Let's start a real debate about marriage, not just a question of if gay marriage is acceptable or not. Marriage is certainly an interesting concept, mostly a religious one. Religions, great at making official for the record these unions, a task eventually also espoused by the State, and can now be given legally, almost administratively. In this millennium, after so much liberation in the Western World, is marriage not becoming a past date concept, obsolete? And what about baptism? They are religious concepts we desperately need to free ourselves from.
I will get straight to the point, I am gay, I have been in a stable relationship with another man for 15 years. We are in love and are faithful to each other. I didn't say free from arguments and problems plaguing our existence, I said faithful. Not because we hold dear to this concept, but because not being faithful brings more troubles than it is worth. And I guess there comes a time when, well, you don't see the point anymore of going to clubs and meeting people.
My sister has been in a relationship for perhaps ten years now, she had two children with her boyfriend, with a third one from his first marriage which failed spectacularly. The Court, the irrationality, the nightmare. After that he does not want to marry again, and she, never saw what marriage was good for, she never believed in this sort of institution. I'm proud of my sister.
And you should have seen the crisis when they decided that their kids would not be baptized, you would have thought they had simply declared that the Third World War was on. It is possible to get un-baptized these days, I would seriously be considering it, if it were not acknowledging this institution in the process. I do not believe in any of these institutions, neither should you.
What is marriage exactly? The union of a man and a woman together, supposedly for life, unless somehow you can find a way to cancel it or terminate it. We are getting expert at that, and there is nothing wrong with this state of affair. It is in fact significant, you can only wonder if marriage is truly necessary nowadays.
At the moment, the challenge is to extend this marriage to gay couples, and perhaps also eventually to people living together in some sort of interdependence without any sexual interaction. These unions are now acknowledged in Common Law by any government for legal purposes, making marriage obsolete. Still worried? You don't need to get married to sign a contract similar to a pre-nuptial agreement.
Most people only wish to get married because they have this romantic religious idea that this is what we have always done, tradition, and so, let's do it, let's make it big, let's spend 100,000 on it and cherish the memory forever. Until the divorce comes at least, when finally the horror and mistake of getting married will hit you full blast, disgust you for life, of what it really meant to get married. Before, divorce was not an option, but now it is.
Also, we are pushed into marriage not only by everyone around us, but by the government (preferential treatments if you are married) and religions as well (fear of going to hell if you do not get married). It is contrary to any idea of freedom to get married. And freedom is important, more than marriage, is it not?
As soon as gay marriage is official everywhere, you will see, we will have to marry, it will be like an obligation. I would never have been able to remain in the UK without first getting married. At the moment, it suffices to prove that we are a couple. I don't like this idea of marriage, you are forced into it, and then forced into divorce eventually. Now, whenever a gay couple breaks up, it is not bloody, but throw a marriage and a divorce in there, and let's see how bloody it will become, just like with heterosexual couples.
More exactly, to whom does marriage profit? Perhaps you can help me answer that question. It does bring security I suppose. With marriage comes a whole branch of the law, to insure some sort of fairness and security to both parties, very much like a contract between two business partners. And remember, contracts are usually drawn between people who do not trust each other. You do agree to it all in theory, even though most people fail to see the extent of that contract. They finally understand when the divorce comes.
Marriage was a good idea before, when women were not working and there were children in that union. Marriage ensured stability, it was harder for anyone to just bin the family and leave for the other side of the planet. If someone else came to break that marriage, in theory the other person and the children would be catered to.
It is different now in this modern world, rare are the marriages that will last a decade. Women do work, often earning more than their husband. And the children, well, not only the nuclear family has finally exploded, the law has taken over to ensure both parties will cater to these children one way or another, marriage or not. So, why would you wish to get married now, apart from "this is tradition", or a romantic idea of what it once meant?
Who came up with this idea of marriage? I am trying to imagine here how it came to be, why it was felt it was important to have marriages at the time, when it burst out upon this world and became an absolute necessity embraced by everyone.
Is it purely a religious concept, or was it incorporated within those Bibles and religions from a tradition that already existed? Perhaps some pure people thought that having sex with more than one partner was disgusting, even, enjoying sex was unthinkable. Might as well separate the sexes for life, have your babies in a test tube in a laboratory, and bypass marriage and sex altogether. Men in America, Women in Europe, gay people... might as well kill them all.
If I was at the beginning, and could decide how this world would be organized, I do not believe I would have wanted to impose any kind of marriage concept. I don't think I would have thought it wise to ensure that a man and a woman had to decide early on that they would need to make their union official and that they would need to die together.
