Mark Elrod wrote a post on his blog addressing the Bible and how it defines marriage. Elrod, a professor of political science at Harding university responds to a few questions about an interview given here. I was lucky enough to have Elrod for 4 courses while an undergraduate. Check out what he wrote and visit his blog for the rest of an interesting read. For the record, Mark Elrod is a Christian who teaches at a very conservative Harding University campus.
In response to a question about gay marriage during my interview posted at Downattheblog, I said that the Bible recognizes/authorizes seven different types of marriage.
I misspoke; the Bible actually recognizes at least eight different forms of marriage. I was thinking there are seven forms of marriages recognized by scripture apart from the standard nuclear family. None of these are given precedent over another.
You can view his biblical list of eight here.
25 Comments
June 24, 2008 at 12:35 am
It seems one needs to be logged in to comment on Dr. Elrod’s site, so I’m leaving my comment here.
It shouldn’t be any big surprise by now that I think that gay marriage is essential to our society. The simple fact of the matter is that we are using an arbitrary set of criteria to deny certain people certain rights. Falling back on religion to is, to me, anyway, cowardly and abhorrent, and I tend to turn my listening off whenever someone tells me that “God says it’s wrong.”
One of the things that so frustrates me about this argument is that there can be no discussion in the face of the “God” response. No one – NO ONE – can know what God does or does not think, and there are an awful lot of things written in the Bible that modern society finds unacceptable.
What it all comes down to is whether or not we’re going to live out our creed of all men being equal. The fact that my gay brothers and sisters are denied rights pains me not only on a human level – for how can we say we are all about equality when we continue to deny people rights, privileges and obligations – but also on a political one, as well. Desmond Tutu warns us that “none are free until all are free.” If the State can deny SOME people their rights, they can deny ALL people their rights. It’s a very short step from one to the other, and it was only about six decades ago when the world saw how very easy a step it is to make.
June 24, 2008 at 12:45 am
Quite interesting. I would like Mr. Elrod to point out where the Bible AUTHORIZES some of those marriages. Sure, it may recognize them but, then again, it also recognizes slavery. It doesn’t say that God approved of slavery or was pleased with it though.
June 24, 2008 at 12:52 am
I’ve said it before on my blog that I could really care less if two people want to have a civil union. I just don’t think Govco needs to be involved in it at all, either for or against.
June 24, 2008 at 4:57 am
My argument has long been one of clarity: How is being gay legal but gay marriage is not? Nice point Roland on the slavery/homosexuality matter.
mrschili — I think you hit it. If we are not a theocratic state though many of us believe in God and are followers of his word, how do we justify our argument to suppress the secular freedoms of others?
June 24, 2008 at 5:54 am
My question is why the government meddles and is so concerned with social affairs that hurt no one while bigger and nastier problems- such as a faltering economy- are banging on the door?
I suppose the government has forgotten the Establishment Clause, or even Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli…
June 24, 2008 at 6:01 am
Jonathan, exactly!! Whether you are for gay marriage or not, Govco should NOT be involved. I would go so far as to say Govco should not be involved even in hetro marriage. I mean, why is gay marriage ok but not multiple wives?
June 24, 2008 at 7:01 am
Multiple Wives — that is an esay one: Taxes.
June 24, 2008 at 7:43 am
And right wing Christian fundamentalists would have a field day.
June 24, 2008 at 8:00 am
no joke
June 24, 2008 at 10:33 am
Mark points out that most societies have some form of covenant that creates a “legal” union called equivalent to matrimony. Some would argue that the recognition of covenant relationship goes back to Genesis and that it began with God. More importantly, I wonder how many ancient and modern societies have endorsed, accepted, or shunned same-sex covenants.
While an eloquent arguer, Mark should heed Dobson’s comments on Obama.
June 24, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I wouldn’t go so far as to use the word eloquent when describing Mr. Elrod and his stance on issues. I would go more along the lines of biased, arrogant or hypocritical.
June 24, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Roland, in answer two your question about why gay marriage is ok, but not multiple wives, the answer is simple: multiple wives have the little problem of infringing on someone else’s rights. If two grown men or women grow up, decide they want to get married, live together and share property, it ultimately, regardless of how their families or friends take it, affects only them. When men have multiple wives, each individual wife is being infringed upon. Also, there are never instances of multiple husbands, which means women everywhere are being treated unfairly. Also, it’s not necessarily hypocritical to say that while you believe something is wrong, you also believe that it existing doesn’t harm you so long as you don’t participate in it, and therefore, believe that government has no place being involved in.
