Same-Gender Marriage

SAME GENDER MARRIAGE

A decision to legalize same sex marriage is a ruling which can only be made in a progressive, liberal society.

The human society trains one to feel guilty about sexual expression in general, but about certain manifestations in particular. So it is with same gender expression.

From whence has sprung this rediculous guilt? Perhaps it was a method of control...If one is made to feel guilty enough, one can be actively manipulated by the rulers of said society, which are the state and religion.

A ruling to legalize same sex marriage is a progressive measure, one which places an umbrella of protection over its individual members.

John Locke's Social Contract ethics, immortalized in the American Declaration of Independence, and inclusive of the Bill of Rights, states it best:

___Good government is a contract of the people, and it is responsible to them (social contract theory)not to higher religion, destiny, or ideology.

___As society is based upon co-operative self interest, so the attractions of self interest...for example, private property, marriage, etc., ...must be preserved and enanced as beneficial and indeed, vital, features of society.

A governemnt,then , is a man-made construct, and should serve the interests of the individual, emphasis on "individual". It is not answerable to Church, nor should it serve that entity , with its hypocrisies and delusions.

The Church has meddled quite enough into private social structure of mankind. The Inquisition was not that long ago, so recent in fact, that the more liberally minded can still feel its scorching heat. Churches should stay out of the schools, courts, and bed-rooms of the nation.

The laws of marriage structure, promoted by Christian churches, were penned by Hebrew patriarchs, and their laws came down to them from the Sumerians. Doubtless it was written witha a great deal of self interest.

These laws promoted male dominance and female subserviance. They were probably written to make certain that these old patriarchs always had a woman , or women,to sweep their tents, collect camel dumg,and to produce offspring.

Though Mosaic Law discuraged polygamy, it prevailed among the Hebrews. But, of course a distinction was made between the chief wife and the lesser wifes, and between all wives and th concubines.

Of course, the woman had , by comparison, to be virginal before marriage , and faithful to one husband after marriage.

The definition of concubine is given in the Dictionary and Concordance of the King james Version of the Bible. It is, and I quote:

" ...a lawful wife of inferior status...."

Hmmm...seemed like things were just slightly skewed, and unbalanced, when it came to fairness in the good old days of Mosaic Law, from which Church Law has evolved.

Is this influence to be welcomed in a progressive society?

Is this God's Word which is supposed to provide a template for legalizing (or not) same sex marriage ? Wow! That is too scarey.

Until recently the Church had decreed that a woman is soulless.. It seems that they were generously permitted to acquire souls around the same time that they were given the vote.

It is difficult to respect an institution which erects spiritual fences of this nature. It is time to update the Sumerian Code, and allow civil law to do a re-write.

To address the accusation that the family structure will be destroyed by same sex marriage, it can be pointed out that family structure, like its members, is a living entity, one given to growth, change, and evolution.

Yes, the nature of family is given to change . In ancient Egypt brothers and sisters were allowed to wed. If they were Royalty, they were not only expected to wed, but also expected to have off-spring, the idea being to protect the purity of the bloodline.

If rights of individuals are protected, said individuals will come together to form family structure which suit them. Structures will manifest in different forms to suit the needs of an evolving society.

What is right for one individual or group, may not be satisfying to another.

A referendum cannot decide this isuue. The majority cannot rule on the innate rights of a minority group. An innate right simply ....IS.

CONTINUED BELOW >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>





SEXUAL EXPRESSION IS A RIGHT

Sexual expression is an innate right of all humans.....whether said expression is by autoerotcia, or with one , or more, consenting adults.

Marriage is a social contract between adults. In Western nations polygamy , or having more than one marital partner, is deemed to be illegal.

Since marriage is a social contract, it seems logical to argue that to deem multiple partners as illegal , would be a violation of human rights. Is it not one's right to enter into as many social contracts as one chooses? Why is the state once again trying to control what happens in the bed-rooms of a nation?

In a free and liberated society, one would be able to legally enter into as many marriages as one should choose, with whatever gender one desired.

One should be able to choose to enter as many marriages as one wishes, with whatever gender choice one desires, and to be free to decide the duration of one, and all, of said social contracts

SEND TO A FRIEND

Share
|