I would have thought it common sense that you remain with someone for as long as both parties desire it and feel they get something out of it, and once this is no longer true, you move on. For example, if you are within an abusive relationship, with shouting and beatings, why should this relationship continue? Maybe the abusive person would be peaceful outside that relationship, within another relationship perhaps.
Having been married and divorced, I have this to say...
My first wedding had nothing to do with me.. It was something my Ex Wife wanted from the very beginning... However, when My mother forbade me from marrying her, well, that just sort of cemented my desire to do so (no matter how ludicrous it was...)
Since my divorce, I met a woman who taught me what love really was, and I recently met another who inspired the exact same feelings in me... Would I go down that road again? Not regarding the church part, that was more for the families than for us, the first time, but pledging my life-long devotion to another human being?
How utterly AWESOME is that concept? The idea that one could feel so strongly for another that he/she would pledge to be with his/her mate for life?
Roland, what you have is special, regardless of what anyone else has to say about it, I wish you well, and I hope your relationship with your lover lasts forever! I don't believe you need a church to tell you what you already know, I don't need a church to tell me what I feel either, but the concept of marriage, while it was started by a church, like poetry, once it is put out there, should be up to the individuals to determine what it means to each of them..
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 734 comments)
on Friday, November 14, 2008 at 7:05:48 PM
I do see a lot of value in traditional marriage. My parents were divorced when I was 11 yrs old. So I know what life was like having a stable, traditional two-parent home versus not having it. Personally, it was a devastatingly irreparable loss for my brothers and me, and I've made a promise to myself not to have children outside of marriage for that very reason.
But lately I have been thinking that our idea of what marriage is (and what it isn't) may need to be reframed. I'm interested in studying other historical cultural views of marriage. For example, in many cultures husbands and wives did not cohabitate--they lived separately but met regularly. Just a thought.
by
Sitafa Harden (4 articles, 12 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 19 comments)
on Friday, November 14, 2008 at 11:16:31 PM
There are many other traditions than the European/American traditions.
I'm no expert on marriage, but I believe it has to do with money and power. Apparently, places where life was easy had very lax ideas about marriage. Like Tahiti, where it was easy for women and men to feed themselves. And there was no point in hoarding, because there was plenty to go around. So sex and marriage was relaxed and fun.
Then in places where life was really hard, one man would marry more than one woman.
And in places like Europe and America, where two people could scratch out a living, with enough kids, lifetime marriage was encouraged.
Then to pass down property, men wanted to make sure that the children produced were all his, so repression of women was part of the religion.
Now, you're right, women and men are considered equally capable of feeding themselves by selling their labor power, so marriage is a civil contract. You get a marriage license, and then can have a civil or religious marriage, or both. Divorce is a matter of dividing up property and children. You are mistaken, though, in thinking that all heterosexuals have bad divorces. It varies.
I'm surprised that it is difficult to move from Canada to England. Why? Aren't you part of the same Commonwealth?
by
wagelaborer (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 135 comments)
on Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 12:21:14 AM
for the Church and the State, to make money first, then keep those in line who adhere to its "intended" reason. Which is to make more cretins to have a larger tax base to draw from.
That's why the church discourages contraception, abortion, cohabitation, same-sex relationships, and anything defined not as "traditional" marriage.
While the State will make money from either end, no matter what.
Before the "Church", there were life-long monogamous relationships by those who chose to share themselves with only one other. And there were those that could enjoy the fruits of multiple partners with no guilt trip, or State rules now set against it.
My mantra: Having sex is like riding a motorbike, you always wear your helmet, is a wise way to help allow the Earth to not have the burden of providing what limited resources remaining it has to sustain it.
How I pity the next generation of "Loved Ones" who will inherit an orb of what little is left.
by
Stanimal (0 articles, 4 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 702 comments)
on Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 2:44:09 AM
I don't know but maybe I'm a hopeless romantic. I truly believe that the marriage vows create a spiritual bond that if believed in make one whole person from two separate beings. I have been married for 37 years and would have it no other way. We've had good times and bad but during it all the idea that we were one never changed. I suppose religion has something to do with it but more from a philosophical direction or as I said spiritual point of view not from a particular creed. I feel sorry for those whose marriages don't last, it must be a wrenching experience but that doesn't mean no one should marry. Marriage is a positive outlook about the future and should be experienced by everyone.
by
Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1338 comments)
on Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 11:41:09 AM
Humanity is more than just their genetics. They also belong to a speciel mind, just as the animals do, which we see as instinct. Where the animals have to pretty much obey their instinct, their speciel mind, which is given by God, Humankind was given a mind with which to think and free will in their speciel mind, and can weaken or strengthen their speciel mind depending on what they think and do.
