Some people choose to be married before God. Some choose to make promises to each other, irrespective of God. So far we're OK.
For some, marriage before God means the bonding of a man and a woman and as Paul didnt quite put it, its an institution to stop you shagging about. As it was put elsewhere its for men to practice being responsible, to love their wives as Christ loves the Church and presumably for the women to practice respect for their mate's decisions. Either side of the match could involve being patient and long suffering. Lets not go there, but its a lesson in negotiation and understanding.
Why are gay people being denied the right, not to marry according to one religious interpretation, but the secular one, to promise a faithful pair bond for life and to do so in front of witnesses? Why should a couple, together for life as a single unit find that the law gives them no rights over, for example, arranging the funeral if one was to pass?
Gay people are asking to be responsible. They are asking to be 'booked', seen by society as a pair bond.
To all you righteous, married, deep South anti-gay-marriage bloggers : How would you feel if you woke up one wet Tuesday; same life, same bed, same problems, different bits between your legs?
Still you, still as much in love with your partner as ever, as deep in understanding of each other, but short of a bit of tackle? Would you start shagging 'your own sex' (or your own sex as of yesterday) because society say you should? No! How could you? You would feel so sick at the thought.
This isnt about sex, who does it, how etc, its about love. If you woke up in the wrong body, there is no way in hell you could stop wanting the support, hugs and affection of your marriage partner, wanting to work with that person as a unit in society, two become one soul, never mind body. But it would technically be a gay marriage.
Have a heart.
4 comments:
Have you ever been to the deep south in the U.S.? Do you think that the only detractors to gay marriage live in this demographic? The reason it was voted down in eleven states this past election should tell you that America is not yet ready to accept, at least in a religious context, the notion of gay marriage. As far as I can tell, the only purpose such a union would serve is to gain benefit from governement programs. You're probably tired of hearing this, but when it comes to propagating the species, it takes a man and a woman - that's just plain biology, kid.
LOL Todd
Show me ONE state in America where the propogation of the species never happens outside of a holy and sanctified marriage and I'll concede your point. Let he who is without sin etc... or are we categorising sins these days as taking us further or not so far from God?
Hasnt it ever crossed anybody's minds that maybe the bible was talking to perverts - as in straight people who liked to be dirty, or to get their rocks off without producing progeny? I bet it was a popular pass-time for the straight and horny.
I dont think that people who, through the workings of their God, happen to end up mid-gender whether they like it or not, should be forbidden to have a monogamous relationship recognised, in a civil ceremony at least. But hey I look forward to your answer :-)
All well and good but...
I still think that the old laws should be in place.
Over 21, two consenting adults only, in total privacy.
None of this "It's ok to be gay at 16 young man, Oh I know I'm 30 but we can still be friends"
Not normal man!
And I hate the way certain people are trying to pressurise everyone else into thinking it's normal.
Hey Axe
100 percent agreed. Choosing such a difficult path should be done in complete adulthood, when genetics rather than confusion are the only issue.
Post a Comment