Love and Marriage
Why would anyone refuse two people the opportunity to love? And try to refuse them the right to take care of each other within the guidelines of the law? Medical insurance, inheritance, etc. are not transferrable to gay couples the way they are to straight couples. That is complete bullshit! The institution of marriage is not about the church, it hasn't been for some time. Marriage as it is bandied about in the political atmosphere is a legally binding contract between two people that states that each party agrees to try and take care of each other and that they are both culpable for some things.
However, the sacrament of marriage is a different matter. The sacrament of marriage is about binding two people under God. I can not speak His mind, but I have a hard time believing that he has problems with either version of marriage as both suggest love.
If marriage was only about the sacrament, then Atheists would be barred from the institution just as quickly as gays. If it were only about a binding contract, then no one would give a damn about it having to be a man and a woman. In either scenario, people need to open their eyes and realize that what is important here is love. Two people love each other enough to commit to a lifetime together, let them show that commitment in front of family and friends just like the rest of us. If God is going to pass judgement, let Him do it in His way and His time. In the mean time, let people love and live.
However, the sacrament of marriage is a different matter. The sacrament of marriage is about binding two people under God. I can not speak His mind, but I have a hard time believing that he has problems with either version of marriage as both suggest love.
If marriage was only about the sacrament, then Atheists would be barred from the institution just as quickly as gays. If it were only about a binding contract, then no one would give a damn about it having to be a man and a woman. In either scenario, people need to open their eyes and realize that what is important here is love. Two people love each other enough to commit to a lifetime together, let them show that commitment in front of family and friends just like the rest of us. If God is going to pass judgement, let Him do it in His way and His time. In the mean time, let people love and live.
posted by Unknown at 8:20 PM
7 Comments:
Whew, you're hitting up a really touchy subject!
Marriage has been around since before written history. Back in 'the day' it was a promise that the woman/man would be sexually faithful to eachother. It was when sex meant that children were probably going to be on the way. It was a way for a man to be able to focus himself on things other then courtship and generally guaranteed that her kids were his kids and not from some other man. It allowed the woman to focus on the child bearing without having to concentrate her energies to providing. When contraceptives came out (namely the pill), it took away the fear of having to deal with child bearing and started the sexual revolution.
At this point, marriage becomes almost pointless in the eyes of society. The rampant promiscuity today would've made our great-grandparents sick to their stomaches. The societal bar has lowered so far that it has nearly hit the floor. Many call this societal evolution. I call it societal degradation. Just open any female-oriented magazine. Most would be seen as pornography just 20 years ago. It's now impossible to flip through channels on TV without running into some show about plastic surgeons 'helping' women become the socially dictated 'objects' that they've always wanted to be. Society is really going down the crapper.
The marriage rate has plunged 43% since 1960, and many couples live together due to people's ability to have sex without the result(s) of sex. I'm not opposed to living together, since I've lived with my wife for 6 months before tying the knot. But in many cases it has completely replaced marriage. Along with the plague of promiscuity comes experimentation.
I'm not about to argue whether people are born gay or not. I haven't a clue. My gut (which has been known to be wrong) tells me that it is both. I betcha that there are a heck of a lot of gay folks (majority?) out there because it was something that they wanted. Maybe the lifestyle was attractive to them. Maybe they thought it was cool. Or on the other side of the coin, I've seen some incredibly masculine women and vice versa due to supposed chemical imbalances in the brain. It seems that these 'chemical imbalances' are so commonplace now too. For example all of a sudden depression is the biggest deal in the world while Eli Lilly is making billions selling meds with worse side effects then the symptoms they were prescribed to treat. People were just fine prior to these meds. Is Eli Lilly going to then come out with a anti-homosexual drug? No. Because it is socially exceptable in a time when almost everything is socially exceptable.
This country was founded on Christian morals regarding freedom of expression and religion. So some people spazzing out because a core belief in most Christian religions is being trampled upon due to 'Extremist Judges' shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I can see their point. Particularly when almost all the tenets of their church are being trampled on. But I also understand that two people who love eachother unconditionally should have the same rights as married people. It is not up to society OR the government to legitimize relationships.
