One man and one woman

[Quesi]

There is clearly a subset of the Christian community who feel that they have biblical support for the idea that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.   Here is some legal advisor to the Vatican, urging folks who support marriage equality to refrain from taking communion.  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/08/gay-marriage-supporters-skip-communion/2062413/  And the evangelical community seems even more vocal on this topic.

Now I know a lot of Christians, and in my social circles, they don't seem to have any problem with marriage equality.  Nor do the Muslims or Jews in my social circles.  But I guess I run in pretty progressive social circles, and I'm pretty ignorant about the percentage of humanity who thinks that their god likes heterosexual relationships better than homosexual relationships.   
 
I'm not as familiar with the scriptures as many here, so could somebody talk me through this?

I know that there is all that nasty stuff in Leviticus about man not lying with man as he would with a woman.  But there is also gobs of stuff about how many sheckles you owe your neighbors if your goat eats their crops.  And what kinds of clothes you are allowed to wear, and what you are allowed to eat.  The abominations are pretty extensive.

The BIG TEN Commandments say nothing about marriage.  And aren't those the BIG rules?  I don't see mobs of faithful having tantrums about folks who work on the Sabbath.  And that is one of the BIG rules.

Jesus seemed to have opinions about divorce, but as a single man himself, didn't seem to be such a big fan of marriage.  Didn't he even encourage folks (men, I guess) to leave their families and follow him?  Can anyone help me out on the Jesus end of it?   

But back to the big three monotheistic religions.    Ok.  So Adam and Eve were one man and one woman, and god made them.  Got it. 

But god didn't seem to have a problem directing some of his favorite humans to engage in behavior that surely falls outside of the traditional marriage model.  I mean, god told Abraham to have sex with Hagar, and he didn't seem to have a problem when Lot offered up his virgin daughter to be raped by the mobs outside the door.  And when Abraham had sex with his daughters, it was their fault, not his?  And he was the most righteous guy in town?   And he got a hard on for his little girls?  That sure is setting the bar pretty low, isn't it?

So where are all of these biblical rules prescribing marriage?  And how do we know they trump all the other stuff in the scriptures?

Or perhaps, more importantly, why do a subset of monotheists believe that their god wants them to make it a priority to make a fuss about family structures.  I think it is pretty clear that the scriptures ARE NOT clear on this topic.  So what is the real motivation?     

[Petey]

Your post reminded me of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

[Quesi]

Petey, this woman clearly knows her scriptures.

Any Christians want to chime in here?  Walk me through it?  Explain how the stuff in this video is trumped by the "one man one woman" parts of the bible?

[screwtape]

The BIG TEN Commandments say nothing about marriage.  And aren't those the BIG rules?

Well, you cannot mention everything in ten basic rules.  yhwh had to make room so he could use four of the rules on making sure everyone knew which god they should be worshipping and how.  Apparently do not rape, do not own people and marriage definition got the boot.  You know, priorities.

I don't see mobs of faithful having tantrums about folks who work on the Sabbath. 

Try driving through Monsey on a Saturday.  Men with beards an ridiculous fur hats will throw stones at your car.

And when Abraham had sex with his daughters,

Minor point: that was Lot.

But you make a good point.  In many, many cases in the bible, the standard mode of marriage was one man, multiple women.  Jacob married both of his cousins, sisters and he slept with their "maids".[1]

One man, one woman is not scriptural.

1.	Call them maids if you want, but in describing their relationship they were slaves, really.  How does someone give away another person as a maid?

[Aaron123]

The BIG TEN Commandments say nothing about marriage.  And aren't those the BIG rules?  I don't see mobs of faithful having tantrums about folks who work on the Sabbath.  And that is one of the BIG rules.

Well, there is the commandment about adultery, so that's something, I guess. 

Jesus seemed to have opinions about divorce, but as a single man himself, didn't seem to be such a big fan of marriage.  Didn't he even encourage folks (men, I guess) to leave their families and follow him?  Can anyone help me out on the Jesus end of it?   

As I recall, that's the gist of it.

And when Abraham had sex with his daughters,

Sounds like you're thinking of Lot.  I don't recall Abraham having daughters.

it was their fault, not his?  And he was the most righteous guy in town?   And he got a hard on for his little girls?  That sure is setting the bar pretty low, isn't it?

Actually, it was their "fault" (though I hesitate to use that word, considering that they wanted to get impregnated by daddy).  They got Lot piss-drunk (twice!) and had sex with him that way.  Presumably, he never knew what happened, at least not until well after the facts.

So where are all of these biblical rules prescribing marriage?  And how do we know they trump all the other stuff in the scriptures?

Or perhaps, more importantly, why do a subset of monotheists believe that their god wants them to make it a priority to make a fuss about family structures.  I think it is pretty clear that the scriptures ARE NOT clear on this topic.  So what is the real motivation?     

Personally, I think the most curious aspect of this is King Solomon.   700 wives 300 concubines.  As I recall, the bible doesn't protest this, and it's sort of presented as part of how awesome the guy was.

[Backspace]

And when Abraham had sex with his daughters,

Minor point: that was Lot.

Didn't Noah have sex with his daughters as well?  Technically, I suppose it was the daughters that had sex with Noah.

[magicmiles]

I think you need to make a distinction between what has become known in society as 'marriage' and the life long bond between man and woman which I believe and most Christians believe is promoted in the bible.

The way I see it, marriage is a social and legal arrangement officially recognising a union between a man and a woman. I have no idea how marriage, as we understand it today, came to be. However, by whatever means (and I suspect it did evolve from the biblical teaching of one man and one woman), it has been firmly established now for hundreds of years in most societies.

There is certainly nothing in the bible that says a union between man and woman must be recognised by the state, but I think it is a good thing and a good opportunity for a man and woman to make a life long committment to each other.

I won't try to explain the passages in the bible that seemingly cast ambiguity on the issue of 'one man, one woman'. I'm sure I'd do a poor job of it. Suffice it to say, there are explanations that make sense to me. It's also important to realise that if your mind and heart are actively rejecting God, you're much less likely to see any sense or wisdom in the bible.

In respect of gay marriage, perhaps you might find the following blog post interesting. I thought it made some good points:

http://withmeagrepowers.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/marriage-and-gay-marriage/

[shnozzola]

Hi MM, hope you are well.
      In the link you provide, the writer says:

What is the purpose of marriage? It’s (1) to give legal space within society for a man and a woman to have a committed sexual union that allows for the natural generation and raising of children; (2) to allow for their children to be recognised as their own; and (3) to promote the survival and proliferation of the human race as a necessity. At its heart, marriage is birds-and-the-bees stuff that requires a man and a woman because of its familial generation-generating purpose. The biology on which the institution is founded is integral to the purpose.

That's an easily understandable argument.  What about a 65 yr old man and woman that want society to give them legal space for marriage and have plans for a committed sexual union, but are not planning to have children.  Should they be allowed to marry?

[magicmiles]

Hi Shnozzola, I'm just fine. Thanks for asking.

If you read through the comments following the blog post, your question is answered by the author. (and I tend to agree with what he says)

[Quesi]

First of all, sorry about mixing up Lot and Abraham.  Abraham was told by god to have sex with his servant, and Lot, the only righteous man in town, offered up his virgin daughter to be raped by the masses, and then had sex with his daughters.  Please forgive my mistake.

In respect of gay marriage, perhaps you might find the following blog post interesting. I thought it made some good points:

http://withmeagrepowers.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/marriage-and-gay-marriage/

Wow.  MM, I've got to tell you, I'm pretty offended by the argument contained in this blog.  Do you really believe that older couples or infertile individuals cannot have valid marriages? 

As an adoptive parent, who is active in several adoptive parent circles, I know a quite a few couples who chose to adopt due to infertility.  Are you agreeing with the author, that these couples are not part of a real marriage? 

[magicmiles]

It might help the discussion if you first outline whether you agree with the definition and purpose of marriage as provided in that blog. What do you consider 'marriage' to be?

[Azdgari]

Magicmiles, the law does not require mutual fertility for a marriage to take place in the first place, so how is potential to procreate relevant?  You've dodged this question several times.  I can only assume that you're embarrassed of your own answer to it.

[magicmiles]

Magicmiles, the law does not require mutual fertility for a marriage to take place in the first place, so how is potential to procreate relevant?  You've dodged this question several times.  I can only assume that you're embarrassed of your own answer to it.

I haven't dodged the question at all. I pointed out where that question was addressed in the blog comments, and stated that I agree with the position. No dodge there. Should I have cut and pasted the specific section, maybe?

Again I say, this discussion will be aided greatly by you and others outlining what you consider marriage to be, if it is not a 'legal space' for a man and woman to be joined and to produce children?

I suspect you're finding it difficult to distinguish between 'marriage' and 'partnership recognition', as discussed in the blog.

[shnozzola]

I'll copy and paste.

With infertile couples, things have gone wrong. Something has impeded the normal working of nature. With the aged, nature has simply run its course, though the couple themselves are still ‘in working order’. However, with same sex couples, the nature of the couple itself prevents the generation of family, even though they both be fertile. It is not an impediment or age getting in the way, but the very nature of the relationship. That’s why, I argue, a same sex relationship cannot really qualify as a marriage.

My wife and I have not conceived (a ectopic pregnancy years ago)  because, most probably, according to the gynecologist, of fibroids in her uterus.  So, I believe you and George Athas would still consider ours as a legal marriage, regardless of our age, is that right?  If we would have had enough money for in vitro, and it succeeded, then I believe you both would have definitely agreed with ours as a valid marriage, correct?

  I did not understand the kitchen and the gas and the fertility and the age, I wasn't sure the argument about nature working or not working allowed for a valid marriage, and I began to see the blogging as very hypocritical, and not thought through, just a way to smoothly discriminate against homosexual couples that simply want respect and equality.

[Quesi]

It might help the discussion if you first outline whether you agree with the definition and purpose of marriage as provided in that blog. What do you consider 'marriage' to be?

Well I don't think I'm the most qualified person on earth to define marriage for others.  I've never been married, and I've never wanted to be married.   I think a lot of people believe that marriage is a mandatory life goal, a rite of passage, and a standard by which the rest of the world will view them.  I don't personally embrace these beliefs, but a lot of people do, and I certainly support their rights to pursue marriage.

I think a marriage is a commitment between two people to become life partners, in a union that is recognized and sanctioned by family, society, and the institutions with which they interact.  People who are unrelated by blood, are transformed into family.  And their extended family becomes family complete with in-laws and crazy uncles who come to holiday dinners. 

Their possessions and assets become merged, as do their life goals.  While they can continue to pursue individual goals,[1] they must, from the point of marriage forward, commit to their common goals, and sometimes sacrifice personal goals when they interfere with the common goals.  The first major decision is where to live, if they are not living together already, and then, together, they need to set goals about whether this is a permanent home, or a step in a life journey. They need to allocate household responsibilities, and fiscal priorities and responsibilities.  Most young couples (should) decide whether or not they want to parent.  I think a lot of couples have kids because it is "the thing to do" rather than because they want to parent.  If they want to parent, they then need to reconcile childrearing philosophies, and educational philosophies, and they need to negotiate their professional lives and personal passions with their childcare responsibilities.   

But I think that a marriage is valid whether or not the family decides to parent.  It is valid whether they rent or own, or spend their lives vagabonding the world.  It is valid if children are there before the marriage starts, and become part of the newly minted family instantly, or if children enter the family through birth or adoption.  It is valid if kids from previous relationships become part of the family on weekends or summers.  It is valid if both of them work or one works from home or one dedicates himself or herself to taking care of the home and the family or the farm or the family business.  It is valid if one or both of them are disabled, and their friends and neighbors wonder if or how they have sex.  It is valid if they are way past their reproductive years, and friends and neighbors smirk and wonder if or how they have sex.  It is valid if the newly married couple moves in with the bride's parents, and it is valid if the couple moves to another continent.  It is valid if they are both young, and it is valid if they are both old, and it is (usually) valid if they are different ages.  It is valid if they are a different gender, and it is valid if they are the same gender. 

Marriage should be a lifetime commitment.  For many, it is not.  Marriage is a lot of work.  I watch my married friends, (straight, gay, young, old) struggle to focus on their common goals, to resolve evolving desires, and to reconcile unexpected life events with expectations.  Time management.  Money management.  Grief and hope and joy hitting two individuals at different times.  Restlessness.  Resentment.  Boredom.  Comfort.  Safety.  Successes.  Celebrations.  Joy.  Surviving crises together.  Facing challenges.  A lifetime commitment.

So how is that for a definition from someone who has no idea of what I am talking about?  Married people?  How did I do?     

1.	such as getting a PhD, pursuing a different profession, getting buff, learning to SCUBA dive

[shnozzola]

Quesi, you seem to understand marriage more than many married people.  Somebody is missing out on a good spouse.   

[Azdgari]

I haven't dodged the question at all. I pointed out where that question was addressed in the blog comments, and stated that I agree with the position. No dodge there. Should I have cut and pasted the specific section, maybe?

The bolded is untrue.  You simply pointed to the comments section and said it was addressed there.  This is akin to saying "Google <topic> and it will answer your question!" and leaving it at that.  You could indeed have copied and pasted it, if you'd wished to actually include the content of the target comment in your discussion (as shnozzola has now done).  Or you could have said it in your own words.  Either or.  You chose to do neither, and instead stonewall/dodge.  Why?

Again I say, this discussion will be aided greatly by you and others outlining what you consider marriage to be, if it is not a 'legal space' for a man and woman to be joined and to produce children?

I suspect you're finding it difficult to distinguish between 'marriage' and 'partnership recognition', as discussed in the blog.

That's because a marriage is a kind of partnership recognition.  And in many cases has nothing to do with procreation.  If you wish to change the legal definition of marriage to require procreation, then I suggest you and your blogger friend start a movement to include that requirement in marriage law.

[shnozzola]

I think what angers me most about this debate, is that some folks I've met, very intelligent, seem to thnik homosexuals are going through some sort of attention getting fad to buck the system - not getting the idea of the hormones and DNA and biology and all that goes into making us who we are.  Very sad that usually well meaning people about so many things can be so so closed minded when it comes to understanding and accepting homosexuality.

[magicmiles]

Can somebody try and locate any legal definition of marriage that exists in the USA? I think that will help. (and I don't have time)

I feel some of what the blog author has said is currently being misunderstood, and I also think I need to do a better job of making my position on the subject clear.

[Quesi]

Quesi, you seem to understand marriage more than many married people.  Somebody is missing out on a good spouse.   

You know, I've been in relationships that were longer than a lot of marriages are.  One even included a joint bank account.  But they were partnerships.  Not marriage.  I never wanted marriage.

But for those couples who want it, who are willing to make all of the individual sacrifices that a lifelong commitment demands, it is travesty to deny them the recognition that their relationship merits. 

[shnozzola]

The problem (IMHO), MM, is that these United States allow different type of laws for different states.
Now, from here in PA through wiki:

Currently, Pennsylvania recognizes neither same-sex marriages, civil unions, nor domestic partnerships, though attempts have been put forth in the recent years to allow for such unions, as well as several measures that would block such legislation, such as amending the State Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.

Simply put:  The current Pennsylvania statute defines marriage as between "one man and one woman."

Here's another link.  Of course this, from a gay and lesbian religious studies center, highlights the
 whole debate that is tearing the christian church in half.

 http://www.clgs.org/marriage/state-definitions

[Graybeard]

There is clearly a subset of the Christian community who feel that they have biblical support for the idea that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. [...] I'm not as familiar with the scriptures as many here, so could somebody talk me through this?

And they are quite correct.

Ge:2:18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Ge:2:20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Ge:2:22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Ge:2:23: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Ge:2:24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Here we have the first wife - a woman created by God for man.

I know that there is all that nasty stuff in Leviticus about man not lying with man as he would with a woman.

Indeed - it is pretty clear in the OT and NT as well Homosexuals (Romans 1:26, 27), The Effeminate (1Corinthians 6:9),

But there is also gobs of stuff about how many sheckles you owe your neighbors if your goat eats their crops.  And what kinds of clothes you are allowed to wear, and what you are allowed to eat.  The abominations are pretty extensive.

Indeed, but none is more or less important than any other.

The BIG TEN Commandments say nothing about marriage.  And aren't those the BIG rules?

No. There are at least 613 Commandments. "The 10 Commandments" are not seen as the final word at all.

Jesus seemed to have opinions about divorce, but as a single man himself, didn't seem to be such a big fan of marriage.

Neither did he diss it.

Didn't he even encourage folks (men, I guess) to leave their families and follow him?  Can anyone help me out on the Jesus end of it?

The great love is for your wife and family. The greatest love is for God - it transcends everything.   

But god didn't seem to have a problem directing some of his favorite humans to engage in behavior that surely falls outside of the traditional marriage model.  I mean, god told Abraham to have sex with Hagar, and he didn't seem to have a problem when Lot offered up his virgin daughter to be raped by the mobs outside the door.  And when Lot had sex with his daughters, it was their fault, not his?  And he was the most righteous guy in town?   And he got a hard on for his little girls?  That sure is setting the bar pretty low, isn't it?

No. Women are property and, since Eve's idiocy, are not seen as capable of behaving properly without a man around to guide them - see Lot's daughters: once male influence was removed, they turned into harlots.

So where are all of these biblical rules prescribing marriage?

See Genesis above, although I'm not too sure what you mean by "prescribing marriage."

And how do we know they trump all the other stuff in the scriptures?

In fact, a lot in the Bible suggests that marriage, for a man, is a secondary goal. Men are told that they would be better of as eunuchs; as you point out, they should leave their wife if there is a conflict between her and God. However, Paul (in Timothy) suggests a Bishop has to be married for the demonstrable responsibility and as an example.

Or perhaps, more importantly, why do a subset of monotheists believe that their god wants them to make it a priority to make a fuss about family structures.  I think it is pretty clear that the scriptures ARE NOT clear on this topic.  So what is the real motivation?     

I do not think that you have even started to make the case that the Bible is unclear. Indeed, you say, "I'm not as familiar with the scriptures as many here,"

Judea of 30AD is not the US of the 21st century. Homosexuals have traditionally been seen as filthy perverts, so disgusting that death is the only answer.  Think of today's paedophiles.

If people do accept the Bible, then it is clear to them. Democracy in the US requires that the people be listened to - even if they are wrong. The Bible is an irrelevant set of folk tales. The important thing is "What the Bible says does not matter." Those who think it does matter are grossly ignorant - but then that is Christianity/Islam/Rastafarianism, etc. - and religion is the manifestation of ignorance.

[Petey]

The way I see it, marriage is a social and legal arrangement officially recognising a union between a man and a woman. I have no idea how marriage, as we understand it today, came to be. However, by whatever means (and I suspect it did evolve from the biblical teaching of one man and one woman), it has been firmly established now for hundreds of years in most societies.

Your suspicion is wrong.  Marriage, in one form or another, was around well before the first books of the bible were ever written.  You're correct that it has evolved, though.  As a couple others have pointed out, it began as a man's way to claim a woman (or women) as property.  It remained that way throughout both the old and new testaments, even while some other cultures had progressed to a slightly more enlightened version of it. 

Today in the USA, it is exactly what you say: a social and legal contract, which through the miracle of progressive thinking over a few thousand years, holds the male and female as equals.  It has nothing to do with religion, so I am boggled by people trying to use an ancient scripture to make up their minds on the issue.  Why not any other holy text?  And why not just think about it for yourself and make your own decision?

I won't try to explain the passages in the bible that seemingly cast ambiguity on the issue of 'one man, one woman'. I'm sure I'd do a poor job of it. Suffice it to say, there are explanations that make sense to me. It's also important to realise that if your mind and heart are actively rejecting God, you're much less likely to see any sense or wisdom in the bible.

Blatant dodge.  If your mind and heart are actively rejecting Allah, you're much less likely to see any sense or wisdom in the Quran.
Krishna and the Bhagavad Gita.
Etc.
Etc.

[screwtape]

Didn't Noah have sex with his daughters as well? 

I don't think so. In fact, I don't think he even had daughters:

And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:10&version=NRSV

If he had daughters, they were not mentioned and died in the flood:

And Noah with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207:7&version=NRSV

On the very same day Noah with his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons entered the ark,

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207:13&version=NRSV

[Quesi]

I do not think that you have even started to make the case that the Bible is unclear. Indeed, you say, "I'm not as familiar with the scriptures as many here,"

Wow.  I apologize for my failure.  I sort of started from with the premise that the divide within the monotheistic community was self evident. 

Christians (and Muslims and Jews) are clearly very divided on this topic, and I know many faithful who are either themselves GLBT, or who are strong advocates for marriage equality.  And many who cite their faith as a reason to support diverse family structures.  I know much on this forum is made about SPAG, and obviously, that is a contributing factor.  But there are probably few topics that the faithful are so clearly divided on.[1]

But I have heard the faithful argue that certain parts of the scriptures were relevant to a specific time and place.  No one hears Christians these days debating the exchange rate for sheckels if your goat damages your neighbor's garden, and most Christians aren't looking for Canaanites to slaughter. 

I think most folks understand that the tribes wandering around the desert with Moses needed to procreate in order to survive, and that marriage and procreation were not optional and homosexuality was frowned upon because it was seen as competing with procreation.  Most folks today (outside of the quiver movement lunatics and a few other fringe believers) are promoting the whole "be fruitful and multiply" idea of overpopulating the world.  Most folks, monotheists included, believe that families and individuals should have control over procreation. And an increasing number of monotheists are supporting marriage equality. 