Max, not to mention the fact that Dobson’s methods of treating gays as second class citizens has worked really well. I mean, it’s obvious to me that every time I treat someone with complete abhorrence I bring them closer and closer to Christ. Because of that, I’m not sure I value his opinions about much of anything else, particularly if he is spewing as much vitriol about Obama as he tends to about homosexuality. Of course, I am also willing to concede that I have not read his comments about Obama on account of the fact that I’ve generally tuned him out these days. He seems to have crossed the line from hating a sin to hating people and I just don’t think that’s a road we want to travel down.
June 24, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Kristi, I would disagree. What you hear from the gay marriage advocates is that “it’s all about love.” or “why shouldn’t two people be able to get married if they love each other?” Well, the same would apply to having multiple husbands/wives. If four people love each other, why should they not be allowed to get married as long as they all consent? Heck, if I love my dog, why can’t I marry my dog? See my point? Once again though, I could really care less, just don’t think Govco should be involved.
Yeah, I agree with you on Dobson. I tune him out as well.
June 24, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Because your dog can’t consent, Roland. He is a non-human animal and has no means for consenting marriage. Outside of that, he lacks an opposable thumb, making it difficult for him to sign anything.
June 24, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Because your dog can’t consent, Roland. He is a non-human animal and has no means for consenting marriage. Outside of that, he lacks an opposable thumb, making it difficult for him to sign anything. And as a gay marriage advocate, apparently not all you hear from them is that it’s all about love. Truthfully, I find the practice abhorrent. However, I find many of my own practices abhorrent and because Jesus loves me anyway, I have to love them, let them have the same rights I am afforded, and pray like hell that they’ll turn to God. I also have a responsibility to be upright in my own relationships so that I don’t look ridiculous by having a divorced or loveless heterosexual marriage. So I guess I was wrong, I guess it is all about love, but not romantic love, Christ’s love and its reflection on how I treat sinners and how I want people to treat me, a sinner.
June 24, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Ok, we are talking about three different things here: Legal contracts, gay marriage and God’s Love. Just stick to the first two for now. In regards to the legal contract and the dog, yes you do have a point however, why do we even need contracts? I know this is sort getting off topic again but really, why should Govco be involved in our lifes that much? They shouldn’t. Some may say it’s all about taxes and that is true…but then we need to change that as well. the less Govco in our lives, the better!!!
June 24, 2008 at 9:08 pm
“. . . pray like hell that they’ll turn to God.”
That makes my morning.
Cheers.
June 24, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Umm, thanks, unless your mocking me, and then no thanks.
June 24, 2008 at 11:52 pm
I mean you’re, not your. I’m so sorry.
June 24, 2008 at 11:54 pm
We need contracts in order to protect people. It’s unfortunate that we can’t just assume that everyone is trustworthy and honest, but we’re not, so we need contracts. There’s also a more postive way to look at it. This way anyone with a marriage contract or civil union contract or whatever you want to call it can cover one another with their spousal privilege on their insurance policy, they become next of kin in medical situation, and they get married people tax benefits, among other things.
June 25, 2008 at 8:06 am
The government shouldn’t infringe on the peoples personal life’s. However, I can understand the outrage towards gay marriage. If you want to define marriage as being more secular then what is wrong with civil contracts? Gays and lesbians get the same equal rights as married couples. Gays and lesbians can not make their lifestyles acceptable or tolerable on an unwilling society (this doesn‘t mean that they should stop trying). If gay marriage is allowed, then anyone who wants to practice plural marriages, should also be allowed. Actually, it sucks that many people aren’t advocating for plural marriages, it would show just how hypocritical gay marriage advocates are.
June 25, 2008 at 9:18 pm
As I said, I don’t mind gay marriage however I do hate that they are using the word marriage and that it has changed how that word is defined. I mean, civil union with all the same rights, fine, just don’t bogart the word to your own use!
June 26, 2008 at 7:45 am
I don’t think it really matters what word we use so long as homosexuals aren’t allowed, in most states, to have civil unions. We can even make up a word. Or refer to it as something insane. The word doesn’t matter so long as the act is still illegal.
June 26, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Sure, it may be minor but why should we have to give up a meaning of a word? Would it be ok if, say, animal rights activists began to call all dogs stickles?
May 6, 2009 at 1:55 am
“The fact that my gay brothers and sisters are denied rights pains me…”
Would you make a list of all the rights that they are denied and marriage is not a right.
Thanks.