Does Deuteronomy 22:13-21 say that a marriage is only considered valid if the woman is a virgin, and if she is not she should be executed?

Facebook is great if but for one thing: providing material about which to blog. There's a photo which has been circulating recently on Facebook which apparently dates to some time in 2009. It shows a man holding a sign which says "WE CAN QUOTE THE BIBLE TOO:  A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)"

So of course I pulled up the passage from Deuteronomy to read what is actually says.

From the Douay-Rheims:

"If a man marry a wife, and afterwards hate her, And seek occasions to put her away, laying to her charge a very ill name, and say: I took this woman to wife, and going in to her, I found her not a virgin: Her father and mother shall take her, and shall bring with them the tokens of her virginity to the ancients of the city that are in the gate: And the father shall say: I gave my daughter unto this man to wife: and because he hateth her, He layeth to her charge a very ill name, so as to say: I found not thy daughter a virgin: and behold these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the ancients of the city: And the ancients of that city shall take that man, and beat him, Condemning him besides in a hundred sides of silver, which he shall give to the damsel's father, because he hath defamed by a very ill name a virgin of Israel: and he shall have her to wife, and may not put her away all the days of his life. But if what he charged her with be true, and virginity be not found in the damsel:  They shall cast her out of the doors of her father's house, and the men of the city shall stone her to death, and she shall die: because she hath done a wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: and thou shalt take away the evil out of the midst of thee."

The marriage in the scenario presented in this passage is not considered invalid simply because the woman is not a virgin, nor is she executed simply for that reason. In fact, the passage doesn't address the validity of the marriage because the validity of the marriage is assumed (as we'll discuss later). So why is she to be executed? Good question. The answer is "because she hath done a wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house."

The situation described here is that of a woman who is already betrothed but commits adultery before the marriage is consummated with her husband. How do we know she is betrothed? The Hebrew language has two words for virgin: almah - an espoused virgin - and bethuwlah - a virgin who is not espoused. "Almah" is the word used here. Therefore it must be noted that once a couple was betrothed, there was considered to be a valid marriage even before the marriage was consummated.

Fornication alone was not punishable by death, as we read in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment : He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put her away all the days of his life." So it is obvious that the reason for execution is not simply her lack of virginity. However, adultery was grounds for the death penalty, as it states in Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man lie with another man's wife, they shall both die, that is to say, the adulterer and the adulteress: and thou shalt take away the evil out of Israel." Since this statement immediately follows the earlier passage, it seems to logically flow out of and elaborate upon the earlier statement. The primary difference seems to be that in the former passage, the identity of the adulterer is assumed to be unknown.

So to respond to the statements upon the sign in the photograph, the marriage is not considered invalid. Her actions are considered adultery rather than fornication because she already is validly married. Her execution, therefore, is for adultery - not for her lack of virginity.

Is widespread failure among heterosexual marriages a valid argument in favor of legalized same-sex "marriage"?

One argument I often hear from those who promote same-sex "marriage" is that heterosexuals in general apparently have quite a disregard for the sanctity of marriage as evidenced by a high divorce rate. It is true that the divorce rate is high. It is often cited as 50% of marriages as a whole in the United States. Other issues are often cited such as domestic abuse or heterosexual rape. I won't delve into specifics here, but I don't think anyone is arguing that the state of marriage in America is a particularly healthy one. So there is some merit to the accusations. The argument then continues that heterosexuals have no right to ban homosexuals from marrying as a result of widespread disregard among heterosexuals regarding their own marriages. For the moment, I'm not even going to bother addressing whether homosexuality is sinful. For the purpose of this article, I'm assuming it is. I can address that particular issue later. Right now, I simply want to address the argument.

However, before I continue addressing the argument, I simply want to point out a basic principle of morality. One evil does not justify another evil. Or put another way, two wrongs don't make a right. If someone steals, does that justify a lie in order to conceal the theft? If someone commits adultery, does that justify murdering the other adulterous party's spouse for fear of retaliation? If someone commits rape, does that justify slandering the rape victim in order to discredit her accusations against the rapist? Obviously not.

So my question here is this: In light of this observation, why would the argument that the widespread disregard of the sanctity of marriage among heterosexuals justifies homosexual "marriage" have any validity? The answer, quite simply, is that it doesn't. The reason is that the basic assumption underlying the argument is "one evil does justify another evil."

So the next time someone presents this argument to you, ask them "Do two wrongs make a right?" In all likelihood they will answer "no." If they answer "yes," you've got another issue to deal with before you come back to this one, but if they do answer "no," then follow up by asking, "Then why are you telling me that the evils committed by heterosexuals justify approving of the the evils of homosexuals?"

The answer to moral decay is not the promotion of further decadence. The answer to moral decay is repentance.