Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #201

General Comments

Hey folks,

I have a personal favor to ask. My son, Brennan, is in 10th grade at the Shades Valley Theater Academy (SVTA). This weekend they are at their state competition and he is the lead in the play they are performing. Anyway, SVTA has been nominated for a $50,000 grant from Clorox. The winner of the grant will be determined by the number of votes they get via internet and text.

You could help them get a long way down the path of winning this grant by voting twice a day – once by text and once via internet, each day for the next 19 days. I am simply asking if you could vote twice right after reading this?

You can do so by texting 123pbf to 95248; or by going to: https://powerabrightfuture.clorox.com/nominees/detail/?nid=123 and clicking on “Vote” under the SVTA logo.

One drawback to voting online is that you have to register the first time, but only the first time. I understand if you’re not willing to do that, but if you could at least text a vote this one time, I, as the parent of a hardworking high school kid, who loves being a part of his theater group, would be most grateful. And, if you could remember to text or vote online a few other times as well, that would be wunderbar! Thank you!

Introduction

Okay, this week I’m going to take on the issue of homosexual marriage. A few months ago, someone sent me an article entitled: “An Ever-Changing Union” – which was basically an apologetic for homosexual marriage – and asked me to comment on it. So, that’s what I’m going to do here.

First I will give you the article in its entirety, then I will repeat the article with my comments interspersed throughout.

One thing to note here, is that a number of the objections I raise below to this article are common sense objections that can be applied in a lot of other situations like this. A lot of people write me week in and week out asking me to comment on this or that article they’ve read, or video that they’ve seen, that is challenging the Church’s doctrinal or moral teaching, and has caused them some consternation or has given them difficulty in coming up with a response. The arguments and logic I use below can often be used to respond to a lot of these type of articles and videos.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

An Ever-Changing Union (How marriage has changed over centuries.)
Critics of gay marriage see it as an affront to sacred, time-tested traditions. How has marriage been defined in the past?

From: The Week, June 1, 2012

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, ‘When and where?’"

The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."

When did people start marrying?
The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia. In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. Even in the lower classes, women had little say over whom they married. The purpose of marriage was the production of heirs, as implied by the Latin word matrimonium, which is derived from mater (mother).

When did the church get involved?
In ancient Rome, marriage was a civil affair governed by imperial law. But when the empire collapsed, in the 5th century, church courts took over and elevated marriage to a holy union. As the church’s power grew through the Middle Ages, so did its influence over marriage. In 1215, marriage was declared one of the church’s seven sacraments, alongside rites like baptism and penance. But it was only in the 16th century that the church decreed that weddings be performed in public, by a priest, and before witnesses.

What role did love play?
For most of human history, almost none at all. Marriage was considered too serious a matter to be based on such a fragile emotion. "If love could grow out of it, that was wonderful," said Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage, a History. "But that was gravy." In fact, love and marriage were once widely regarded as incompatible with one another. A Roman politician was expelled from the Senate in the 2nd century B.C. for kissing his wife in public — behavior the essayist Plutarch condemned as "disgraceful." In the 12th and 13th centuries, the European aristocracy viewed extramarital affairs as the highest form of romance, untainted by the gritty realities of daily life. And as late as the 18th century, the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote that any man who was in love with his wife was probably too dull to be loved by another woman.

When did romance enter the picture?
In the 17th and 18th centuries, when Enlightenment thinkers pioneered the idea that life was about the pursuit of happiness. They advocated marrying for love rather than wealth or status. This trend was augmented by the Industrial Revolution and the growth of the middle class in the 19th century, which enabled young men to select a spouse and pay for a wedding, regardless of parental approval. As people took more control of their love lives, they began to demand the right to end unhappy unions. Divorce became much more commonplace.

