8 thoughts on “The Gay Marriage Debate Resolved

  1. Like you, I am really tired of the mixing of religious and civic issues. It muddies things up in so many ways, with marriage being a flagship issue. In some ways I agree with the crazy conservatives, who want government to butt out of our personal lives, but they scare me off with all the socially conservative stuff they push, such as trying to make marriage conform only to the modern Christian model of one man and one woman, etc… I also think that polygamy is fine for those who want it.

  2. I share your opinion altogether, and I hope your post kicks off an international debate that results in an worldwide implementation of this concept. (I am quite serious.) Thank you very much.

  3. I am looking forward to the day when you have published your scandalous books, and a whole world of people find themselves here at this blog reading your thoughts. Because, really, these ideas should be discussed openly and everywhere right now.
    AND I want to read your books!
    AND you are so damn smart and pretty!

  4. Michelle, your idea is wonderful & really how things should be. The problem is that it makes sense. So it is unlikely our government will ever support it. I’m married I did all the things I was supposed to do and it was lame and didn’t reflect my beliefs at all. I don’t like being legally bound to my husband. This has nothing to do with love or commitment and solely because of certain laws. To me ‘marriage’ has always been a business arrangement (no matter who was in charge of arranging it).

  5. I think what the fundamentalist churches forget is that marriage was never about one man and one woman. It was about many many other things. It was an ownership issue and property rights issue, primarily. It was arranged, and love wasn’t even a part of the picture for the most part. Marriage was practical. There is nothing “sacred” about religious marriage or even civil unions performed by the court. Or at least, there wasn’t. The current notion that it is is actually pretty new.

    So I absolutely agree with you. Civil unions for everyone, with all the same bennies that our current legal definition of “marriage” has. Then let the churches be as picky as they want.

    1. Do you really believe what you posted?
      Marriage was a “Devine Institution” not a “Government Contract”. It’s purpose was to provide an environment conducive to propagation of humanity.
      Children need security, stability, affection, etc for emotional well-being ~ besides their physical needs.
      The family dynamic coupled with their ‘religious practice, worship, education’ (remember reading Genesis?) It encompassed every aspect of their lives, ‘ from diet spelling out clean & unclean foods, Respectful Sexual practices for healthy living and disease prevention ~ as well as providing a mother & a father to every child (death being the exception). And, in case you’re wondering ~ God’s plan worked out just grand!!! After Your here! So, think and give thanks before U Knock it…it’s people who screw it up, and give us what we got today. To heck with Civil Union ~ get back to what our Creator designed for our own good!! It’s obvious we can’t make it on our own ~ after thousands of years we still haven’t figured things out.

      1. Of course I believe what I posted. It’s based off of historical research. I took History of Western Religions in college. I took Sex and the State in college which talks about how nation-states create laws to create the kind of people within their nation that are considered acceptable (i.e. laws restricting interracial marriage, for example, that have since been struck down). I have read many well-researched books concerning religion. I have read the Bible. Marriage was never a “divine institution” until recently. It was a property issue and a way for people to try to scrabble upwards in the class system Parents tried to marry off their daughters to families with more money or social standing to increase their own. Same with parents of sons. In many cases, women are/were married off just because their families can’t afford to keep them. Marriage has to some extent ALWAYS been about what people can get out of it (or get rid of). It’s only been in the last two or three centuries that people are starting to choose their own marriage partners and we threw in the romantic notions that we should be giving and receiving love, too. But there are still communities here in the United States that STILL have arranged marriage.

        If marriage as a sacred covenant/divine institution was strictly about propagation of the species, then there would be no reason at all for elderly couples to marry or stay married, infertile couples to marry or stay married and so on. That argument holds no water.

        In addition, you are referring to the biblical notions of what marriage is. First of all, not everyone is a Christian. Not everyone is going to have the same definition of “divine institution” or even “sacred” as you. Second, the biblical notions of what to eat and how to behave are based on lack of refrigeration and much different living conditions than we have now. Our global, modern society means we can eat shellfish without fear of keeling over dead, for example. And I daresay that these “respectful healthy practices for disease prevention” aren’t so healthy or respectful, when the Bible says it is better for a man to sleep with a whore than to let his seed spill on the ground (paraphrase).

        Families come in all types and forms. Two mommies, two daddies, a mommy and a daddy, a mommy a daddy and another daddy, or even only one parent…. Children get “security, stability, affection, etc. for their emotional well-being” in all kinds of family set-ups. One man and one woman are not necessary.

        If people want to make marriage a “divine institution” through their church, they are welcome to do so. But that shouldn’t be the only way to wed or become a union. And, since laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman have been struck down by our Supreme Court, many states that allowed civil unions for gay couples have since converted their unions to marriages and done away completely with the civil union idea. In other states, couples with civil unions can apply to be married so that they can now have the same rights. It’s marriage for everybody, with the same rights for all!

        http://family.findlaw.com/domestic-partnerships/civil-unions-v-marriage.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s