The Nature of Morality part 2 of 2

As I talked about in part 1, I had been dialoguing with Beechbum about the existence of God and it ultimately came down to whether or not morality is an objective reality or depends only on what we as people agree on. I promised to respond to his point that marriage and ultimately adultery are not universal because of a handful of cultures do not accept marriage as we have in western culture. He pointed to two cultures as an example: the Na of China and Kung San in Africa. 

I checked out Kung San of Africa but I could find not example of marriage being unrecognized. All i could find was references to wedding rites. Sorry, but if you have wedding rites, private or public, your society recognizes marriage.

The Na of China (also known as the Moso)  is a lot more complex. Describing their society as not recognizing marriage is a little dishonest. They don't have the institution as we have come to define it.  Added to the myths and misunderstanding about them has not made the situation any clearer. The best resource I found on the internet was a pdf file written by Tami Blumenfield in which she attempts to debunk the myths. She points out that while to our western minds doing away with strict monogamous legal contracts, which is what marriage has become here, would promote promiscuity and abandoned children but the Na have little of that. I think that in evaluating their customs it leads us to view our own ideas of what marriage is and what it should be.

It seems to be that what the Na have is not marriage if you define marriage as a legal contract obliging a man and a woman to one another for a lifetime. But given that most of the children see and interact with their fathers, and the fathers are obligated to support the children and the children's mother, describing the Na as without "fathers" is a lie.  Of course they have fathers. Also that men have lattitude to have multiple families and women in their lives is not unheard of. The difference between polygamous societies and even our own with the Na is that the man is not legally liable to any of the women. She is free to be with who ever she wants. That's not marriage but it is what we call "an open-marriage" without the baggage of  legalistic or monogamous expectation.

Some of the articles I read seems to look at the Na system as a good one. But what does the Bible say is the ideal?  I know many will point to the polygamy illustrated in the Old Testament but never does the Bible neither condemn nor confirm that polygamy is good for people. Given the context of the Na, the system does not fall apart completely in a matriarchal world where the needs of the group/family are more important in the individual. In no way would this work in our patriarchal and selfish society. I'm not sharing my wife with anyone. In the culture shown to us  in the Bible, polygamy was allowed because some women would have had no means of support or protection if they were not married.  But I think one example shows us why it's not the best situation. Remember Jacob had four wives and according to Genesis between the wives and their children fighting, I doubt Jacob had a moment peace! No thank you.  Beechbum even admitted that it is best for a child to have father and mother in the same household...even the Na actually have that  although the households share the men.

The thing I noticed was that the ideal that all cultures really strive for is a man and a woman together in the same household with children...at least part of the time.  They all  go for it and all fall short without God. Why? Because it is a universal decree for the Creator, but because of sin, we can't do it perfectly without God. Much more could be said but the conclusion of the research I have done shows me that adultery is still wrong in every culture. The Na can break up and hook up with one another but there are still rules that govern their behavior. Rults that show that they still feel jealousy and want consistent and reliable mates even if they don't have a word meaning  "jealousy". So back to what the Bible says about the ideal. Let's end with what Jesus said.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." - Matthew 19: 3-12

See? We were never meant to divorce our wives for any and all reasons. The Old Testament was clear on that even as Jesus demonstrated. Marriage was meant to protect men and women not subjugate women or classify them as property! One man - one woman - is the best and moral structure for a marriage.

Sources:
Shunya's Notes: The Na of China
A Society Without Fathers And Husbands: The Na of China
A World Without Fathers and Husbands
Moso
THE NA OF SOUTHWEST CHINA: DEBUNKING THE MYTHS
Tribes in the Kalahari desert South Africa