Did marriage change in the 20th century?
Dramatically. For thousands of years, law and custom enforced the subordination of wives to husbands. But as the women’s-rights movement gained strength in the late 19th and 20th centuries, wives slowly began to insist on being regarded as their husbands’ equals, rather than their property. "By 1970," said Marilyn Yalom, author of A History of the Wife, "marriage law had become gender-neutral in Western democracy." At the same time, the rise of effective contraception fundamentally transformed marriage: Couples could choose how many children to have, and even to have no children at all. If they were unhappy with each other, they could divorce — and nearly half of all couples did. Marriage had become primarily a personal contract between two equals seeking love, stability, and happiness. This new definition opened the door to gays and lesbians claiming a right to be married, too. "We now fit under the Western philosophy of marriage," said E.J. Graff, a lesbian and the author of What Is Marriage For? In one very real sense, Coontz says, opponents of gay marriage are correct when they say traditional marriage has been undermined. "But, for better and for worse, traditional marriage has already been destroyed," she says, "and the process began long before anyone even dreamed of legalizing same-sex marriage."

Gay ‘marriage’ in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren’t a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples’ gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

-—————————————————————————————————————————

An Ever-Changing Union (How marriage has changed over centuries.)
Critics of gay marriage see it as an affront to sacred, time-tested traditions. How has marriage been defined in the past?

From: The Week, June 1, 2012

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, ‘When and where?’"

The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."

My Comments:

Okay, first thing to notice is that nowhere do we have any actual references to back up the claims made here. Is any scholarly or even pseudo-scholarly work referenced? No! For example, the claim that: "Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life," how does the author know that? On what does he base his claim? Is there some historical document that is at least 4000 years old that the author can point to that says men and women started "pair-bonding" in order to control sexual conduct? No. In other words, that’s just a guess. Even if the author had referenced some archeologist, it would still just be a guess – pure speculation, in other words – on the part of that archeologist. There is no proof to back such a claim.

So, the author starts off this tour of the history of marriage with nothing more than a wave of the hand and "Poof!" we have "pair-bonding" for controlling sexual conduct as the first form of marriage. Notice a couple of elements of trickery here, though. He didn’t call it "marriage," rather it is referred to as "pair-bonding." Why? Because he basically is saying, that the history of marriage begins with a union between one man and one woman. Yet, he goes on to claim later in the article that what we now call "traditional" marriage – the union of one man and one woman - is a relatively recent invention. He is, in essence, contradicting himself. So, he has to disguise the contradiction by using the term "pair-bonding" rather than the term "marriage."

Furthermore, the author goes on to say, "But that basic concept [union between one man and one woman] has taken many forms across different culture and eras." "Many forms?" Really? He names one other – polygamy. And, he mentions the example of the many wives of King Solomon to claim, "The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy – according to the Bible." Of course, he would never take the Bible as an authority on anything that might contradict his point of view. For instance, in the beginning, way before Solomon, we see talk of marriage – one man and one woman – in Genesis 2:24. Cain is also mentioned as having one wife. The first time we see someone mentioned as having two wives is in Gen 4:19, when it says that Lamech took two wives. So, one may assume that none of his forebears did. But Lamech seemed to be a pretty nasty dude (Gen 4:23-24), and he was of the line of Cain.

We also see that Noah only had one wife, as did each of Noah’s sons. Abraham only had one wife, and when she died, he took another wife. So, he had two wives, but one at a time. Lot only had one wife. Isaac had only one wife. Jacob had two wives, but he only wanted one – he was tricked into marrying one of them. It seems that, from the beginning, the biblical norm is one man and one woman for marriage. The exception to this rule is usually among the kings – David and Solomon, for example – and not among the normal folks. But, of course, that would not be a good thing to point out when you are trying to make the case that "traditional" marriage really isn’t "traditional," so the author avoids such inconvenient facts. And, even in the polygamous unions, what do we see? Husbands and wives. Men and women. Never men with men or women with women.

Oh, and notice, the author throws in a quote from some historian at Columbia to give scholarly respectability to his claim. But, again, no source is given that one could follow up on the quote to find out more about the context, or anything else. And, who is this historian? Is he an atheist? Is he homosexual? How do we know we can trust the accuracy of anything he has to say We don’t.

