This was supposed to be somewhere else...
This was originally a comment on someone else's livejournal, but I decided to post it here so that people who aren't reading the other people's livejournals could read it too. Please comment, but keep it intellectual if you can help yourself.
In response to comments that marriage is a completely religious issue:
Marriage is much more than a religious issue. It is social, economic, political, emotional, and religious. Historically (and I'll be speaking soley of wester culture here), it only made sense for man and woman to marry because women held no role in society outside of Wife and housekeeper. People married for status, for money, for political gain, and procreation. If a woman was not married, she was a burden on her father because she was not permitted by society and laws to own her own land or earn her own money. Because we have progressed beyond these archaic social roles, we have begun to realize that marriage doesn't have to be about these things. It is, however, still quite an econmical decision (do we buy a house together?, who's income will support the children?, what happens when one of us is ill?, do we need to buy two gallons of milk because our expensies are kept separate or is just one ok?, that child isn't biologically mine, but since one of their parents is the person I am sharing my life, should I pay for that private tutor or expect someone else to do it?). The complexities of taxes and the high costs of living in western society make any two or more people living together and sharing expenses of life an important economic desicion even today. People still marry just for money or for political reasons. You rarely see social elitists (read: rich white people) marry "below their station (read: other rich white people)." We have also begun to realize that because all the things that marriage include and require in society today, that heterosexual pairs are not the only possible way to get along in society today. It is also a religous issue. I agree with that. If churches and synagous and temples and mosques don't want to recognize these marriages, thats fine, they don't have to. That's why we have separation of church and state.
In response to discussions on the Bible and what it says about gay marriage and other sins (see detlev409 and bigweale)
As far as what Matt said about Jesus getting rid of some of the rules and other rules being eliminated by this 'new covenant.' I have one serious problem there. There is another part of the Bible that says that no sin is worse than another sin in the eyes of God. (Don't ask me to quote where because I just don't know the Bible that well.) It bothers me when Christians try to say things like "Well, swearing and using the Lord's name is bad, but you'll probably be forgiven. But homosexuality (or anything else really) is really really bad and you're definately going to hell for that one."
The other basic problem with quoting the Bible to make arguements about the social structure that is appropriate today is that it is a historical document. Whether or not you honestly beleive it is the Word of God, it is an inescapable truth that men were the people to write it down. Sometimes, men put things into the Bible because they were things that were needed to keep the social order in tact. They needed to provide some simple rules for keeping people healthy, safe, and basically where they were in society. The rules against sex before marriage and about adultery were just as much about not having children out of wedlock because there was no way to provide for them and sexually transmitted diseases as it was about 'preserving your sanctity or virtue for God.' The same goes for not eating pork, not being homosexual, not drinking, not disobeying your parents, all the misogynistic quotes in the Bible (women should be submissive to their husbands and all that stuff), and even the day of rest was an important social control device (don't want some people working too hard and getting way ahead of others).
In response to comments that marriage is a completely religious issue:
Marriage is much more than a religious issue. It is social, economic, political, emotional, and religious. Historically (and I'll be speaking soley of wester culture here), it only made sense for man and woman to marry because women held no role in society outside of Wife and housekeeper. People married for status, for money, for political gain, and procreation. If a woman was not married, she was a burden on her father because she was not permitted by society and laws to own her own land or earn her own money. Because we have progressed beyond these archaic social roles, we have begun to realize that marriage doesn't have to be about these things. It is, however, still quite an econmical decision (do we buy a house together?, who's income will support the children?, what happens when one of us is ill?, do we need to buy two gallons of milk because our expensies are kept separate or is just one ok?, that child isn't biologically mine, but since one of their parents is the person I am sharing my life, should I pay for that private tutor or expect someone else to do it?). The complexities of taxes and the high costs of living in western society make any two or more people living together and sharing expenses of life an important economic desicion even today. People still marry just for money or for political reasons. You rarely see social elitists (read: rich white people) marry "below their station (read: other rich white people)." We have also begun to realize that because all the things that marriage include and require in society today, that heterosexual pairs are not the only possible way to get along in society today. It is also a religous issue. I agree with that. If churches and synagous and temples and mosques don't want to recognize these marriages, thats fine, they don't have to. That's why we have separation of church and state.
In response to discussions on the Bible and what it says about gay marriage and other sins (see detlev409 and bigweale)
As far as what Matt said about Jesus getting rid of some of the rules and other rules being eliminated by this 'new covenant.' I have one serious problem there. There is another part of the Bible that says that no sin is worse than another sin in the eyes of God. (Don't ask me to quote where because I just don't know the Bible that well.) It bothers me when Christians try to say things like "Well, swearing and using the Lord's name is bad, but you'll probably be forgiven. But homosexuality (or anything else really) is really really bad and you're definately going to hell for that one."
The other basic problem with quoting the Bible to make arguements about the social structure that is appropriate today is that it is a historical document. Whether or not you honestly beleive it is the Word of God, it is an inescapable truth that men were the people to write it down. Sometimes, men put things into the Bible because they were things that were needed to keep the social order in tact. They needed to provide some simple rules for keeping people healthy, safe, and basically where they were in society. The rules against sex before marriage and about adultery were just as much about not having children out of wedlock because there was no way to provide for them and sexually transmitted diseases as it was about 'preserving your sanctity or virtue for God.' The same goes for not eating pork, not being homosexual, not drinking, not disobeying your parents, all the misogynistic quotes in the Bible (women should be submissive to their husbands and all that stuff), and even the day of rest was an important social control device (don't want some people working too hard and getting way ahead of others).