Skip to main content

Religious fanatics would have us believe that marriage is an perpetual institution. It involves a man taking a women who then becomes property and bears his children, who are also property(the ten commandments of Christianity tells us, for instance, that a wife is equivalent to an ox, and that children must obey their father).  This bond is a sacrament and exist for as long as they both shall live. For those that believe the earth is 7,000 years old, this is not too much of a stretch.

For the rest of us, archaeological and anthropological evidence provides a much more complex situation.  It is suggested that in early nomadic society pairings did occur, but women were much more independent.  That, because care for more than one infant was difficult for the woman and provided undue burden on the tribe, women would have the responsibility of doing what they could to only have one infant at a time, perhaps even killing a unwanted baby to save the family unit.

The Hebrew scriptures tell us that as some point  women became property and could be murdered in cold blood if they did not do what their husbands wanted.  This was a change that occurred in the past several thousands years, creating a situation where  religious powers who change the rules to serve their current goals, even if those goals mean that the family was no longer a viable unit.

Much of the debate of the past 40 years in the United States has been who can have sex with whom, and what women are allowed to do not only with their bodies but with their lives.  This, plain and simple, is a power game played by the religious terrorists to control the lives of Americans.  If the women has to have kids, the men have to work to pay for the kids and the women, we can only marry who we are told to marry, then what freedoms to we have to live, what flexibility to we have to keep the family together, or to form units that are cohesive over the long term?  We don't and the family suffers so that religious terrorists can prosper.

About two weeks ago was Loving Day.  This was the day back in 1967 when SCOTUS proclaimed that the religious oppressors could no longer tell us that we had to marry within our race.  This law meant that Mildred and Richard Loving could not raise their family in peace.  The police came into their house arrested them and scared the children all in name of religious hate.  Religion almost destroyed a family so that religious terrorists could tell us with whom we could or could not have sex.  

This is a recurring theme in the crusades against the good and honest people of Americans.  The fight is not about family, it is about sex.  The crusades do nothing to help the family.  They force women to have children not because they care about the family, but because religious crusades always needs children to die in the war to oppress the individual.  They force men to work and given them the women in exchange to create a situation where the men do not feel oppressed.  Furthermore, how can women defend themselves if she owned by another?

As an example of this focus on sex, not family, and let me stress I am not picking on the Lutherans, let look at these minutes United Lutheran Church in America.  In 1930, marriage was a sacrament, a person who was divorced for reason other than adultery was only to begrudgingly let into the church, and only the innocent party can remarry.  Nothing about children.  Nothing about a husband beating or refusing to feed the kids.  Just that divorce should be avoided, and the innocent party can remarry.

What do we take from this.  That the church wants to control who we have sex with.  For The Church, they also want to make sure that if we have sex it is for kids, presumably, as mentioned, so the crusades can be stocked, but this is Martin Luther, not a pope.  Luther is cool is sex for pleasure.  So long as the church approves of your partner.

By 1936, there was a realization that marriage was a process, so marriage counseling was recommended.  Also, a pastor only had to be convinced that a person wishing a second spouse was the innocent party, no longer that it was granted on scriptural grounds.  The decay of the family is now evident.  A person can cheat, blame it on an ugly spouse, and marry the fornicator.

We see an evolution of these concepts, no on the basis of the family, but on the basis of controlling who we have sex with, on the assumption that unmarried people do not have sex.  In 1940 they recognize the importance of the family, not only a sexual partner, in that families should worship individually, something I think is very important, but does not require an oppressive religious organization.

In 1956 some interesting verbiage appears in the minutes.  First it is clear that marriage is simply a way to control sexual partners.

God has established the sexual relation for the purpose of bringing husband and wife into full unity so that they may enrich and be a blessing to each other. Such oneness, depending upon lifelong fidelity between the marriage partners and loving service one of the other, is the essential characteristic of marriage. marriage should be consummated in love with the intention of maintaining a permanent and responsible relation. Continence outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage are binding on all.
Then they talk about procreation, which is reccomended but not required
Procreation is a gift inherent in the sex relation. In children the one flesh idea finds embodiment. Children bring great joy to marriage and reveal how God permits men to share in his continuing creation. Married couples should seek to fulfill their responsibilities in marriage by conceiving and nurturing their children in the light of Christian faith.
This is interesting because in terms of marriage many will say that man and women is superior to a man and a man or a women and women because the former can procreate, but really no protestant religion would  say a couple was not blessed under god simply because the did not create children.  In reality, there is some basis in the bible to say that a couple without kids might as well not be married, but that has not be the thinking for  a while.

What I find the real gen is this passage

While it is the Christian teaching that marriage is a life-long indissoluble union and that divorce and remarriage do violate God s order, nevertheless, God in his love does accept the sinner and deals with him according to his need. The church has recognized that marriage may be a remedy for sin and has seen in such Bible passages as Matthew 5:32, 19:9, and I Corinthians 7:15 the possibility of remarriage, but it also knows that the final basis of decision is loving concern for man in his actual situation.

