08-10-2004, 01:12 AM
Time for the my words...
Marriage is not innately a matter of religion or of love, but of politics. In the modern age we don't like of think of it that way, because we like to avoid politics and political issues as much as we can, in addition to the fact that we like to think our choices are made for reasons like 'love'.
For thousands of years, marriages were conducted religiously, but they were rranged politically -- even Shakespeare saw that much. Romeo and Juliet, which was in fact based on an even older story, shows two children whose families are in a bitter (political) feud. Lord and Lady Capulet ARRANGE a marriage for Juliet with the higher-ranked Paris, but she gets infatuated with Romeo after a late-night meeting and they defy the politics of marriage. In the end, though, even their marriage has political implications, as their double-suicide ends up reconciling the differences between their families.
Politically, there are strong reasons to limit marriage to a man and a woman only, and though there are some religions where men can marry multiple women, but that doesn't tend to change the politics, modern or otherwise, of the situation. The strongest reason, politically, to limite marriage to a single man and a single woman is the tax benefits they receive when they have children. The tax benefit received just by being married isn't worth excluding homosexual relationships, but once they start adopting children that benefit grows, as does the possibility that the next generation will see less offspring-producing marriages.
Religiously, there is a much stronger reason to limit marriafge to only a man and a woman -- divine regulation. This is why so many religious people get their panties in a bunch and hot under the collar when gay marriage comes up, they think that their god told them it's wrong to sleep with men. Now, in most religions this is true. Then they follow other passages to see that marriage was dictated by their god to be between a man and a woman. Again, in most religions this is true. And so most religious people fail to see that marriage is a political issue, and most would probably be happiest if all marriages were conducted under religious pretexts, which in our modern age is simply not the case.
I like to look at it differently. If marriage is a matter of religion, simply an institution brought on by religion, no government should ever need to recognize it legally, and we're left seeing that there is no reason why marriage should be allowed to homosexuals.
If marriage is a matter of love, as people in this age tend to think it is or should be, then there is no reason to exclude homosexuals, because emotions do not recognize the physical body.
If marriage is a matter of procreation, there is no reason homosexuals should be allowed to marry, because they cannot procreate within their own relationship.
If, as it seems has been the case for well over 5000 years, marriage is not simply a matter of religion, of procreation, or of love, but is in fact a matter of politics there is only one simple answer. As homosexuals become an increasing contituency for modern politicians, the press will grow harder and harder for politicians to avoid making a decision, and they will have to either make homosexuality illegal (which would do wonders, just look at what the illegalization of marijuana has done) or they will have to legally allow homosexual marriages.
I am ignoring my own feelings in this case, which stem from the way I was raised much more than my own thought on the subject. This is my best effort at remaining objective in the issue.
Marriage is not innately a matter of religion or of love, but of politics. In the modern age we don't like of think of it that way, because we like to avoid politics and political issues as much as we can, in addition to the fact that we like to think our choices are made for reasons like 'love'.
For thousands of years, marriages were conducted religiously, but they were rranged politically -- even Shakespeare saw that much. Romeo and Juliet, which was in fact based on an even older story, shows two children whose families are in a bitter (political) feud. Lord and Lady Capulet ARRANGE a marriage for Juliet with the higher-ranked Paris, but she gets infatuated with Romeo after a late-night meeting and they defy the politics of marriage. In the end, though, even their marriage has political implications, as their double-suicide ends up reconciling the differences between their families.
Politically, there are strong reasons to limit marriage to a man and a woman only, and though there are some religions where men can marry multiple women, but that doesn't tend to change the politics, modern or otherwise, of the situation. The strongest reason, politically, to limite marriage to a single man and a single woman is the tax benefits they receive when they have children. The tax benefit received just by being married isn't worth excluding homosexual relationships, but once they start adopting children that benefit grows, as does the possibility that the next generation will see less offspring-producing marriages.
Religiously, there is a much stronger reason to limit marriafge to only a man and a woman -- divine regulation. This is why so many religious people get their panties in a bunch and hot under the collar when gay marriage comes up, they think that their god told them it's wrong to sleep with men. Now, in most religions this is true. Then they follow other passages to see that marriage was dictated by their god to be between a man and a woman. Again, in most religions this is true. And so most religious people fail to see that marriage is a political issue, and most would probably be happiest if all marriages were conducted under religious pretexts, which in our modern age is simply not the case.
I like to look at it differently. If marriage is a matter of religion, simply an institution brought on by religion, no government should ever need to recognize it legally, and we're left seeing that there is no reason why marriage should be allowed to homosexuals.
If marriage is a matter of love, as people in this age tend to think it is or should be, then there is no reason to exclude homosexuals, because emotions do not recognize the physical body.
If marriage is a matter of procreation, there is no reason homosexuals should be allowed to marry, because they cannot procreate within their own relationship.
If, as it seems has been the case for well over 5000 years, marriage is not simply a matter of religion, of procreation, or of love, but is in fact a matter of politics there is only one simple answer. As homosexuals become an increasing contituency for modern politicians, the press will grow harder and harder for politicians to avoid making a decision, and they will have to either make homosexuality illegal (which would do wonders, just look at what the illegalization of marijuana has done) or they will have to legally allow homosexual marriages.
I am ignoring my own feelings in this case, which stem from the way I was raised much more than my own thought on the subject. This is my best effort at remaining objective in the issue.