Recently after voting YES to permit same sex marriage I found myself in a debate about marriage equality.
People of opposite sex marriages don’t want to share the title of marriage with people of the same sex. It is said marriage is about love, commitment. Having your relationship blessed by your chosen spiritual force.
Well if marriage was simply about love can’t you just slap a ring on your hand in front of your priest and say I promise to join together till the end of my life? Wouldn’t that make you married?
If that was all marriage was, promise to remain together till death and asking my spiritual force to bless my union then, guess what everyone…I’m already married! Yes in front of witnesses in a spiritual group we promised our lives to each other and asked our spiritual leaders to have our union blessed. I’m married!!
But that isn’t all it is, is it? You and I both know if marriage was just about promising your love before a God then we wouldn’t have this debate.
So what is marriage? if not a commitment made in the presence of God.
It’s about something more isn’t it?
A marriage
contract is a legally binding commitment made in the presence of a legal authority, and is
valid until the contract is broken. It is a commitment that is kept until
one spouse, or both, fails to perform according to the contract.
Ahh…this is more like it. Anyone can promise before their God and have it witnessed and then call themselves married. To have your marriage legal though you need a contract.
Why on earth do you need to have your loving spiritually blessed promise to God turned into nothing more than a man made state witnessed legal contract?
Oh….That is because not all marriages actually work. Evidently no matter how much you promise before God, you need to plan for the possibility of one day having a separation of your union…then who is going to help you? God doesn’t come divide up your personal property, grant custody of your kids to you because according to your promise to God, you were going to stay together till one of you died so there is no need to separate material items is there?
You need to make this contract before man so that man can intervene on your behalf if you break your promise between yourself, your spouse and your God.
So now we have come away from the religious union because God doesn’t need man made documents does he? Now we are into nothing more than a contract between two people and witnessed by the state. A promise to join together as a single unit and share all rights and responsibilities. No religion enters this contract…it’s all man…it’s what you do before you even bring your union into the church. Sad really….if Marriage was all about a promise between the couple and God, why stop at the county clerks office first? Seems God isn’t quite as important in keeping your marriage sacred and bound…you need a legal contract made my man?
No. I don’t really think that is true. I think marriage walked out of the church kicking dust up at God’s door and took up home in the state. Now you have to go through the state before you can even make your promise to God. Through society evolution, God become secondary in your sacred marriage and I have no clue why the Church never fought to keep Marriage in the church in the first place and have the state set up it’s own civil union contract. People united by a faith organization wishing for that legal protection could get that if they so wished. If someone didn’t want to go through a church they could get a civil union agreement only.
Wouldn’t THAT have kept marriage sacred and holy?
The church should have and still could be able to decide who gets a certificate of marriage (or whatever a union is called by the faith group) Then when one says “I’m Married” it implies they were married in a church of God according to Christian law and their union was blessed by the faith leader. Isn’t that how it was suppose to be?
So how about this:
Every legal citizen in America of legal age has equal access to the legal civil union contract that protects you in case of divorce and allows you over 1000 other privileges in the United States that has nothing to do with the church. If the church refuses to witness your civil union and sign a “marriage” contract well then..you are not married. You are legally united…but not married, call it something else.
I’m not married to my life partner, I’m not Christian. We are happily Hand Fasted. Our union is a sacred bond between us and our blessed Earth Mother who brought man and woman together to create new life, but did not force love and life union on her children nor did she set boundary of love or union only between opposite genders.
Opposite genders come together to procreate because each gender carries a part of what is needed to make a complete human. Nobody can really deny that, but love and breeding are not the same thing. People who hate each other can breed, even a sick disgusting rapist can steal the use of a womans body and make a child…I’m sure that victim has no love for that man even if life was started in her body….only people who love each other can commit their lives to each other and expect to live happily ever after. Love knows no boundary of gender, skin color, physical traits etc…that is attraction. We seek out the opposite sex and physical charectaristics that attract us for breeding reasons. Consider the evolution of blond hair and blue eyes during the upper paleolithic period.
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Frost_06.html
“A
potential mate will respond not simply to a bright color
but also to a rare one that stands out from the crowd”
In the harsh lands of the late stone age when more men were dying from having to range further for food, the women were securing their species with differences in charectaristics that would attract humans together procreate…I wonder how many of them were married? LOL…that’s right that was before the Bible and long before marriage contracts. They came together to breed and didn’t necessarily form life long unions. They all took care of each other as a tribe and at that time it’s pretty clear nobody really knew who the baby’s daddy was so the child would have belonged to the woman to continue the tribe and a man was welcome at the hearth to hunt while she kept the babies alive at the breast to carry on the species. There was probably a promise to provide for the hearth and I’m sure they worked at bringing forth more babies especially since life was harsh and many didn’t survive. Nobody knows if love was actually a part of all this…it’s a natural arrangement for survival or self and species. Love might have been a part of it though.
A couple might have gone off and formed their own tribe when more room was needed and so on, making the smaller families we know today with a male hunter and provider and of course a man to keep the species going, and a female gatherer and carer of children. Convenient union of course. We really can’t survive without both genders, without cooperation of both genders, and without the ability to reproduce our species. Still…this doesn’t imply love bound a relationship together or even that there were any spiritual laws about same sex love, affections or even life long unions. It was about survival.
Where did love and procreation get mixed up?
Ah…I know…it was when the species needed to not waste their seed (cuz they had no clue they had a ton of it) Wasting your seed on the wrong sex produces no children. Gay men were putting the reproduction of the species at risk in the eye of the past ancient man who could not forsee the overpopulation of the earth and had no clue that sperm was pretty plentiful. That is why a man should not lie with a man as he would with a woman….how are you going to keep the species alive that way?
Ok, yeah I can see the point of the past build upon fear of the unknown. This is today, we are over populated and have no reason to worry about the countinuation of our species. We can relax now. We have so many babies being born that abortion clinics have revolving doors. We really can slow down on the breeding now do you think? Maybe we can concentrate on families built on love and the emotional desire to spend their lives together, share property, raise children, help in the care and support equally of children born into the family. Opposite genders are not needed to build a family anymore, just like we don’t need to hunt to survive or live in caves.
We have evolved.
I think the word Marriage belongs in the Church, not in a civil union contract. The word marriage should be stripped off from the state contracts and given back to the church. A legal birth certificate is different than the Church baptismal where the child is recognized by the church and formally taken into the fold why shouldn’t the church be able to provide it’s own marriage certificate for couples joined together in God’s house just like the certificate a child gets when he or she is cleansed of sin and presented to God for acceptance.
I was legally united twice. Both times we had a Justice of the Peace, not a minister of faith, witness promises and union. It was called marriage, but I don’t think it should have been. It wasn’t a promise before any God, we didn’t ask for God to bless our union, in fact we specifically requested the words God and obey be excluded from the ceremony. My sister was married in a Church and she got a church certificate of marriage. I think it was done right in her case. I think perhaps the word Marriage was taken out of the the church and put into the states and it never belonged there. It now causes the religious issue. The Church doesn’t want gays to use their name for the promise made to God. I don’t blame the Church and feel they have the right to claim that name.
I think we should give it back to them and allow ALL relationships to form civil unions.