There is the 100th monkey phenomenon which some have discounted, but there has been other research to show that humanity has some sort of connecting spirit, because why would it be easier for them to learn Morse Code rather than a newly invented communication code. That is because it is already in the speciel mind.
We could compare the mind of a human to a candlelight of power. The power of light is always cubed, so that if one candle is lit it produces one cubed or one candlelight of power. Two candles, produce 8 candlelights, and with the mind, two thinking together produces a larger mindset, cubed.
If we allow male homosexuality and gay marriage to be okay, and if the mindset grows, what happens when the mindset reaches a critical point and the entire speciel mind shifts to homosexuality. Wonderful! We will have effectively annihilated ourselves.
Hogwash, you might think. Well, we know our God, and we know that our people are losing the Memory of God, and when we do, we will no longer have a nation to call our own.
You are right that so many traditions of humanity regarding marriage are "out of date", but marriage between a man and a woman is never out of date. We married three times in our present life, but it was only the last marriage that God created and which has lasted and surpassed anything our heart could ever hope for.
We have had male homosexual friends that we loved so very much, but who did not understand why they were created so. We didn't know either, but asked of God, and He has shown us that not only is homosexuality being created by the diet, it is also being created by another mind which should be alien to humanity, and which is more like a virus or a cancer, and which has as its only intent to destroy humanity in complete contempt for God and what He wants for humanity. You can see the alien mind's policies in anything that destroys our earth and our people, like Monsantoism, militarism, unnecessary and tainted vaccination, and all sorts of megalomaniacal policies that benefit the State or the Corporations for which the State supports.
"With all thy getting, get thee understanding." It was what we were told to acquire before all else.
We do not write to condemn or attack homosexuals or gay-marriage. We only seek to educate as according to the understanding we have been given. Every man gets to make his own choice for the future.
by
Jenny Miner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments)
on Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 12:58:53 PM
Because if it does, it might be relevant to know that homosexuality has been observed in over 500 animal species (in response to the frequent argument that it is "unnatural"), but there is no evidence of any species becoming exclusively or even primarily homosexual (in response to your argument that humanity will become extinct as a result of homosexuality).
by
Mikhail Lyubansky (8 articles, 4 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 109 comments)
on Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 2:16:33 PM
is putting so much faith into a mystic being. She has bought into the Church's doctrine of wanting to "Convert" those that are "Lost". A part of the "Flock" who chooses to remain blind, for it is easier to have a crutch than depend upon yourself.
She neglects to look at the multitudes of the animal kingdom same-sex relationships, of which humans are a part of also. Wanting to blame diet or other reasons for this "Weird" phenomenon.
Mary, you have a choice to do what you want in your life and voice what you think is moral, but don't think its of a more valid reason, just because the "Church" says so.
Just where in the "Hell" do you come off thinking that eventually if homosexuality is accepted that all couples will eventually turn to its form of relationship? Such delusional thinking can only be part of some warped "Church" doctrine.
There was a lifelong union by both heterosexual as well as homosexual couples before the "Church" was conceived to control the masses.
I know several homosexual couples who are far better at rearing their children than many of the dysfunctional, multiple marriages and children from the heterosexual couples I know.
by
Stanimal (0 articles, 4 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 702 comments)
on Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 2:29:31 PM
Marriage has nothing to do with religion. It is a spiritual union sanctioned by the state. If marriage was a religious institution then atheists wouldn't be able to get married.
The problem isn't with marriage. The problem is that people don't care about upholding their marriage vows. Another problem is its too easy to get a divorce.
by
Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments)
on Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 8:12:01 PM
To Mikhail, we realize that many other species exhibit homosexual behavior, but we did not realize that they brought themselves to orgasm in another male of their species as humans. We have read research where poor diet had reversed the roles between male and female cats, making the female cats more vicious and the male cats more docile and exhibiting homosexual tendencies.
From what we understand, the positive male orgasm gets grounded in a negative female in a heterosexual relationship. However, when two males get together, there can be no grounding, because they are both positive and when that male orgasmic charge has no where to go, it returns from its origin, which is the "I Am" or the Pineal Triad, but has to go through the hypothalamus and there it alters it, or fries the memory, so that the memory that gets transferred to the seed in the future is altered. We think the process is cumulative, but we do not know. Simon LeVay found that a certain portion of the hypothalamus was different in gay vs. straight men, but that could be because of the circulating hormones are different and altered the hypothalamus. We also haven't been given the understanding of what this does to change the speciel memory, though it might be like heavy drug use, which damages some areas of the hypothalamus and creates Klinefelter's and Turner's Syndromes in children which is a very sad problem, especially since these children are sterile.
