Beans
Thorough Thursday: It's Getting Ridiculous
The holy Sacrament of marriage is one promise not meant to be taken lightly. In a very public manner two people are uniting themselves, both physically and spiritually. Making promises to 'love, honor and obey each until death do them part'. The rite is a beautiful one reserved for a man and woman seeking a family together. The church defines marriage as such because it is how God intended, the natural way. Living in a nation founded by Christians, many of our laws are influenced by Christian doctrine and marriage is no exception. But in the year 2009 in a country historically known as a melting pot it is time we step back and reexamine certain laws and their wording.
Defining marriage as a union between a man and woman is based on religious doctrine. But the United States of America is a secular nation and the division of church and state was essential while writing the Constitution. It is time our government, on both the state and federal level, redefine marriage. Several states are thinking progressively on the matter and have already legalized marriage in some form or another between homosexuals. However, why this change is not widespread and what the legislators and people are trying to protect is a mystery.
In America marriage is pretty much a joke. Nearly 50% of all unions end, which are supposed to last a life time, end in divorce. Las Vegas is notorious for the shot gun weddings at 3 am in a random chapel. Marriage simply (generally speaking) is not so special anymore. The contract entered by the two is such a joke that websites like, http://www.ashleymadison.com/ exist. If you have never heard of the site, it was created to assist those seeking extra-marital affairs. People are literally paying their hard earned money to find a sexual partner that they are not married to. But marriage is a sacred rite. Right.
There are also many people who marry because it is financially advantageous. Gold diggers are so feared that those with money create prenuputial agreements saying if we decide 'til death is too long, what's mine now will still be mine then. But marriage needs to be protected. Right.
Members of our armed forces; Army, Navy, or the Air Force, also enter marriages for the financial perks. Such as higher pay, tax deductions, housing and health benefits. The guarantee of more money being sent home is a pretty incentive for these troopers, so they often get married and start families before they are truly ready. But we still need to protect marriage. Right.
For those married couples who feel as though allowing homosexuals to wed would diminish your committment through marriage, that is ridiculous. Marriage was made a joke long before homosexuals sought this right. So go protest outside divorce attorney offices or write your representative to make divorce less of an option, by making it harder to accomplish. Or if you contest there is nothing natural to homosexuals marrying, then please tell what makes marriage natural period. None of our biological cousins mate with a partner for life. Nature simply dictates that a man and woman procreate for the existence of a species. ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTW8oUV8Aq0 )
Whereas marriage is a chose made by two people who are driven by more than nature. You get married because you are in love with who and what that person is and what that person makes you. The union makes not only you a better person but your partner, and therein lays what makes marriage so special. Denying homosexuals to reap all the benefits (financially, legally and socially etc) can not be tolerated anymore. Let them wed!
5 comments:
I will start by saying that I agree with you whole heartedly, but I mus add that marriage is a funny thing when it comes to politics. While you are completely correct Beans about the situation of marriage, many of the high ranking politicians who supports legislations and institutionalized policy that do not allow progressive reform are not worried about marriage itself, they are worried more about normalizing homosexuality. Marriage is the foundation, (ideally though not always realistically)....and the US is a nation built on ideals....what you have to realize is that even though those ideals are based in a religion that doesn't apply to everyone,...those are the ideals our country is stuck with because to the vioctor go the spoils and the Christians got here first.
So while I believe gays should have the right to be married, I understand some of the objection that is less concrete, which is based largely in fear of a slippery slope when it comes to homosexuals and "normalizing" the idea of a "gay" family.
Are you in full support of a gay couples' right to adopt a child. because I can tell you that I truly don't know if I am and I am leaning toward being against it. I know a child can be raised perfectly fine by a gay couple,...but down the line, when gay and lesbian couples become more mainstream, and their culture begins to influence the children that they adopt, I feel that those children's understanding of gender roles will become skewed, and Gender Roles are not going ANYWHERE because we are sexually dimorphic, we're instinctive, we're animals....that's never going to change.
