First of all, since this is an issue that has plagued me for half of my life. Be aware that I am biased, and I make no claim otherwise.
Let me first say that in discussing marriage at all, you will be dealing with religion so directly that avoiding it, or being seen to avoid it, will only detract from whatever argument you choose to make. Marriage IS a traditionally religious union, and I feel that it has no place in today's society except in memory. Let me explain why I feel that way.
The Bible as we know it today, the King James version, was translated by the English church in the early 1600s- completed 1611, according to Wikipedia. There was no separation of church and state in those days; the church held the power, as much because they were the commonly accepted proxy between Man and God as because they enforced law. So let's examine what was going on in the 16th century to influence the translation of the Bible to the King James version.
A quote directly from Wikipedia: "In Europe, the Protestant Reformation gave a major blow to the authority of the Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. European politics became dominated by religious conflicts, with the groundwork for the epochal Thirty Years' War being laid towards the end of the century."
By the end of the century, Spain had declared bankruptcy twice! Legally, girls could marry when they were 12 years old. Women were seen as 'the weaker vessel' even though most of them had to do hard manual work, right alongside the men, in between caring for the children to boot. Furthermore, a married woman could not own property. Legally everything she had belonged to her husband. A dowry originally started as a means to provide for one's daughter in the case of ill treatment by her husband. But, since women could not own property during that time, it was more of a payment to a man to take on the responsibility of a wife.
What do people say about what they would do if they won the lottery? Many times,
donating a portion is brought up. With such a lump sum settlement coming to men who married in those days, and no cars or computers to spend it on, it was likely to get wasted in taverns or on prostitutes.
Population was a solemn concern in those days. Life wasn't easy, the mortality rate was higher, and if the people didn't successfully breed the next generation, there would be fewer individuals to carry Christianity to other countries (or line the church's pockets). A man laying with a man produces no children, so in the interests of society, it could not be tolerated.
So obviously, there was a huge incentive for the English Church to put a spin on the Bible, to influence men to the behavior they wanted to see. Donating money to the church was not only pious and good, it was law. Laws could be fought, but the Bible was put forward as a holy document, inspired directly by God, and who would challenge Him?
Also, since the vast majority of people could not read, they would never get to discover for themselves what words were put down anyway. People were encouraged by this new Bible to look not to physical wealth, but to spiritual wealth. Jesus himself told a rich man that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than to enter heaven. (I'll leave the interpretation of that statement to you, though there are some interesting thoughts presented
Here.)
Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Perhaps, because women were seen as property, and to lay with a man in that way was degrading?
So, let's get something straight before I go any further. The King James version was pretty much just another piece of propaganda. The fact that it is so widely accepted in this day and age, as though the social situation it was written to address is still in place, annoys me endlessly. In America, women are supposed to have equal rights to men, yet there is still a lot of lingering preference for men in the workplace (and elsewhere).
What does marriage nowadays do for a couple? It gives them a legal contract which is as often dissolved by divorce (which leads to hefty attourney fees, anger between the individuals, and all that), and a tax break, among a few other perks. "Till death do us part" is now a meaningless phrase, because people DO change. They DO grow apart. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise. Therefore, I propose that we do away with the tradition of MARRIAGE completely.
I would rather use a form of handfasting, where two individuals pledge to be together for a specific amount of time, after which they may renew their vows or go their separate ways without penalty. Prenuptial agreements would be necessary, to ensure that neither party felt slighted if and when things gained during the union had to be split. It could even be possible to set up the same sort of benefits as a typical marriage entails- tax breaks and all that.
I think it's the terminology more than the actual union that many people are so strongly against. So change the terminology by removing the debated issue from the equation.
Love should be something to celebrate. If a man loves a man, it is just as precious and beautiful as a man loving a woman, or a woman loving a woman. There is so much hate and negativity in the world. I don't understand why anyone would seek to deny others a way to certify their love for each other. Sexual preference should be just as strongly defended in the minds of men as the right of religious preference. If your lifestyle does no harm to anyone, whose business is it but your own?
To the original poster- I agree that no unwilling church should be required to unite two individuals. But, they should be able to go
somewhere to have a ceremony to unite them publicly. Even if it is just the damn courthouse.
Reply
