Same-Sex Marriage? Just duet!

(Previously published in the McTavish Opera blog 17 May 2013)

Against gay marriage? Then don’t have one.

On Monday 20th and Tuesday 21st May 2013 there will be a debate in the House of Commons on same-sex marriage in England and Wales (Trailing ahint Scotland yet again. Whit urr we tae dae wi’ them?). It is likely to be passed, despite 656,000 people signing a petition against it.

A few thoughts on the arguments against same sex marriage.

Those who are against same-sex marriage mostly oppose it from a religious, mostly Christian, viewpoint. They claim that the Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Some go further and claim that this is for the procreation of the human race.

Well I am sorry to tell these people but nowhere in the Bible will you find a definition of marriage. And I openly challenge those who claim that there is to show me the evidence for that. There are certainly mentions of weddings and of husbands and wives in the Bible, but of an actual definition of marriage there is none.

Some of course yell “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”, stating that the Bible says that Eve was Adam’s wife. Indeed, according to the Bible, she was. But I have bad news for the naysayers against gay marriage there; that made Adam a bigamist.

To explain, when the scriptures were first written, man and woman were created at the same time and Adam’s first wife was Lilith. However Lilith was rebellious and “would not lie under Adam”. For this she was cast out of Eden, and mated with the archangel Samael, thereby creating demons. Because the one thing the early church could not handle was a single-minded, independent woman, they wrote Lilith out of the Bible, except for one little instance where you will still find evidence of Lilith today; “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27, KJV). This according to the Bible was on the sixth day, and long before Eve puts in an appearance in Genesis 2:22, “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” Don’t forget, most Christians maintain that the Bible is chronologically correct, so this is worth pointing out to them.

Given that Lilith was still living when God created Eve, this automatically made Adam guilty of both adultery and, given that Eve is named as his wife (without a mention of a marriage ceremony incidentally), bigamy. What is worse? Two people, no matter their gender, who love each other in a monogamous marriage, or someone who cheats on their spouse and marries another? Even by the the Bible’s own rules, Adam was breaking the seventh commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” (Exodus 20:14, KJV)

Of course where the Christians go wrong, very wrong, is in maintaining that marriage was ordained by God for man and woman. And in saying “God”, they mean their God, the Judeo/Christian God of Abraham. I would ask my readers to think upon that for a moment, for by the rules of those who maintain that, then the only logical conclusion one can take from that is that in their eyes there are no valid marriages save for Judeo/Christian marriages. This means that, according to their rules, if a married couple are Islamic, Hindu, Sikh, Wiccan, or any other religion, or indeed those marriages carried out in registry offices without any specific religious connection, those marriages are automatically invalidated.

As I said before there are those who have stated that marriage is for procreation, and not a few of these people, who also accuse the LGBT community of attempting to “redefine marriage”, are Christian clergy, particularly those within the Roman Catholic church. If these clergy are so adamant upon that view, then I would urge them to show the courage of their convictions and not to marry elderly couples, couples who cannot have children due to physical disability, or those who simply do not want to have children. Given the churches currently do marry heterosexual couples within these groups, then they contradict their own definition of marriage.

I have heard so much nonsense over this matter of same-sex marriage. Marriage is a union of two people for one reason and one reason alone – because they love each other. And that can be a man and a woman, two men or two women. If the Christians attempt to tell anyone any otherwise then, far from the LGBT community, it is they who are attempting to redefine marriage.

Marriage also brings with it certain rights including tax breaks and rights to estate should one of the partners pass on. That may seem a poor reason to marry but it is surely only right that all should be equal under the law? If the state denies that to same-sex couples then they rob them of those rights.

And contrary to what some fantasists and sensationalist newspapers claim, clergy are not going to be forced to marry same-sex couples if they don’t want to. It will be business as usual, where even under the current arrangement any member of clergy may refuse to marry any couple. There are many reasons why a member of clergy would not do so but the main one usually given is if the couple are not regular churchgoers. Although I am an atheist, I would like to think that the more tolerant clergy will recognise the fact that Jesus never once said anything against homosexuality, would look upon the love shared by any same sex couple as “God’s love” and thereby happily marry them. And to hell with the bigots who don’t.

Finally, for anyone claiming that a same-sex couple marrying “undermines” marriage, it no more does so than a Muslim couple marrying, nor a Hindu, Sikh, Wiccan, etc, couple, or those who were married in a registry office.

Same-sex marriage does not hurt married couples, no more than their marriage hurts same-sex couples. And at the end of the day, a same-sex couple getting married is none of a heterosexual couple’s business, just as their marriage is nobody’s business but their own.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: