Ok, so I definitely have been ranting about this (along with so many other people) on all the social networks Im part of already... HOWEVER... I'm going to just do it here as well... Because ... Well, I can, so here's my contribution!
Today, the Government have been deciding whether or not Marriage should be made available to homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples.
Although it has initially been accepted, the debates and opinions of various different parties and people have both filled me with utter adoration and love for our humanity, as well as completely disgusted and shocked me that some people still think that it shouldn't have been allowed.
It seems there are a number of people (who have been willing to sign petitions and create both public and secret clubs and clans across the UK) who think that homosexual couples should not be allowed to have the option of marriage.
One website in particular that a friend of mine who is having a civil partnership next week posted on her Facebook wall really got my stomach churning... Please have a look:
www.c4m.org.uk
The dictionary definition (as of today) defines 'Marriage' as:
'The legal or religious ceremony that formalises the decision of two people to live as a married couple.'
To live as a married couple, we understand it to mean that you live as united partners who are in love with each other and devote themselves completely to that person; usually for better for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do them part.
There is no mention of the gender of these 'people' in this definition and certainly no implication of mandatory heterosexual orientation.
Yes, for thousands of years Marriage has historically always been between a man and a woman, usually within religious settings both aesthetically; for example in a church; and psychologically; consumed in the love and focus of God.
The definition of 'Love' (as of today) is:
1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3. sexual passion or desire.
These are three out of the four distinct types of love that are described in the bible in greek as
1. 'Storge' (Family Love)
2. 'Philia' (Brotherly/Friendship Love)
3. 'Eros' (Romantic and sexual Love)
The other type of love described in the bible is called 'Agape' or 'divine love.'
This is referred to as 'the most powerful love' because it is a love that someone has for their faith in Jesus Christ and the bible. Essentially, it is a love of their faith in God.
But marriage has already been defined as EITHER a legal or religious ceremony and none of this debate is trying to enforce Churches or other places of worship to accept a marriage in their building if they are opposed to it, so this type of love is superfluous in this instance, as it isn't really something that affects the current situation today.
So here's my argument...
If the main focus of marriage is the celebration of two people who are in love; as in the full definition of love discussed above; then why does that celebration of love have to be limited ONLY to a man and a woman?
Surely, true love (and I'm using the word 'true' to embody the definition of love stated above) is completely uncontrollable beyond comprehension, because it is an emotion or (as stated) a feeling; it is not debatable because it simply exists, or it does not exist. How should it be possible to control who you fall in love with and therefore be able to control the gender of that person you fall in love with?
Isn't the feeling of being in love for a man with a woman the same as being in love for a woman with a woman, or a man with a man if it is 'real love'?
If your answer to that is no, then personally, I think you are not questioning whether or not it is true love; you are questioning religious beliefs, or the complexities of what being in love implies for yourself; your own perception of what being 'in love' means.
The local MP for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Lincolnshire UK) Edward Leigh argues that one of the main reasons traditional marriage should not be redefined is because it often produces offspring who need to be nurtured by a married mother and a father.
Similarly on the website www.c4m.org.uk
the 'umbrella group of individuals and organisations in the UK who (like Mister Leigh) support traditional marriage and oppose any plans to redefine it.'
say that:
'Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father.'
Marriage provides unity, it provides a loving void that surely heterosexual AND homosexual couples can offer just as well as each other?
Of course, healthy heterosexual couples are able to create and nurture a family if it is desired with no assistance from any third party; but it seems that Mister Leigh is implying that just because two people of the same sex cannot fully produce a new life naturally between themselves only, it is still seen as 'not normal' or 'wrong' that they should be allowed to BE parents let alone be GOOD parents.
Just because homosexual couples will not be able to naturally produce children without outside assistance, does that make it a reason to argue against the option of homosexual marriage?
Forgive me for going back to elemental human learning here, but I'm intrigued by this statement on the c4m website that implies that men and women also have set natures.
Their exclamation not only completely ignorantly stereotypes men and women, but also questions one genders' ability to nurture a child. There is no research that I am aware of that suggests that children 'do best with a married mother and father'
As opposed to a married mother and mother for instance.
In my opinion the ONLY 'complementary natures of men and women' that a person can clearly and accurately define as a male or female are those that differentiate their natural reproductive organs; the ability to create life.
Do we really need to discuss how complex human sexuality is, even within one particular sexual orientation? No woman is the same as another woman, nor is one man the same as another. Natures of men and women's personalities are not set and to say that they are a certain way is immature and quite frankly, ridiculous.
It seems like we're not even seeing a difference between someone's sexual orientation and someone's sexuality...which are of course two very different things indeed, neither of which should have any effect on their right to marriage.
So this leaves me wondering where are these perceptions of men and women coming from? And why are they affecting a couple's choice to be married if the wish; regardless of their sexual orientation?
For me the idea that only a man and woman can be married is a simple case of mindless bigotry; the complete antithesis of what the bible preaches...which I believe is to be generous, forgiving, and compassionate enough to love people unconditionally, (like Jesus.)
Making comments like:
'If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?'
Is just a perfect example of discrimination and hypocrisy. The website states that
'no one should be allowed to redefine marriage'
but no one has actually mentioned 'polygamy.' This debate is about two people getting married, as it has always been..which as discussed earlier is the definition of marriage. Polygamy is something completely separate and has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The website goes on to say that legalising same sex marriages will jeopardise people's careers, and schools will have to change what we teach children about marriage, as if it will be an inconvenience to teachers or some kind of new language that nobody has been trained to deliver.
The message of marriage has not altered, nor has the sincerity or love which is sewn into it. It all just seems like a poor attempt to cover up their own gender discrimination.
I am interested to hear how these people define 'Love' to children. Maybe that's something to consider when observing a child's awareness of their own sexuality and self respect!? Do they know what love is?
Civil Partnership is different from a Marriage. It focuses mainly on friendship and companionship as the reason that the couple wish to unite. This is only celebrating one part of love.
I say lets give people, no matter who they wish to marry at least the opportunity to express the full beautiful extents and depths of love through marriage if they wish to do so, not only for themselves
but within a loving accepting society too; and for those who don't wish to be married, it will have no effect on them and everyone can feel happy.
Thanks for reading. :)