I believe that denying people rights based on ideals is a horrible practice because there used to be ideals in this country that said my ancestors were less than human.
Thus, it takes doing what you feel is wrong, but you KNOW is right. Homosexuals voice is very loud when it comes to being progressive and demanding change, the problem is, supporting their cause truly is going against our instinctive physical, sexual nature...which is trickier to negotiate than a person's nature or mindset when it comes to their ideals on class, or race, or religion.
I feel you, and hopefully what ever uneasyness i harbor towards homosexuals and their rights to have children will be aleviated. But where do u stand on the type of implications that gay marriage would have in terms of granting homosexuals other controversial family rights.
2 things...
First, while 50% of marriages may end in divorce, that does not mean that marriage is a joke of an institution at all. Marriage is meant to be something sacred and religious, and just because society has made a mockery of certain marriages, I dont see at all how that takes away from the institution. There is no way you can compare the marriages of two people who get wasted an go to vegas to that of two people who are truly in love with each other and want to make a committment. Sure lots of people may take advantage of the system, that comes with the territory. The big difference is that when people get married in the Love Chapel at the Tropicana, they arent - in my opinion - being united under God. Anyone could just one day say they are a priest and start "marrying" people, but i dont really consider that marriage.
Second, if you take marriage to be something religious and you think that homosexuals should marry, then the debate isnt one on marriage its one on homosexuality. Civil unions are allowed, the issue comes up when you bring the issue of homosexuality within the church. Allowing them to "marry" is acceptance within the realm of a particular faith, and that will never happen within all the major faiths - Catholicism, Judaism, Islam. Point blank, we may be a secular country but marriage is not a secular institution. Even if every state legalizes gay marriage, you will never attend a Jewish wedding between two dudes. In that way, I feel the issue is moot. Honestly, expand the rights of civil unions and dont call it marriage, thats my solution.
Well that's just the thing Gert,gays and lesbians dont want to have civil unions expanded so that they have all the rights of married people,...they want to BE "MARRIED"....they want to the title and everything that comes with it. The same way you described marriage as being a serious institution centering around love and committment, that is what homosexuals are fighting for, civil union is almost meaningless. I have civil union with my roomates and that we are
"united" in the house we stay in and we don't fight on a daily basis, so it's quite "civil."
Even though the term and institution originates from the church, its use and applications in modern society have expanded beyond church authority. Because if two atheiests get decide to wed in the United States, they are a "married" couple....they are not refered to as a civil union just because their lack of affiliation with the church from which marriage originated.I would encourage you to be utilitarian on this one and think of this question.
What is the harm in NOT allowing gays to marry?
Answer:
You deny people, citizens of this country a right that others have based on a lifestyle.
What is the harm in ALLOWING homosexuals the right to marry?
Answer:
? Do you have one? I hear the sanctity of marriage argument alot, so if it cheapens that sanctity...explain how and I'll be forever grateful.
Gert the reason why marriage is secular in our nation is because our federal government assists marriage couples with tax deductions and other breaks under the law in their estates for example. So how can you deny homosexuals those same benefits?
I never suggested the marriage of homosexuals ought to be recognized by the church. Instead the arguement was to challenge the state to acknowledge this group as equals before the law.
Now to address the earlier concerns of my BUSE colleague, pertaining to children raised by homosexual families. Marriage between the races was one of the last civil rights granted to minorities in this country and because of the same fears you mentioned earlier just applying to a black father to white children (for example). Being a mixed individual I feel I came out alright.
I can not tell you how children raised by homosexuals will turn out, but I do feel they deserve a chance. Mainly due to the fact that there are too many kids without parents, so why are we denying them a chance to be raised with loving parents? I mean hetero couples get screened so what flaw will be missed by the screening process when interviewing homosexual couples?
Stop thinking about the political effects and take into consideration those who are most important in the 'system', the children. Because no one has any information indicating that a homosexual couple can not raise healthy happy children.
Post a Comment