Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
This thread is fascinating. Not multiquoting because it would take up pages but it made me think of a bunch of replies.
One thing I didn't see mentioned is the financial impact of declaring marriage is for all. It would be huge. I believe there are many who have religious beliefs that think this is wrong, but, I think there are enough people who look at the logistics and think it is better to keep things as is rather than deal with them. Makes me think of the mind boggling legal/financial adjustments people must have had to make when the slaves were suddenly freed.
People seem to have forgotten the history of marriage when they say 'Traditional' marriage should be preserved; viewing it as having to do with a religious union cementing a loving relationship and for some procreation in that union. Until fairly recent history marriage mostly a business transaction. Marriage was a tool to cement alliances, reward deeds, buy loyalty, increase or ensure financial success and produce heirs to further the dynasty. (Look at European history- they intermarried so often it is a wonder they could still function). Women did not have personal rights after marriage, lost all property and ceased to exsist as a separate entitiy. I am only
52 and remember a girl in my college class who left in the 2nd year to go home to her country to an arranged marriage with a husband she had met once. I also remember women fighting to be able to remove themselves from abusive marriages. It was cutting edge law to let them (and even more controvertial to hold the man accountable). The current argument to sustain the 'Traditional' Marriage ' isn't referring to the traditions across the years but to what people have decided the current definition should be.
Regardless of the morality of a same sex relationship, not allowing a marriage ignores the lack of legal protection afforded to the couple. Taking every legal precaution available is not enough. Most people in this country find it abhorent there are some places today where a woman marries and loses the rights to the property she brought into the marriage or the right to her children. The lack of marital rights for same sex people creates a similar scenario. 2 personal examples: My 2 aunties were together 50 yrs when one of them became ill. They had to get a lawyer to restructure things because the financial situation threatened the remaining auntie's ability to keep their house. They had to adjust ownership of things they had thought of as 'theirs' for years and after she passed the lawyer was still needed because of the complexity. If they were legally married the property would have been protected. When a friend who was in a relationship for yrs died, his family came into the house he and his partner shared, took his ashes away from his partner and the partner had no legal recourse.
On a religious note I struggle with the contradictions in the Bible about homosexuality. It seems that humans are more fixated on it than God was. Our Pastor once said that homosexuality is mentioned 8 times in the Bible but caring for the 'disadvantaged' (widows, children, poor) 238. Astonishing that those 8 times can generate such vitriol but the 238 can't make people be outraged we have kids who can't get food or care.
There are medical studies that show homosexual brain scans are different than heterosexual brain scans. We are all children of God. I find it hard to believe that God made a mistake. I don't think it is a mistake to let people commit to caring and loving for each other. I do think it is a mistake to not afford them the legal protection and have them held responsible for the legal obligations that come with marriage.