So what the hell is my point? Compromise. Both sides have the attitude that their opinion is correct and that it's their way or the highway. The solution is simple, but wouldn't completely appease both sides. I propose that it is called something completely different in the eyes of the government for ALL relationships heterosexual OR homosexual. Just simply call it a 'civil union'. 'Marriage' could be reserved for church/temple/mosque/etc related interpersonal relationships bound by religion, and that would only be by the words that are used by the clergy. If a church decides to marry a gay couple, then so be it. The 'civil union' should give both people the same rights as any other currently married person.
So basically let's say 2 people (regardless of sex) want to get hitched. They do all the same procedures, and fill out all the same paperwork. Done. They are then 'united' in the eyes of the law. Society would call it marriage, but it wouldn't officially be 'marriage' in the eyes of the law. It's a simple change of terms. This way the word 'marriage' isn't associated with the anti-gay-marriage folks, but yet it'd be the same difference.
On the point of Nature v. Nurture: All of the evidence I have seen suggests that the case for Nature is pretty strong for males at least. There have been studies that show that Homosexual males' brains develop more in line with a woman's. Homosexual males tend to also have higher levels of estrogen than Heterosexual males. And from personal experience, every Homosexual male I have been friends with has stated that they always felt that way and always knew. Interestingly, there is not a correlation for Homosexual females. Finally, children raised by homosexual parents have no more pre-disposition to homosexuality than the rest of a given population.
From a "cool" standpoint... Why would anyone choose to be discriminated against in the workplace, ostracized from their family, and put their health at risk due to hate crimes? Not to mention the higher liklihood of obtaining a life threatening disease if you do become promiscuous.
As far as the church goes... I am a Catholic, I believe fervently in my religion, and I certainly try to live as a Christian. However, if marriage is solely an institution of the church, then it should not be open to atheists. Nor for that matter agnostics, non-practicioners, etc. This would invalidate most of the marriages I know of. All of these individuals are only allowed Civil Unions under this proposal.
The truth of the matter is that marriage is not an institution of the church and has not been for a long time. Atheists and Agnostics get married all the time. (They also celebrate Christmas, Easter and a lot of other Christian holidays but that is for another rant.) So to say that we need to defend the sanctity of marriage is kind of a bullshit cover to extend prejudice. If the sanctity of marriage were paramount, the church would have barred Atheists from getting married.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wow! I don't know where to start! Lets do it from the beginning and in order:
I basically agree with Don in the first entry. The way things are right now, the government is acting bias and not serving the people as it should (being that this is the purpose of Government). We mustn’t presume to know God's position on this; but I tend to believe that God is more inclusive than exclusive, which means God would try to accommodate the majority as much as possible.
Some may consider marriage a sacred institution, but marriage has certainly not been treated that way by most heterosexuals in recent history. Now, a union is about love, while the contract of marriage is about security, otherwise, the products of a union (namely children) and the party that carries the immediate responsibility (the mothers) would suffer under the abuse of so called "macho" men who only care to live with a woman to assure sexual relations on a continuous basis and having someone prepare warm meals for them, rather than truly caring for a woman for who they are and as they deserve.
If (as Tom says) marriage was meant to assure a man that the children a woman was bearing belonged to him, I believe it would have been better to have established a matriarchal society (as it is in Portugal), because back in those days, the only sure thing was to know who the mother was.
If marriage has plunged in numbers, it is not because of contraceptives, but because fathers and mothers (aka heterosexuals), have failed to raise their children and provide a good model for them to follow.
Regarding the reasons why some people are gay (nature or nurture), I believe gays are made. Made by heterosexuals (who else? They raised them!). So, I find it completely unfair for the majority of society (who claim to be heterosexual) to marginalize and put down homosexuals, when THEY are the ones responsible for the existence of gays. I am not saying gays are less in ANY way, particularly morally speaking. Instead, I believe gays are partly reacting against the establishment that failed them and therefore somehow choose to be different and thus, try to have a union that might not be as dysfunctional as the one they came from (a heterosexual one) and to avoid the failure they experienced with their parents (seeing how unhappy a married couple can be).
Promiscuity has nothing to do with sexual orientation, so I don't know why it is being mentioned here.
