I have received your petition on this, and not destroy the city you have spoken.
19:22 Hurry, escape there, because nothing I can do until you get there. It was called the name of the city, Zoar.
19:23 The sun came out on the ground, when Lot came to Zoar.
19:24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord from heaven;
19:25 and destroyed cities, and all the plain, with all the inhabitants of those cities, and the fruit of the earth.
19:26 So Lot's wife looked back behind him, and became a statue of salt.
19:27 And Abraham rose in the morning to the place where he had been before the LORD.
19:28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of plains that looked, and behold, the smoke rising from the earth as the smoke of a furnace.
19:29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of destruction, to destroy the cities where Lot was.
19:30 Lot went up from Zoar, and dwelt in the bush, and their two daughters with him, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar, and dwelt in a cave he and his two daughters.
19:31 Then the couple told the child: Our father is old, and no man on earth among us according to the custom of all the earth.
19:32 Come, let us to our father drink wine and sleep with him, and keep our father offspring.
19:33 And gave her father drink wine that night and entered the largest, and slept with his father, but he did not feel when she slept, and when got up.
19:34 The next day, the couple said the child: "Behold, I slept last night with my father, let us drink wine tonight also, and comes and sleeps with him, to keep our father offspring.
19:35 And gave her father drink wine that night also, and lifted the child, and slept with him, but he missed no see when she slept, and when got up.
19:36 And the two daughters of Lot conceived of his father.
19:37 And gave birth to the couple a son, and called his name Moab, which is the father of the Moabites to this day.
19:38 The child also gave birth to a son and called his name Ben-Ammi, who is father of the Ammonites to this day.
I WILL PRAY FOR YOU I WISH THE LORD OPENS YOUR SPIRITUAL EYES!
1ra. to the Corinthians
Chapter 06
¿6:1 Osa any of you, when you have something against another, go to court before the unrighteous and not before the saints?
6:2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world has to be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge things too small?
6:3 Do you not know that we are to judge the angels? How much more the things of this life?
6:4 If then ye have judgments about things of this life, will get to try those who are less esteem in the church?
6:5 ashamed to say. ¿So what, no wise man among you, not even one who could judge between his brothers,
6:6 but brother to brother pleitea at trial, and that before unbelievers?
6:7 So, by the way is already a lack in you that you have lawsuits among yourselves. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather suffer being cheated?
6:8 But ye commit the tort, and defraudáis, and that the brothers.
6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? No erréis; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor those who are cast with men,
6:10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor maldicientes nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
6:11 And that some of you were, but because ye are washed, and ye are sanctified, and ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Mercccy: I really hate it when people post scripture like this. We all know what scripture says – but we are all still exploring what scripture means. These types of responses are useless and annoying.
Drew – I thought your post was outstanding and has given me a lot to think about. A while back I gave up the position that LGBT relationships were sinful as I could not find enough evidence to support that idea in scripture or in design – however, I did think the design argument was stronger (just not strong enough for me to oppress a whole group of people). Your thoughts and insights are something that I will spend some time investigating. Do you have any books or articles that you think would be helpful to me?
Interesting approach, but I think there's a flaw in your argumentation, in that the family was instituted as a unit social, rather than economic, organization. Adam and Eve set the pattern (parent-parent-children), and there's no evidence they had anyone with whom to trade (tho' if trade existed, it likely would've been the barter-based economy you describe, or a broader communal-property one). (The question of whether the Eden myth was allegorical or not can be left for another discussion, and is hardly germane to this one) The entire history of the Jews, from Abraham through Samuel, is predicated upon familial relationships (family > tribe > nation), and this predates any sort of polity of human governance. I dont see any evidence in scripture that the numerous departures from male-female monogamy were in any wise advocated; they were simply recorded.
I actually think that polygamy/polyandry in the family would be a more stable arrangement due to division of labor, at least up to the point where the relative dearth of available wives for unmarried men and the relative lack of attention being given by the polygamous husband to any one wife (reverse genders for polyandry) actually came to encourage infidelity and thus made genetic relationships less certain (and therefore less important to the various spouses) and the family less cohesive. Similarly, large (monogamous) families offer a strength in diversity that smaller families cant achieve; by forcing children to learn early on to deal with sometimes greatly different personalities (with, again, division of labor) in the secure setting that can only be offered in the home (which puts it far and away above the artificial social setting of, say, public school), children of large families can be more sure of themselves in diverse social settings, and more prepared for the world at large. Contrariwise, children from smaller families may be given to navel-gazing, hubris, and groupthink, having never had to really subliminate their desires for the needs of others or the "greater good." In other words, "nurture" can be "spoil", but always and only on a decreasing margin.
Also, the key difference between adulterers and tax-collectors (thieves) on the one hand, and the various strata of homosexuals on the other hand is one of repentence. All of the above are prohibited under Mosaic law; this is, I assume, not in dispute. Jesus hung out with the former (that much is documented) and likely would have done so with the latter, among others, because he didn't turn away anyone who sought him–even those he knew were seeking to manipulate and/or kill him. But he didn't tell the adulteress to continue in her adultery; he didn't tell the tax collector to keep robbing people: to the contrary, he told them to repudiate their sin (at which point it was up to them to follow through, or not) and claim their reward.
All that having been said, I dont understand modern Christians' reaction to homosexuality. I dont understand why they are more threatened by gays than by habitual liars, adulterers, or thieves. In my mind, sin is sin is sin; wrong is wrong, and right is right. If we are to first love God and then love people, how do they square such discrimination with Christ's model of love?