Then, there is this quote from a Harvard historian, "The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development." How can that be when I’ve just given a number of examples from the ancient world that say otherwise? She then goes on to say that until 200 yrs. ago, monogamous households were a "tiny, tiny portion" of the world population. Are you given any statistics? Any citations? Again, no. If that’s true, then what happened 200 years ago that changed the entire world to all of a sudden believing in monogamous relationships? Why do we have mostly monogamous relationships among the relatively areligious Chinese? Why do we have monogamous relationships among the Hindus in India? Amoong the Japanese? Among the Africans? What changed everything 200 years ago? Sorry, but I just don’t buy it.

What historians teach is quite often influenced by what historians believe, or don’t believe. If they believe in homosexual "marriage," then, lo and behold, history will help them make their case. If they don’t believe in God, then they don’t believe Jesus was truly an historical figure. Objectivity in the sciences is a rare thing these days.

All in all, this is a pretty weak – if not somewhat dishonest – foundation for the case the author is trying to make in this article.

When did people start marrying?
The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia. In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. Even in the lower classes, women had little say over whom they married. The purpose of marriage was the production of heirs, as implied by the Latin word matrimonium, which is derived from mater (mother).

My Comments:
Multiple problems here. "The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago." First "recorded" evidence. So, that is when they date the beginning of marriage. Did they ever consider that., since reading and writing weren’t that big of a deal to most folks thousands of years ago, that there may have been marriage contracts and ceremonies for thousands of years beforehand but the records of such just didn’t carved in stone? Of course not. That’s why they used the term "pair-bondings," because they have evidence of men and women living together during the Stone Age, but they don’t have written evidence of marriage contracts from the Stone Age, so the author used the term "pair-bondings" instead of marriage. How disingenous is that?!

And, instead of "pair-bonding" for controlling sexual conduct, it’s now marriage for the preservation of power. But, once again, the author fails to focus on the fact that it is the kings and rulers who married for that reason. No mention of this being the "primary" reason for marriage in the lower classes. And, the author points out that "women had little say over whom they married." No mention, however, of the fact that in arranged marriages, the men often didn’t have any say over who they married either. Inconvenient fact. And, the purpose of marriage is now for the production of heirs. Evidence? Just another claim thrown out there without anything to back it up. Although, I would agree with the claim in part, although instead of using the term, "heirs," I would use the term "children." Yes, one of the purposes of marriage, then and now, is to produce children. That is what we call, "traditional" marriage. Notice, though, how he makes it seem as if love played no role whatsoever in marriage. I’ll address that momentarily.

When did the church get involved?
In ancient Rome, marriage was a civil affair governed by imperial law. But when the empire collapsed, in the 5th century, church courts took over and elevated marriage to a holy union. As the church’s power grew through the Middle Ages, so did its influence over marriage. In 1215, marriage was declared one of the church’s seven sacraments, alongside rites like baptism and penance. But it was only in the 16th century that the church decreed that weddings be performed in public, by a priest, and before witnesses.

My Comments:

Sorry, but there is plenty of evidence to show that the Church was involved with marriage from the very beginning of the Church.

St. Augustine in his "Of the Good of Marriage," chapter 24, says, "Among all people and all men the good that is secured by marriage consists in the offspring and in the chastity of married fidelity; but, in the case of God’s people [the Christians], it consists moreover in the holiness of the sacrament, by reason of which it is forbidden, even after a separation has taken place, to marry another as long as the first partner lives . . ." This shows that the Church considered marriage a sacrament, and there is no way the Church would have allowed civil authorities to conduct a sacrament of the Church.

Furthermore, do you think the Jews went to Roman civil authorities to be married? Of course not. Well, since the first Christians were Jews, do you think they went to the Roman civil authorities to be married? Again, of course not. Do you think the Christians of the first few centuries, who were often being persecuted by Rome, would have been regularly going to Roman civil authorities in order to get married? Oh, no doubt, right?

Then, he goes on to declare that marriage wasn’t declared a sacrament until 1215. But, I just quoted St. Augustine, from 700+ years earlier, calling marriage a sacrament. And there are a number of other Church Fathers who do the same, either directly or indirectly, such as Ambrose in the 4th century and Tertullian in the 2nd century. This paragraph is completely without merit and really shows that the author is not at all credible, but is merely putting forth whatever is necessary to further his agenda.