In any event, because according to our understanding male homosexuality is a form of adultery and therefore a sin according to God, if a man engaged in homosexuality and then went on to father children, his children would not have God's veil of protection from the alien mind. This is called the sins of the fathers are visited unto the next generations. If you can see into the spirit, those with God's blessing have a veil covering their mind, and those whose fathers have committed a grievous sin, would have none. Without the veil, the children are more open to direct assault by the alien mind. From our observations, those children without a veil are usually the troublemakers, the bullies, the ones that can lie and steal, and then laugh like it is nothing.
It is the male of the species that carries the memory, therefore he needs to protect his memory that he passes on to future generations through his sperm. The female ovum has no memory and this is why lesbianism isn't the sin that male homosexuality is.
We cannot remember the scientists name at this point, but he was experimenting with minute charges to the hypothalamus and was able to alter it, which might give legitimacy to the returning male orgasm during same=sex sex causing the "frying" of the hypothalamus.
To Stanimal - We don't belong to a church and God is never a church or a religion. He doesn't even like them because they are used like a force. In our youth we shunned the Bible because of the many contradictions and demanded the truth. We got it, and it hasn't been an easy road, because few like the truth, especially the religionists.
We are not here to convert anyone, only to share the understanding that has come from the Living God through His Messenger who we hear empathetically in our mind, not unlike the prophets of old. We won't force anything on anyone, though we find that God's Messenger does use a very strong form of persuasion at times. Humanity does have a Destination in Time and He only wants us to make our path there easier. That is why He gave us the Ten Commandments, which are not religious, but just what He gave us so that we could live happier lives.
You are right that there are probably homosexual couples who take better care of their children than many heterosexual couples. However, we still stand by what we said. Everyone would benefit from having a relationship with God, but you have to remember that those who have been "born again" are usually victims of the alien mind and do not serve the Living God. Pres. Bush is a case in point. He has a demon wrapping his head and it speaks for him. This is the "god" that whispers to him, but it isn't the Holy Spirit. Seeing into the spirit has its advantages.
Our God is not some "mystic" being. He is more real than you can imagine, it is just that few find Him because they serve their own vanity rather than seek to serve the Body/Mind that created them.
Losing my train of thought, so will end it here for now.
by
Jenny Miner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments)
on Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 8:44:27 PM
Thank you for your comments. But, could you please tell me why we should make divorce impossible, obliging people who no longer have anything in common, and perhaps argue and fight all the time, to remain together for life? If you hated someone, or were afraid of someone, or were deeply in love with someone else, would it be wise for us to lock you up in an apartment with your spouse for the rest of your days?
Now, I don’t agree that marriage has nothing to do with religion, and I would think that it is because now the State can sanction a marriage that atheists can marry, but I am ready to accept for the argument’s sake, that without considering religion, marriage still exists. Now, once again, what would be the interest of the State to ensure that marriages are for life?
By the State, the government, you mean us the people, agreeing by conventions how it should be. If we truly thought marriage should last forever, the divorce rate would not be so high.
Children, the children, I hear you say. Well, my parents were the first to divorce when I was young, amongst all my friends. Not long after, all their parents divorced as well. But most of the problem did not come from the fact that my parents were separated, it came from the judgement of everyone around us. At school people looked at me as if I was different because my parents were no longer together, it was like someone had been murdered or something. Afterwards it was instead: what, your parents are still together?
It is because we imposed a certain way of life and a certain way of thinking upon the population that suddenly we feel outcast and alarmed. If it was normal that people did not remain together for life, there would be no trauma.
And I can assure you that it was an unhappy household whilst my parents were still together and fighting bitterly because they were angry at each other. Once they were separated, we were all happy again, it was much less traumatizing for my sister and I.
If truly marriage is a spiritual union, then, could you explain to me this necessity that it should last for life, and that we should ensure, just like in humanity’s worst period of darkness, that divorce should be nearly impossible except in exceptional circumstances? What sort of spiritual existence would you then be able to have when you no longer wish to be in that marriage, but you are forced to somehow?
When divorce was nearly impossible, people might have remained together but they had a life outside their marriage. They were lying to everyone and leading unhappy lives. The ones who did separate whilst remaining married, were now not only living in guilt, but society judged them harshly for it. I would imagine then that cutting off completely from their past, abandoning their children in the process, was a normal occurrence. Living in shame and in hiding.