So for divorce the almighty is loving and does accept a sinner, but for homosexual relations the almighty does not?  Why, because of procreation?  That is not an issue.  Because of living in sin?  Homosexual behavior is no more a sin than breaking a promise made in front of the church simply because your spouse is no longer cute enough.

No, the only thing too many religions are concerned with is bigotry and controlling who has sex with whom.  As George Takei recently wrote is was not so long ago when it was illegal for a Asian to be married to a white person.  No he is gay Asian married to white man.  How far we have come by bravely standing up to the religious terrorists who want to dictate what adults do one random days, when adults are expected to be home, and who adults choose to fornicate, if we do.  

Secular society is doing fine protecting the family.  Kids are being well cared for by single parents, same sex parents, parents of different races, even parents who are young and accidental.  It matters not who has sex with whom, simply that we build structures to support whatever family comes our way.  It is wasteful to say this family is good and that family is not.  What children need are absolute love and absolute support.  What parent need is the recognition that they are, to coin a phrase, doing the almighty work, the best they can. What they don't need is someone asking the court to break up families because they do not look the way religious terrorists think they should.

The only truth is that love is love, no matter who, no matter where.  And a child know when it is there.  Clergy that marry heterosexual couple, especially those that are divorced, but not homosexual couples, really need to ask themselves why they are concerned about who is having sex rather than who is raising the kids.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Control, control, control (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, Theoleman, enhydra lutris, pvasileff

    The only way to heaven is to follow what I say and raise your children in my church so they'll go to heaven.  And drop a few bucks in the collection plate.  Kiddie envelopes are available so Johnny and Janie can donate their paper route money.

    Oh...yeah, follow these rules.  If you don't follow these rules but go to this church, God will forgive you.  Anybody else is destined for an eternity of suffering, though.

    What's that?  An eternity of punishment for a finite sin is unethical?  HERETIC.  Get out.  You are going to an eternity of punishment.

    (-6.38, -7.03) Moderate left, moderate libertarian

    by Lonely Liberal in PA on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 10:39:11 AM PDT

  •  First of all, "clergy" does not "marry" anyone (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, marykk, jbsoul

    except in those churches which permit a clergyperson to marry anyone except their own spouse. Clergy "officiates" or "presides" "celebrates" but the two people in question actually marry each other.

    As for what Lutherans were doing in 1930, well, many of them take a different look these days (while some, like the LC-MS and the WELS do not).

    What has always been interesting to me is that Jesus himself has nothing to say about homosexuality, but does have something to say about divorce, which is "don't do it". Frankly, I agree. People should be more intentional about whom they marry. Straight AND gay.

    As an aside, if you have been divorced and remarried and divorced again, in the Episcopal Church (my denomination), you may not be married again without permission from the Bishop. On the other hand, in nearly all Dioceses where marriage equality is the law in that State, a same-sex couple may avail themselves of a church marriage.

    Frankly, I like the idea that people who are serially divorced and re-married come under more scrutiny than same-sex couples in my Church. They ought to: Jesus had an opinion on divorce. But he didn't have one, as far as we know, on liberated homosexuality, something which didn't even really exist in the Roman empire of his time (in the way in which it exists as an identification today in the US).

    I resent that. I demand snark, and overly so -- Markos Moulitsas.

    by commonmass on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 11:32:00 AM PDT

  •  You're absolutely right. It has been about sex (0+ / 0-)

    all along.  If you really look at it from the brass tacks angle, nobody goes around checking to make sure that heterosexual married couples are even HAVING sex.  While it used to be a requirement for avoiding an annulment, I don't think anyone even pays attention to it anymore, with respect to heteros, that is.

    Marriage does not require sex.  Repeat.  Marriage does not require sex.  I've known couples who are poster children for this fact.  Hell, there have been extended periods when I would be on the poster myself.

    But it is homosexual sex that is the basis for all this brouhaha we're subjected to by the religious wingery.  If they could somehow be guaranteed that homosexuals could NEVER have sex, then they wouldn't give a damn.  Homosexual marriage to them would be an oddity, but nothing more.  

    They simply cannot abide people DIFFERENT from them occupying the same social stratum with them.

    Chimpanzees exhibit more mature behavior than these hypocrites.

    Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed. --Herman Melville

    by ZedMont on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 12:06:31 PM PDT

  •  For the record.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, marykk

    I am a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (the largest group of Lutherans in the country). Our church allows gay ministers in committed relationships, and I worship with folks who are gay, straight, and I-don't-have-any-idea.

    Our stand has cost us about 20% of our member churches, but it was the right thing to do.

    In Washington State, our churches were an active part of the successful campaign for marriage equality, and ours is one of many denominations with a long history of working for social justice.

  •  It has been about power and control, which (0+ / 0-)

    is achieved by controlling sex.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 12:46:45 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site