Why not answer the question with some truthful history and meaning???

Question

Give me any history book any history at all that states *Marraige* was not created for the protection of the *Family* take any religious
factors from it. If marragie was not created, a woman could have sex with all types of men, claim who she wanted as the Father.

Even if a woman commits adultery and becomes pregnant her husband has always been assumed to be the father.

Legal property rights have always been in place for Children, realitives heck Helmsely left her property to Fido.

My question is, if your up to challenge is Marraige has been created for a FAMILY not 2 people that hook up and are worried about property rights they have those rights.. So why not be satiasfied ?Marragie was never intended for gay couples leave the word alone and I am sure people of faith will leave you alone and support your legal rights to one another
Thoughts?

Answer 1

You asked for an honest answer so here goes, marriage is an institution created by man as a way of subjugating women. For centuries women were chattel or property and not even considered a whole person in much the same way as slaves were viewed.

Women fought hard for their rights as individuals and as human beings to vote, be educated, own property and marry whom they chose and to have or not have children. African Americans (former slaves) also fought for their rights. Remember Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King? (I’m Canadian and know who they are.)

Gay couples that want to marry are simply carrying on the struggle for equality and should be praised for standing up for their beliefs and be given the opportunity to be as miserable or as happy as every other married couple in the world.

Remember God did not write the bible men did, and like any story it is subject to interpretation.

Answer 2

I find that to be a very discriminatory point of view. To deny some basic rights that the majority has is wrong. It creates a "separate but equal" class of people and that was wrong in the 1950's when it was used to discriminate against race and it is wrong in 2007 when it is used to discriminate against sexuality.

Having gay people marry would not hurt you one bit. Massachusetts has had if for a few years now and did you see the earth open up and swallow them? No.

Funny thing is, I know more gay couples that have been in relationships longer than a lot of heterosexuals can keep a marriage together.

Answer 3

It wasn't about family it was about finances. Dowries, Bride Price, morning gifts, etc. In many states, if a woman commits adultery it is DEATH, a cruel and painful death.

Many countries and religion expect multiple spouses. In China there are walking marriages where the spouses do not even live together.

There are other types of marriages where the couple are together for a set amount of time. Examples include the Celtic practice of handfasting and fixed-term marriages in the Muslim community. Pre-Islamic Arabs practiced a form of temporary marriage that carries on today in the practice of Nikah Mut'ah, a fixed-term marriage contract. Muslim controversies related to Nikah Mut'ah have resulted in the practice being confined mostly to Shi'ite communities.

Answer 4

I agree with Kevin M.

Marriage is a religious institution. Governments only recognize them in civil society as an economic arrangement the same way we register businesses and give them special treatment. If we value economic activity and supportive links, I see no reason why two men or three or five women or whatever can't form a pact and make it legally binding completely apart from whether they are romantically involved.

But as a Christian I do not believe Christianity should change so quickly to fit the current Zeitgeist. CHRISTIAN marriage is pretty clearly a heterosexual arrangement. Other churches and non-governmental groups and auuthorities are free to invent or change their own conceptions as they like.

Answer 5

Just because something was once so does not mean it should continue to be so or that it was truly correct in the first place.

Marriage for the purpose of abiding by societal norms and ensuring a family name lives on was once perhaps mostly suitable and expected of everyone.

Yet, as we evolve as a species old norms and expectations can become restrictive and indeed stifle personal growth and expression. The term, "family" has clearly been given a broader definition than it once had and it appears family is a concept that suggests loyalty and togetherness and not just blood line.

Currently my family consists of 2 dogs. Who is to say that this is not my family? Who is to say that gays can't define family and marriage in a way that is meaningful to them?

:)Malika

Answer 6

Good point!
I've used this argument myself and was actually able to convince a gay couple of this.
Marriage is a legally binding contract where the woman agrees to ONLY have sex with that one man so long as he lives, to insure that all of her children are in fact really his.
And the man agrees to ONLY have sex with that woman so that he is not legally responsible for the care of other women and their children which he helped produce.
It also insures that each partner of the contract can count on the other to stick with them in god times and bad.
That is what marriage is.
Everything else is just for show.

Answer 7

"Marragie was never intended for gay couples"

Actually, there was a lot of gay marraige in Pagan times and before. Don't judge all of history by certain sects of modern Christianity.

Answer 8

Marriage is originally an economic contract by which men (father and husband) transfer property (woman).

It was not created for family.

Answer 9

My thoughts? My thoughts are that if a man and a man or a woman and a woman love eachother and want children and the same rights as everyone else, they absolutely ARE a family. And they absolutely should be able to get married.

Answer 10

Soo.....by your reasoning, infertile women and men should never marry.

Also, women who hit menopause should then be divorced because they can no longer produce children. Old men with low sperm counts should also have to divorce and live their lives out alone and lonely.

Men who had testicular cancer, women who had ovarian cancer (and survived) and had their testicles and ovaries removed shouldn't be allowed to marry either then, by your definition.

And of course, last but not least, people of either gender who don't want children at all, but do want to be married to have someone to love and be loved in return and spend the rest of their lives with, should never be allowed to marry, either. By your definition.

I am sure glad I don't know any people like you, in person. That's all I have to say about it.