I’m sure people would care to uphold their marriage vows if they were still in love and living happily. But if they are no longer in love and are deeply unhappy about their marriage, I don’t see who should have the authority to oblige them to uphold their vows. Sounds to me like a prison sentence, a life long punishment. Often people don’t even choose who they will marry, it is imposed upon them. It is certainly the case around where I live in London, in the Indian community.
As for Jenny’s comments, I tried to keep an open mind. I found your website to try to get more information about this alien mind which is like a cancer or a virus, who would have created homosexuals:
We all have the right to believe in our own viewpoints, because this is a free nation. We should all still be free to uphold our own philosophy of life and way of explaining this world and our purpose within it. So I respect your beliefs.
I can only say though that I had never heard of that before, and I certainly can confirm that I never felt the influence of an evil alien mind that would have created me in order to destroy humanity.
Quite the contrary, I am a very honest person with a high sense of ethics. I am all about helping humanity and preventing its destruction, also free human kind from any overzealous authority. Most gay people are, because they suffered enough to be able to have compassion and sympathy for anyone else who suffers in this world.
Jenny, I understand that you seem to be channelling information from the other side, you should be careful that this influence is not in fact evil. How could you know for sure?
At any rate, I do not think humanity has much to fear from its gay community. I believe we can be a positive and constructive force in this world, without any kind of plan to take over the planet or converting people to homosexuality. I wish I could say the same for certain religions or spiritual groups.
Live and let live, give us the freedom to come to terms with our own beliefs and philosophy of life, and perhaps we will all then lead happier lives and fully appreciate a well deserved peace.
Now, about the marriage of the mother. True, the husband was not very nice to abandon his wife and kid like this. At the same time, if they had never married in the first place, she would not have waited for the rest of her life after him, she would have met someone else.
As for the daughter, she was forced to marry, it was a disastrous and abusive marriage, and thank God she was able to get a divorce. Perhaps she is now living happily with someone else, or even happily re-married, and might eventually go through another painful and costly divorce.
Isn't this all wonderful? And this is perhaps more common than you imagine.
who speaks in our mind empathetically gave us quite a beautiful essay on sexual expression and responsibility. Although they do not include male homosexuality because it destroys the special memory that the men give to the children, which would therefore be adultery, He did allow for sex before marriage as long as we were reverent with each other. He called it being "mates" rather than having a marriage and He suggested that the men refrain from putting their seed within the women so there would be no necessity for abortion. An advanced species does not create life it will later destroy, for reasons of the speciel mind, too.
He suggested that we ask permission before the flow of sex starts, and that the interested parties ask the question, have you had sex within the past two weeks with others that might have transmitted a STD. If so, then you probably want to give it some space to see if anything manifests. You might also want to ask if the other person is involved with drugs of abuse, because there is a high correlation between those with AIDS and drug use because it lowers the immunity.
God, of course, does not require any of the traditions of humanity to be married, especially those of the church. Not even to the wearing of rings. He also never led us to obtain a State License, for what can be issued, can be revoked, and besides in the State's quasi legalese sort of way, it makes your children wards of the state, but that's another story.
In God's world we come together by our own compulsion, no arranged marriages. When we do decide to be married to have children, then we make sure the children will be provided for, because they are our reason for living.
What God brings together is usually harmonious and will not lead to divorce, but He isn't against divorce of those who did not turn to Him for guidance and did not marry well in the first place. Again, His concerns are for the children if any have come of the marriage.
We were not wise in our first two marriages and they ended in divorce. People just grow apart, or one grows up and the other does not, or one decides to go down a dead-end path like drugs and the other refuses to follow, or perhaps the direction of your life changes from your mate's and that can separate you, when your basic goals become different.
God just mostly wants us to treat each other with reverence and gain in understanding so that we can lead happier lives.
by
Jenny Miner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments)
on Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 5:24:49 AM
by your "God" come from Jenny? Are you sure your "God" is a good or evil "God". Bu$h claims to follow"God's" word, so what's the difference between your "God" and his?
Such absurd superstition that you choose to follow, while condemning those so you can make yourself feel better.
"Jesus" loved everyone and made no claims against homosexuality, yet you condone Lesbianism, how hypocritical you sound.
Such blinded thought by those who claim to follow "God's" word. That's why it's called the opiate of the idiot's, er masses.
by
Stanimal (0 articles, 4 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 702 comments)
on Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 3:43:56 AM