What role did love play?
For most of human history, almost none at all. Marriage was considered too serious a matter to be based on such a fragile emotion. "If love could grow out of it, that was wonderful," said Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage, a History. "But that was gravy." In fact, love and marriage were once widely regarded as incompatible with one another. A Roman politician was expelled from the Senate in the 2nd century B.C. for kissing his wife in public — behavior the essayist Plutarch condemned as "disgraceful." In the 12th and 13th centuries, the European aristocracy viewed extramarital affairs as the highest form of romance, untainted by the gritty realities of daily life. And as late as the 18th century, the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote that any man who was in love with his wife was probably too dull to be loved by another woman.

My Comments:

"For most of human history," love played no role in marriage at all? Again…really?! Did they interview people from 4000 years ago? 2000 years ago? 1000 years ago? 300 years ago? What a bunch of garbage. Have they ever read the story of Isaac and Rebekah? How Isaac worked for years for Rebekah’s dad so that he could marry her? And it says in Gen 24:67, that Isaac "loved her." And, when reading about Abraham and Sarah, do you not get the sense that Abraham loved her? And what about Adam and Eve? When Adam first meets Eve, what he has to say sounds a bit like love to me? What about Ephesians 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives." No, of course marriage had nothing to do with love, even though the Christian concept of marriage is that it is patterned on the love of Jesus for His Church.

And look at the example from Rome that is given to show that "love and marriage were once widely regarded as incompatible with one another" – Plutarch condemned a public display of affection as "disgraceful." Does that mean that Plutarch considered the man loving his wife as being disgraceful, or was it the public display of this affection that got him so worked up? Also, Montesquieu is quoted to prove the author’s point, but nowhere is Shakespeare and all of his writing about love quoted. Inconvenient facts.

When did romance enter the picture?
In the 17th and 18th centuries, when Enlightenment thinkers pioneered the idea that life was about the pursuit of happiness. They advocated marrying for love rather than wealth or status. This trend was augmented by the Industrial Revolution and the growth of the middle class in the 19th century, which enabled young men to select a spouse and pay for a wedding, regardless of parental approval. As people took more control of their love lives, they began to demand the right to end unhappy unions. Divorce became much more commonplace.

My Comments:

More garbage. I guess the author has never read the Song of Songs. Also, I guess the author is unaware of the fact that divorce was apparently a fairly common phenomenon in the ancient Near East. All you have to do is read Matthew 19 to find that out. So his assertion that divorce really wasn’t common until the 19th century simply does not hold water. But, all of that is pretty much irrelevant anyway. So what if divorce was common or not? That does nothing to change the underlying reality that marriage has been, for thousands of years, primarily the union of one man and one woman. Whether the divorce rate is high or low, it doesn’t change the fact that marriage was between a man and a woman. That did not change. So, it is not an "ever-changing union" as the title of the article would like you to believe.

Did marriage change in the 20th century?
Dramatically. For thousands of years, law and custom enforced the subordination of wives to husbands. But as the women’s-rights movement gained strength in the late 19th and 20th centuries, wives slowly began to insist on being regarded as their husbands’ equals, rather than their property. "By 1970," said Marilyn Yalom, author of A History of the Wife, "marriage law had become gender-neutral in Western democracy." At the same time, the rise of effective contraception fundamentally transformed marriage: Couples could choose how many children to have, and even to have no children at all. If they were unhappy with each other, they could divorce — and nearly half of all couples did. Marriage had become primarily a personal contract between two equals seeking love, stability, and happiness. This new definition opened the door to gays and lesbians claiming a right to be married, too. "We now fit under the Western philosophy of marriage," said E.J. Graff, a lesbian and the author of What Is Marriage For? In one very real sense, Coontz says, opponents of gay marriage are correct when they say traditional marriage has been undermined. "But, for better and for worse, traditional marriage has already been destroyed," she says, "and the process began long before anyone even dreamed of legalizing same-sex marriage."