Personally, as with so many things, I have a "scorched-earth" take on the subject of gay marriage. I dont think the state should be involved to any extent whatsoever with the sacrament of marriage; that abrogates the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Constitution. Pastors should be free to marry–or not marry–whomever they choose, and if voluntary participants wish to have a legal relationship (community property, survivorship, custody of children), they should seek legal means to appropriate such; such legal contracts should be arbitrated by the state (or, preferrably, private binding arbitration) in both their formation and their dissolution. The one area should not encroach upon the other, regardless of gender or orientation.
But that's me.
"I dont think the state should be involved to any extent whatsoever with the sacrament of marriage; that abrogates the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Constitution"
Couldn't agree more. (Well, almost … I don't agree that marriage is a sacrament, but otherwise I agree wholeheartedly.)
Unfortunately at this point, too few agree that there should be some sort of civil union for LGBT folks as several of the anti-gay state ballot initiatives have outlawed them in addition to marriage.
We had these arguments about interracial marriage, and we're having them again. We could have just made the whole thing easier by separating the civil union from church weddings.
the adam and even issue is a good point. not because it discounts this way of looking at it, but because it shows that if that is a model of marriage, it changed dramatically along with the development of the law. obviously it can't be economic without a greater society. also part of the development. point is what marriage actually was at the time of Jesus and beyond. at that point society and economics were mutually reinforcing structures that formed behavior.
good point also about his reaction to the outcasts i do mention. a red herring i don't even need to raise if i stick with family dynamics alone.
Interesting approach, but I think there's a flaw in your argumentation, in that the family was instituted as a unit social, rather than economic, organization. Adam and Eve set the pattern (parent-parent-children), and there's no evidence they had anyone with whom to trade (tho' if trade existed, it likely would've been the barter-based economy you describe, or a broader communal-property one). (The question of whether the Eden myth was allegorical or not can be left for another discussion, and is hardly germane to this one) The entire history of the Jews, from Abraham through Samuel, is predicated upon familial relationships (family > tribe > nation), and this predates any sort of polity of human governance. I dont see any evidence in scripture that the numerous departures from male-female monogamy were in any wise advocated; they were simply recorded.
I actually think that polygamy/polyandry in the family would be a more stable arrangement due to division of labor, at least up to the point where the relative dearth of available wives for unmarried men and the relative lack of attention being given by the polygamous husband to any one wife (reverse genders for polyandry) actually came to encourage infidelity and thus made genetic relationships less certain (and therefore less important to the various spouses) and the family less cohesive. Similarly, large (monogamous) families offer a strength in diversity that smaller families cant achieve; by forcing children to learn early on to deal with sometimes greatly different personalities (with, again, division of labor) in the secure setting that can only be offered in the home (which puts it far and away above the artificial social setting of, say, public school), children of large families can be more sure of themselves in diverse social settings, and more prepared for the world at large. Contrariwise, children from smaller families may be given to navel-gazing, hubris, and groupthink, having never had to really subliminate their desires for the needs of others or the "greater good." In other words, "nurture" can be "spoil", but always and only on a decreasing margin.
Also, the key difference between adulterers and tax-collectors (thieves) on the one hand, and the various strata of homosexuals on the other hand is one of repentence. All of the above are prohibited under Mosaic law; this is, I assume, not in dispute. Jesus hung out with the former (that much is documented) and likely would have done so with the latter, among others, because he didn't turn away anyone who sought him–even those he knew were seeking to manipulate and/or kill him. But he didn't tell the adulteress to continue in her adultery; he didn't tell the tax collector to keep robbing people: to the contrary, he told them to repudiate their sin (at which point it was up to them to follow through, or not) and claim their reward.
All that having been said, I dont understand modern Christians' reaction to homosexuality. I dont understand why they are more threatened by gays than by habitual liars, adulterers, or thieves. In my mind, sin is sin is sin; wrong is wrong, and right is right. If we are to first love God and then love people, how do they square such discrimination with Christ's model of love?
Personally, as with so many things, I have a "scorched-earth" take on the subject of gay marriage. I dont think the state should be involved to any extent whatsoever with the sacrament of marriage; that abrogates the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Constitution. Pastors should be free to marry–or not marry–whomever they choose, and if voluntary participants wish to have a legal relationship (community property, survivorship, custody of children), they should seek legal means to appropriate such; such legal contracts should be arbitrated by the state (or, preferrably, private binding arbitration) in both their formation and their dissolution. The one area should not encroach upon the other, regardless of gender or orientation.
But that's me.
"I dont think the state should be involved to any extent whatsoever with the sacrament of marriage; that abrogates the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Constitution"
Couldn't agree more. (Well, almost … I don't agree that marriage is a sacrament, but otherwise I agree wholeheartedly.)
Unfortunately at this point, too few agree that there should be some sort of civil union for LGBT folks as several of the anti-gay state ballot initiatives have outlawed them in addition to marriage.
We had these arguments about interracial marriage, and we're having them again. We could have just made the whole thing easier by separating the civil union from church weddings.
the adam and even issue is a good point. not because it discounts this way of looking at it, but because it shows that if that is a model of marriage, it changed dramatically along with the development of the law. obviously it can't be economic without a greater society. also part of the development. point is what marriage actually was at the time of Jesus and beyond. at that point society and economics were mutually reinforcing structures that formed behavior.
good point also about his reaction to the outcasts i do mention. a red herring i don't even need to raise if i stick with family dynamics alone.