The concept that this country was founded on Christian morals is thrown out the window when we realize that those same early immigrants killed the natives and stole their land from them in the name of Christ. So, don't give me that. Christians in name alone are NO Christians. And such founded this nation.
Tom's solution is a fair one. I agree that there ought to be a separation of Church and State when it comes to marriage also. Unions are the proper way to solve this problem.
When it comes to homosexuality and why it is so, I think it boils down to sensuality in the end (when it comes to men). Men seek pleasure, while women seek relationships. Men enjoy penetration because their prostate is being massaged. No doubt about it. Countless married men enjoy this and they don't consider themselves gay. Gay is about LOVING another person of the same sex. This is what people get confused about. They find "anal sex" an aberration. They are afraid that if we let men "waste" their semen in other men's anuses, humans will stop reproducing. Ridiculous. Lets get real please!
Don's point that homosexual couples have yet to raise a gay child shows that gays come mostly from heterosexual unions and not from gay ones.
Nobody in his or her right mind would choose to be gay at the expense of suffering discrimination from society. That is why I admire those who live their lives as openly gay. Not because of what they do, but because they show they have integrity (something which I find lacking in the rest of society).
Finally, when I have been asked if I was gay, I pause and think to myself: I wish I were, because many gays live "happier" lives than most heterosexuals, who are miserable...
Alrighty then. I appreciate our differences of opinion and I've learned a lot from them. I'll keep on point:
The Catholic church calls marriage a 'sacrament'. The literal meaning of that word is 'solemn promise'. What is a contract? Add 'legal binding' to that definition. Tah dah. I agree, love is the basis of all true committed relationships but a contract stating that you 'love' somebody legally wouldn't cut it and wouldn't serve any purpose.
Making the legalities of 'Marriage' completely and totally equivalent to my 'Civil Union' proposal wouldn't lessen the value of marriage as we know it. It would be the same thing, just with a change of legal terminology.
As you (Don) said, love is the only thing that really matters, so does it have to be called 'marriage' to be a true relationship? It depends who you ask. In the eyes of the church, yes. But since the marriages are performed by clergy they would still recognize it as such. But for an athiest or agnostic, hetero or homosexual, changing the legal term wouldn't change what they would call it in their day-to-day lives. I think it's the perfect compromise that would appease the core arguments from both sides.
Tom,
Now this I agree with. If we are going to have a perceptual shift in what is law and what is religion, then make the distinction universal, I am perfectly happy and think that it is a very equitable way to proceed. Everyone can get a civil union, and under the law, in order to enter the contract, you would have to enter the civil union. However, only the church, mosque, synagogue, temple, etc would perform marriage ceremonies and it would be up to the specific religion, or religion subset to decide who is eligible. The churches keep their sacraments unchanged, the law accomodates all. I still think that the vernacular would take a generation or two to reflect the difference, as you are going to have to come up with new terminology. Are you married becomes irrelevant to all but the religious, however, do you have a civil union becomes important under the law. Marriage, as we are now defining it in this dialogue will still probably evolve over the next few generations. Civil Unions (CUs) will also evolve over time as well. Now, how do we make this happen?
Inca,
Most of the research I have seen does not necessarily suggest that Homosexuals are any more happy than Heterosexuals. In fact, a lot deal with depression due to the stigma attached to being homosexual and live under a lot of stress, as often they have to hide it at work or from family.
While it is true that the Christians that founded this country did not live up to their stated morality in all cases, that is true of all religions and in fact of all societies. However the moral framework is still a valid one for the most part and a goal that is worthy of attainment regardless of belief system. It is when a group decides that exclusion from that group entitles different ethical standards towards that group that everything falls apart. And that is the crux of this whole dialogue. Because homosexuals are different, they are be denied rights freely given to others.
I'm satisfied to see that we all finally agree on this matter.
I merely addressed issues that were alluded to and that I thought needed to be considered.
Regarding moral standards, I agree that they ought to be followed. I just find it repulsive that those who claim to enumerate what those standards are for a particular society are the ones who don't follow them.
We can now only hope that CU's will come into existence during our lifetime.
Post a Comment
<< Home