Joel Osteen agrees with your interpretation of the scriptures, GB, but he tells Oprah that gay people can get into heaven, because he doesn't think being gay is any more of a sin than being proud.  And none of us is really without sin.   


http://youtu.be/RTl1YLI8C5g

1.	Perhaps poverty vs prosperity as a good Christian value might be another example of a wide division, but I suspect, at least in the US, prosperity is winning out. Maybe birth control is another.  But less and less so, as most of humanity embraces the concept of controlling procreation.

[One Above All]

BM

[nogodsforme]

I just made the mistake of reading the CARM.org site on gay marriage. So full of logical fallacies and made-up stuff that it made my brain hurt. Comparing gays to murderers and child molesters, of course. And lots of slippery slope "If my son, volleyball team, horse, car, light bulb, and I are in love, what's to stop us from marrying once we let gays marry?" Uhh. The law?

The theme that seemed to run through the discussion? Anything that makes the lives of gay people more acceptable will produce more gay people, which would be a very bad thing.

Just one of many arguments that fell apart into dust even as I was reading it:

Gay marriage would result in a dropping of the world birth rate and there would be no children to pay taxes.[1]

Okay what are the assumptions here?
1) Gay people are actually hetero people who would, if gay marriage was not legal, marry and produce children.
2) Gay people never produce or raise children.
3) Gay people only hook up and have (unprocreative) sex if they are  allowed to marry.
3.5) Agggggggh!
4) Marriage, not sex, is what produces children and thus changing marriage laws will dramatically affect the birth rate.
5) If gay marriage was legal, substantial numbers of people (enough to affect the birth rate) would get gay married instead of straight married.
6) Gay is a choice, and a pretty damn attractive one, only made even more attractive if marriage is thrown in.
7) Gay marriage was made legal in my state, so I think my husband and I should get gay married.
7.5) Children are good to have, because they will someday pay taxes. I think it says that in the bible somewhere.

1.

Just in case anyone is really worried about the world running out of people..."the world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927, but it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960. Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999 and, according to the United States Census Bureau, seven billion in March 2012"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

[Quesi]

Yeah, you've gotta love the "if we let gay people get married, then EVERYONE will want to do it and then no one will have kids and humanity will die out" argument. 

[ParkingPlaces]

Just to let mm know how different state laws can be, in Montana all I have to do to be married is say that I am. Assuming I have a girlfriend, of course. The two of us merely need to say "We're married" and we are, without a license, ceremony or anything else. She can start calling herself Mrs. ParkingPlaces and we can start living happily ever after post haste.

Except, if I were involved, things wouldn't work out. But for others, it works fine.

Of course, being a red state full of gun nuts and Obama haters, gays cannot do this, or hook up legally in any other way either. Yet.

The current common definition of a marriage is not all that relevant, because we are trying to change it. If person A and person B love each other, and want to live together via a commitment, their sexual orientation need not be an issue. Hey, we're all supposed to love each other, right? Why get picky about such things?

Only to produce kids? Like someone else said, we don't put anyone in this country through a fertility test, so for now, that certainly can't be the prime reason folks marry. Granted, in many cases kids are produced, either on purpose or accidentally, but that is as much a side effect as it is a purpose, in many cases.

And many fertile and infertile couples (and individuals) adopt. A pretty nice thing to do. A little kid needs a parent or two, people volunteer, and whammo, a family. So even if fertility were the biggest concern, I would hope that the law would allow for infertile couples to adopt as an alternative. Including, of course, gay couples.

One of the more vocal anti-gay guys I know, who apparently goes out of his way to tell everyone it is immoral, spent a couple of days in the hospital three years ago because he got beat up by the husband of his girlfriend. But that's different I guess. Some christians seem to think it is okay to choose which morals they want to adhere to.

An interesting interpretation I once heard about the "man not lying with another man as he would a woman" involved the biblical inferiority of women, and claimed that what the bible was saying is that a man should not treat another man as an inferior, as he would a woman. I like that. It remains highly offensive, and though it wrongly disses women yet again, at least it doesn't create a whole new hated subgroup, and it gives me hope that I can find a new interpretation of the shellfish as an abomination thing, so I can eat clam chowder again.

Oh wait, I'm an atheist, and can do that whenever I want. Never mind.