My Comments:

The fact that women gained more rights in the 20th century is not the same thing as saying that marriage changed in the 20th century. Yes, the relationship between husband and wife evolved in the 20th century, but it was still the relationship between the husband and the wife – one man and one woman – that changed. It was not marriage itself that changed. That’s like me saying since my daughter has changed between the age of 4 and the age of 12, she is no longer the same person. She is the same person, she’s just different in how she looks, how she acts, etc. A change in the particulars of marriage – the relationship between husband and wife, the divorce rate, marriage law, the view of society towards marriage, and so on – is simply not the same as a change in marriage. Such an assertion is the product of faulty reasoning. "What a maroon," my friend Bugs would say. Marriage, throughout the 20th century, was always a union between one man and one woman, and that relationship can be traced all the way back, using the author’s own words, to the Stone Age.

I love the two sentences, one right before the other: "Marriage had become primarily a personal contract between two equals seeking love, stability, and happiness," is preceded by, "If they were unhappy with each other, they could divorce – and nearly half of all couples did." So much for love and stability and happiness. The author is pretty much blind to the fact that so many of the problems we have with divorce and unhappiness in marriage, are because people have lost the true sense of what marriage is. They expect it to be something that it is not. Instead of viewing it as a lifelong sacramental union between one man and one woman which requires hard work and sacrifice and unselfishness to make work – they view it like my younger kids view their toys: they play with them for a little while, and then when they get bored with a particular toy, they just toss it aside. If you think the primary purpose of marriage is for you to be happy, you’ve got a problem from the outset. You can be truly happy in marriage, but that comes from sacrificing yourself for others, the way Jesus sacrificed Himself for the Church.

Gay ‘marriage’ in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren’t a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples’ gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

My Comments:

This makes me want to puke. First of all, to quote the author of a book entitled, "Sex and Punishment," on anything concerning marriage is problematic in the first place. Here we have another example of unsubstantiated claims just being tossed out there like facts. Medeival male bonding ceremonies are called "same-sex unions," as if they were the same thing as homosexual marriages?! Really?! So if my buddies and I go to a particular sports bar every Saturday, at the same time, to watch college football – does that ritual mean that we have entered into a same-sex union? "Male bonding rituals were common in churches across the Meditteranean." Evidence? Citations? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that that was true. What did these ceremonies consist of? Were these single men, or possibly married men? What was the intent – fraternity, comrades-in-arms? Well, according to Eric Berkowitz, author of "Sex and Punishment," it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact." Really?! It’s not very difficult for me to believe that, but I guess if you have a perverted mind, it might not be that difficult to imagine.

Finally, the claim that "traditional marriage has already been destroyed," is a bit premature, I do believe. I am in a traditional marriage. Most people I know are in traditional marriages. But, they have to make that claim so that no one can point a finger at same sex marriage as being problematic. I do agree that same sex marriage is not the cause of why traditional marriage is in trouble, it is merely a sympton. A sympton of a sick society that has turned its back on God and on centuries old Judeo-Christian values – the values that made Western civilization flourish.

Last thing, notice how the homosexual marriage advocates cite the rise of contraception as a major contributing factor to this movement. I wish those priests who believe contraception is no big deal and, therefore, never say anything to their flocks about it, will open their eyes and see that even the folks on the other side recognize the truth spoken by the Church in this regard.

In Conclusion

Whenever you come across garbage like this article, first thing to notice is all of the unsubstantiated claims put out there as if they were stone cold facts. Secondly, look for the inconsistencies. This article tries to make it look like “traditional marriage” is a relatively recent phenomenon, but if you read closely, you realize that they are actually admitting traditional marriage can be traced back to the Stone Age. Notice, too, how some of the facts the author presents, are flat out wrong. In this article, the assertion of the Church not declaring marriage a sacrament until 1215 A.D. is a perfect example of this. Finally, pay attention to how the folks who do these things are very selective in their citations. They’ll cite something in the Bible, for example, that appears, at first glance, to support their argument, but they then ignore biblical examples that blow their argument out of the water. Or they cite some oddball in history who said something that supports their argument, while ignoring a whole bunch of other folks in history who said or did things that contradict their argument. Selective citation based on a pre-determined outcome.

How to be added to, or removed from, the list

If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and click on the “Newsletter” page to sign up. It will take you about 10 seconds.

$RemovalHTML$