Marriage & Civil Unions
Submitted by Janae on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 12:29
So…there are two different perspectives/definitions of marriage.
In a religious, or spiritual context, marriage in the Bible reads that marriage is God’s idea and is a living symbol of the relationship between Christ and the Church. For instance, Genesis 2:18-24 reads, “It is not good for the man to be alone...this explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.” Ephesians 5:31-32 reads, “As the Scriptures say, ‘A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the Church are one.(NLV Translation, 2004).
From a social/legal context, marriage is a term used to describe the union of two people in matrimony, regardless of gender specifications. Due to the fact that there are huge issues surrounding the word “marriage,” some have argued reserving the word “marriage” for religious contexts and “civil unions” in civil and legal contexts to strengthen the separation between church and state (Wikipedia, 2009).
Controversy:
The debate surrounding same-sex marriage is based upon social viewpoints, majority rules, religious convictions, economic arguments, and health related concerns (Wikipedia, 2009).
Those opposed to same-sex marriages have argued that the legalization of same-sex marriages will open the door for legalization of polygamy, erode religious freedoms, and deprive children of a mother or a father.
Those for same-sex marriages argue that the government should have no say in regulating personal relationships and that legalization would provide social benefits to same-sex couples (Wikipedia, 2009).
I believe in equality before the law for all, regardless of your sexual preference; however, I also see the sacredness and the spiritual meaning of marriage itself. I believe that marriage comes from God and is a lifetime commitment before God himself. It should not be entered into lightly and should be revered and respected as such.
- Janae's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Law: Reason free from passion, or passion free from reason?
The first thing I thought when beginning to read your article was, "What if God doesn't exist?" Government-funded public schools don't teach the ideals of creationism. Why should the gov't take such great religious consideration in the issue of same sex civil unions, then? Marriages (between a man and women) can take place in the churches they are religiously accepted in, and homosexuals (if truly equal-to in freedoms) can have the same right to do so in a court room. I guess it comes from each person's view on ligitimacy of marriage as well. A pastor's blessing and a silly piece of paper, or a legal document? I must also point out that religious leaders are not above the law.
I also was going to post the same exact question that Angela posed. I felt you might have intended to end your article in kind of a "still can't decide ..." stance. It's a difficult topic to sort out. I comment on this as I was raised in both parochial (k-8) and public schools (9-12). I think both sides have become very good at conveying their beliefs, but perhaps not so good at educating their students on how to compromise and communicate with opposing views (which is certainly hard to see between passionate students at my huge public university!)
I don't understand why people
I don't understand why people continually force their religious beliefs on others. If you believe being homosexual is wrong, then don't be homosexual. Don't try to take away everyone else's right to do so. You'd think that in America, a nation that many flocked to to escape religious persecution, it wouldn't be an issue.
Oh, and the Catholic church has a ridiculous track record of telling us what's right and wrong. They supported slavery in America, they supported Hitler, and they continue to push sexism on their followers. The word of god, or at least the official interpretation of it, is changed often as well. One ridiculous example, from just 2 years ago:
www.religionnewsblog.com/16159/pope-to-end-doctrine-of-limbo
Basically, if a kid dies before its baptized, it goes straight to hell (which makes a ton of sense for a forgiving and just god). So whenever a baby is stillborn, that's god creating a soul, and sending it straight to hell. Before, they used to tell us that those souls would go to "Limbo" - a place between heaven and hell. But a bunch of old guys in funny hats got together and decided they didn't like that idea, so now they all go to hell.
So you're going to let that establishment tell people who can and can't get married? They'll probably just change their mind about it in 10 years.
It's like this weird catch 22
It's like this weird catch 22 when it comes to the freedom in our country. We may not like what other religions practice, but they have the right to practice it (for the most part).
The Catholic Church is not infallible. No establishment is. Our government isn't. To target just the Catholic Church in this example is to have tunnel vision. They supported Hitler? Well, I'm a Catholic. I'm part of the Catholic Church. I do not support Hitler. I'm pretty sure my family back then did not support Hitler. Your wild and inaccurate accusations are really off base.
The author's belief is that
The author's belief is that people should be denied one of their rights, because HER religious belief does not agree with what they are doing. She is effectively forcing her religious beliefs on others, and denying the right to practice gay Atheism.
And the fact that the Catholic Church is not infallible was my whole point. We should not deny some people their basic rights simply because the Catholic Church tells us to - because the Catholic Church has a terrible track record!
As for, "Your wild and inaccurate accusations are really off base", please post links that show that I'm wrong. From everything I've read, the Catholic Church actually did those ridiculous things in the past, as hard as it is to believe.
The thing is that, (mostly)
The thing is that, (mostly) everyone has a right to vote. And someone who is religious and does not believe in abortion or gay marriage has that right vote against those things. Now do I agree with them? I don't have to. BUT that's their right to do so. You could also flip the argument and say that people who believe in "gay Atheism" are forcing their beliefes on people who don't.
And what I was trying to say was that I'm part of the Catholic Church. Therefore, those arguments are wild. I would compare it to saying "Everyone in the U.S. wants this war in Iraq and Afghanistan and they approve of all of the military strikes that have gone down". The truth is, some of us feel that way. Some don't.
Discriminatory laws cannot be
Discriminatory laws cannot be passed just because they have the majority vote. Anyone who is part of a minority should know this. If all of the men in the country voted to take away women's suffrage, and won in a landslide, how would you feel?
And legalizing gay marriage is not forcing beliefs on anyone. If people were forced to marry someone of the same sex, that would be a different story. Bottom line though- if you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. This is like cheating on your spouse - most people believe its wrong, but does that mean we should make it illegal?
**Note: This comment has been flagged and edited for violating Community Guideline 4**
Do You Mean...?
Good post Janae, very interesting. However, I am wondering if you are implying (in your last paragraph) that homosexuals are incapable of viewing marriage as "sacred" and a "lifetime commitment." I'm not sure if that is what you meant, but if so, I would argue that same-sex couples are just as capable of maintaining a committed and monogamous relationship as heterosexuals are. Also, I think it is only fitting to point out the unfortunate (and increasing) divorce rate among heterosexual couples...