{"id":258136,"date":"2022-09-24T16:16:06","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T20:16:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/oncubanews.com\/en\/?p=258136"},"modified":"2022-09-24T16:16:06","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T20:16:06","slug":"the-family-original-design-or-cultural-design","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oncubanews.com\/en\/cuba\/the-family-original-design-or-cultural-design\/","title":{"rendered":"The family: original design or cultural design?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Less than a week separates us from the day on which the polls will be ready for the sovereign to decide, in a referendum, on the Family Code. Campaigns for Yes or No are being intensified. Arguments come and go. Among the repeated affirmations among those who vehemently bet on the No, is respect for the \u201coriginal design\u201d of the family. On the cultural meanings, also seen from its linguistic roots, of that statement and its implications in a 21st century Cuba, I talked, in a brief synthesis, with Douglas Calvo Ga\u00ednza, polyglot, philologist, philosopher, theologian, linguist, Greco-Latinist translator and professor of ancient Greek.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What type of family does the so-called original design postulate?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

Respectable duty and right is to preserve the nuclear family (father, mother, offspring). However, affirming that this constitutes an \u201coriginal design\u201d arising directly from the Divinity, and not from human experience and need, contradicts historical data and common sense, as the roots of the words in dispute today demonstrate.<\/span><\/p>\n

For example, \u201cfamily\u201d in Spanish comes from the Latin, <\/span>famulus<\/span><\/i> or \u201cservant.\u201d Why? Well, because the slaves were the legal sex toys of the slave family. Example: Hagar, that servant with whom the master Abraham had her son Ishmael, prototypically embodies the \u201cfamily\u201d \u2014 ancient servitude.<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, Abraham had other wives besides Sarah and Hagar. Because he had several \u201cconcubines\u201d (Genesis 25: 6), of which we know one: Cetura (1 Chronicles 1:32). Certainly, if the father of the faith respected that supposed \u201coriginal design\u201d that God demands of us, then imitating him today would also imply implanting polygamy in Cuba, and also reviving slavery.<\/span><\/p>\n

And there are plenty of similar biblical examples.<\/span><\/p>\n

Two other words accompany the debates in question: marriage and guardianship. What considerations should we attend to regarding the origin of both terms?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

What is presented today as \u201coriginal design\u201d is often simply \u201ccultural design.\u201d Specifically, a mixture of Jewish social traditions and the Roman Empire.<\/span><\/p>\n

For example, in Rome the symbol of weddings was a veil that was imposed on the woman. Words still used today in Spanish are derived from the Latin word for \u201cveiling\u201d (<\/span>n\u016bbo<\/span><\/i>), such as \u201cconnubio\u201d (weddings), \u201cn\u00fabil\u201d (marriageable girl) and \u201cnuptials,\u201d and in the Christian church, heir to that Mediterranean-Palestinian culture, the woman was to wear a veil perennially (1 Corinthians 11:10), symbolizing the husband\u2019s authority over his female property. And that is why the ladies were to keep quiet in public and ask their husbands about religion (1 Corinthians 14:33-35).<\/span><\/p>\n

Here the nascent Church traces its socio-cultural environment. Going deeper: in Ancient Rome, women were always under the legal guardianship of a man (<\/span>tutela mulierum<\/span><\/i>), as they were recognized as being of inferior intelligence. Said legal guardian was either the husband or the father, and in order to free themselves from guardianship they had to have three children (<\/span>ius trium liberorum<\/span><\/i>). By the way, Paul also teaches: the woman \u201cwill be saved by begetting children\u201d (1 Timothy 2:15).<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus we come to the root of our word \u201cmarriage.\u201d It is divided into two parts: \u201cmatri\u201d which comes from the Latin for \u201cmother\u201d (<\/span>mater<\/span><\/i>) and \u201cmonio\u201d which comes from a very old (possibly Etruscan) particle that indicated the act of \u201cbeing something,\u201d in this case, mother. The old marriage has nothing to do with marrying for love, but with the legal rights that a woman acquired by being a mother, since motherhood was women\u2019s only occupation.<\/span><\/p>\n

If the Christian women of today\u2019s Cuba were to apply these standards to the letter, they would have to accept practices like these:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The father would determine if the Cuban woman marries or not, and with whom. (Read, for example, 1 Corinthians 7:36-38).<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. There would be many social limitations (in Rome, both spouses had to be free citizens, and could not be actors or foreigners. In Israel, a religious minister could not marry a divorcee, Leviticus 21:7, etc.).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    If a 21st century Cuban woman wishes to be married (even as a teenager) to whomever her father wishes, regardless of her personal feelings or preferences, and she wishes to follow all those regulations, she can do so, it is her right. But if other women do not want such a thing, at least she must respect them and not condemn them.<\/span><\/p>\n

    As for the \u201cguardianship\u201d or power of the father, it represents the absolute authority of the patriarch who can even have a disobedient son killed (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). A typical case is Lot, who offers his virgin daughters to be raped en masse by criminals (Genesis 19:6-8). Or also Jephthah, who either sacrifices or cloisters his daughter, to fulfill a religious oath (Judges 11:31). According to our Code under discussion, these girls would be protected from this harmful action, and such parents could be \u2014 fairly \u2014 deprived of their parental responsibility for thus risking the lives of their daughters (Article 191.g).<\/span><\/p>\n

    I prefer to be friends with my children, not their owner, a mutual love, more than a power of mine. Also, I understand that every blow to a child is defeat for the parents.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The Family Code and citizen decision<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n