However, I had a good maiden post idea in my head all morning. I started structuring and writing it in my mind but, since I've sat down to type it up, it has, for the most part (the structuring and writing part), vacated my mind.
So let's just wing it and see how we go, eh?
Right, there's been a lot of talk today (on twitter at least) about 'gay marriage' and the support/opposition for/to it. 'Oh, it's one of *those* posts!' I hear some of you think already. Well, yes and no. I am pro-equal marriage. I make no bones about it. However, if you think this is going to be just a simple 'opposition bashing' post, you are most certainly mistaken there. You'll see what I mean, or at least I hope your minds will be open enough to at least. If not, well you've probably already stopped reading by this point anyway.
One of the main points I saw that opposed equal marriage today was that marriage is a religious institution of our church that the legal system in this country just facilitates. Fair enough. Except, I don't understand the support of this argument at all. I understand the statement, but not as an argument against equal marriage. Here's why: If that is a good enough reason to stop equal marriage becoming legal then it is an equally good enough reason to;
1) Make it illegal for anyone who is not of the church to get married,
2) Make marriage ceremonies performed outside of the church, by someone who is not of the church especially, illegal.
Yet I see neither of these being argued. Neither of these fit in with marriage being a 'religious institution of our church' surely?
'No! No! No!' I saw someone shout. 'That's not the same at all!' Ok, so it's not the same? Why? 'Because the church does not govern people of other religions, only those that are of the church! The religion of this country', they said. Exactly, I reply, so why can't equal marriage be passed then? Think about it. Why can't I, for example, as an atheist, marry a woman if I wish to? What right do subscribers to a church, of which I am not a member, have to tell the government who they should allow or, conversely, stop, me marrying?
(Now I stop at this point to reiterate that this is not opposition-bashing or, for that matter, religion bashing in any sense. I'm actually not anti-religion in any real sense of the term, see a previous post I have written elsewhere on my views of religion as a concept here. I'm just using arguments I have seen and merely questioning them. I'm aware I haven't seen all arguments used, nor do I claim to, but I can only comment on what I have seen, clearly.)
So, anyway, I digress. Taking a different tact here. Another religious based argument I have seen in regard to the opposition of equal marriage is; the Bible's definition of marriage. Equal marriage would ruin the sanctity of marriage. Well, see, as I've found, the definition of marriage per se within the Bible is far more diverse and flexible than most give it credit for and the majority would, by the standards of today, be considered sacred. Within the Bible's pages the following things are included in marriage and/or constitute marriage;
1) A widow who has not borne her husband a son before his death must marry her husband's brother and submit sexually to him in order to give him offspring.
2) A wife must be subordinate to her husband. The wife is to have no independant rights, needs or priviledges of her own.
3) Concubines. The only difference between a wife and a concubine in the Bible, is wives have dowries, concubines have none. Such women enjoyed the same rights in the house as legitimate wives. Examples; Abraham had 2, as did Caleb. Gideon, Nahor, Jacob, Eliphaz, Manassah & Belshazzar all had 1. Solomon is said to have had 300(!) (Go Solo, g...I mean, ahem...)
4) In Deuteronomy is it said that a rape victim must become her rapist's wife and submit to him sexually. The rapist must merely pay his victim's father 50 pieces of silver due to 'loss of property'.
5) Under Moses command, Israelites were to kill every Midianite man, woman and child except for the virgin women. They were to be taken as spoils of war and must submit sexually to their new husbands/owners.
6) In Exodus it is said that a male slave will be assigned a female slave as a wife. She must submit to him sexually and bear him children, which will remain the owner's property (the wife and any children) after the man can go free.
So, let's talk about how the Bible defines marriage shall we? I'm not going to say about the rights and wrongs of what is contained within the Bible.What I am saying is I don't think you can use that as a valid argument against equal marriage unless you're actively, and just as rigorously, campaigning to have such things made legal under what does constitute marriage.
The third big reason I saw opposing equal marriage was thus; Marriages of two people of the same sex undermine the marriages of two people of opposing sexes.
This is, I have to say, one that does truly baffle me. I cannot see any way that two women, or two men, getting married could possibly affect your 'straight' marriage. If it does, that surely calls into question the foundation on which the 'straight' marriage is built upon to begin with? I don't think I can aptly word this any better than one very famous face did, so I'll let her do the talking instead:
"If gay marriage affects your straight marriage obviously your marriage is pretty shitty to begin with."
- Mila Kunis
The fourth and final big reason I saw that opposes equal marriage seems a very big one. Especially amoung those that can't abuse the Bible and religion as their excuse; 'The main reason to be married is to procreate! Two men/women can't do that!'
This one has quite a simple response; Why are you not campaigning against infertile people getting married? The elderly? Or people who do not want to have children through choice? Surely, via that reasoning, they should not be allowed to get married either?
The law the Government are proposing forces no religious institution to perform marriages between two people of the same gender. It will actually be illegal for Church of England institutions to perform these marriages in totality. No-one in this country is going to force anybody to get married. It is illegal. If equal marriage becomes law it will *still* be illegal.
If you do not like/want/agree with 'gay marriage' there is one simple solution that I will enlighten you with now; Do not get 'gay married'.
However if it really is that important to you to stop two people you have never met from standing up in front of a bunch of other people you have never met, say nice things about each other, and pledge to stay commited to each other for the duration of their lifetime through love and respect, I suggest to you this; it is not this potential law change that needs looking at, it's your priorities.
End note of two things:
I use Christianity as the religious example for two reasons;
1) It is the religion which I have seen twisted to suit people's reasoning in this matter.
2) It is generally recognised as both the historical and official religion of Britain. Church of England (Anglican) in England and Wales and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in Scotland.
You may notice that I have been loathe to use the term 'Gay marriage'. You see,
1) Gay people can already get married, just not to other gay people.
2) The whole topic is about equality. It is not about asking for anything different or out of the ordinary. It is purely about people who wish to commit to someone of the same gender wanting the same legal (and religious for those who practice) rights as those who wish to marry someone of the opposite gender.
Wow, you should stand as an MP, you would be the first one that actually speaks sense
ReplyDeleteI don't know how true that is, but I certainly appreciate the sentiment behind it!
Delete