Just saw this over @ Comment is Free


Don't be fooled by those who claim God invented marriage – it took centuries for the church to put its claim on it


Candace Chellew-Hodge
guardian.co.uk, Monday 27 April 2009 10.30 BST


The question: Is gay marriage a religious issue?
When my partner and I had our wedding ceremony seven years ago we did it in a church. We stood in front of a preacher and said our vows before our friends, some family, and our God. Despite the religious trappings of our ceremony, I don't believe that same-gender marriage is ultimately a religious issue. Ironically, since my partner and I cannot be married in the eyes of the secular state, a church wedding is the only option currently available to us.

Those who shout, "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" and claim the creation story as their basis for a religious, heterosexuals-only, marriage rite, need to brush up on their history. My brother made this argument to me once until I asked, "Who was the scribe in the garden?" He stared at me and changed the subject.

Adam and Eve is but one story of creation – all religions have one and not one of them comes from an eyewitness who was there taking notes. Marriage is read back into the story of Adam and Eve, but marriage was occurring long before the story was finally written down. That means society created marriage – not God. The original purpose of marriage has changed over the millennia. The one thing it didn't have originally? Religion.

Marriage was invented for the proper distribution of property – meaning land and other chattel which included the women involved in the marriage. Marriages were for the convenience of the men, not the women. Marriages were arranged to enlarge property holdings – to join two or more families who wanted to enlarge their wealth. Love had little, if anything, to do with these unions. Marriages prevented just any old bastard from coming along and asserting rights to the property of a man he may claim to call "daddy."

The early church knew that marriage was a man-made, civil institution and wanted little to do with it, according to EJ Graff in What is Marriage For? (p 195):

When asked, some priests might come by and say a blessing as a favour, just as they'd say a blessing over a child's first haircut. No one considered marriage sacred, as celibacy was: marriage was one of those secular and earthbound forms rendered unto Caesar.

It wasn't until 1215 that the church declared marriage a sacrament and set up a system of canon law around it. So don't be fooled by those who claim God invented marriage – it took centuries for the church to put its claim on it.

It's certainly true that historically marriage has always been between men and women. But, before 1967 in the United States, marriage was only between men and women of the same race. In the world of the ancient Hebrews, marriage was often between one man and many women.

Marriage has changed over the centuries, as it should, since marriage was created to fill a societal need – not a religious one – and marriage must adapt to society's ongoing needs. Marriage serves society, not the other way around. A new need has arisen in our time – the need for legal, governmental recognition and protection of two people of the same gender. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with that.

to lighten the tone a little:

a colleague of mine who teaches rmps (religious, moral and philosophical studies) was teaching about Jesus today. How he inspired people etc... and asked the class of 11 year olds if they could think of anyone that sounds like that.


one of them piped up and said me :-)

godlike genius status and i've only been there since august. pretty impressive eh?

Ah - Jesus Jim - I'm sure, down deep inside, you always suspected you were made for greatness :mrgreen:

i've known it all along, it's just nice to know that the kids now realise it:D

my stock's risen on ratemyteacher.com i'm now a 4.8 out of 5 teacher

shame there's no ****ing job to go to after this term >:(

Yeah - that's the kicker isn't it. My son's girlfriend is a music teacher here in Ridgewood and she didn't get her contract renewed for next year either :(

As soon as money gets tight - art and music education are the first things to go.

Hi Butters,

Sorry to not have not responded sooner, I havent been well.

I have posted the reasons anal sex can be dangerous to a persons health relating to e coli present in the anal passage and other matters. This is the main reason I see that it is not natural or as nature intended for humans to have anal sex. Think this was on pg 10 or 11.

Im not sure how else you want me to explain ....

Dawn

Been away for a few days.. its sad to see the last few pages of this thread has been reduced to people swearing at each other and calling each other names. Its a discussion on opinions, why do you need to attack someone else for an opinion which they are free to have ? Life is all about choices..whether we agree or not on others you should respect the other persons right to choose their opinion without attacking them.

Dawn

Right, so your reasoning for homosexuality not being natural is that anal sex can be dangerous to one's health. So by your reasoning then heterosexuality must be equally unnatural because there are many dangerous, life-threatening infections that one can get by means of vaginal/heterosexual intercourse. Do you see the incoherency of your reasoning?

Homosexuality is completely natural. Natural selection has favoured genetic adaptations that makes sexual activity pleasureable. It's pleasureable for a male to orgasim and it's pleasureable for a female to orgasim. That's enough. Natural selection builds rules of thumb into the human brain, not cognitive awarenesses. An organism which enjoys sexual activity has a good chance of reproducing.

There is a genetic basis for attraction, most definitely. Attraction, at its most basic level, is determined by the display of qualities that suggest healthy genes to a member of the opposite sex. It's not enough for an organism just to survive, the organism must also reproduce so natural selection not only favours qualities which benefit survival but also that benefit reproductive ability. This is known as sexual selection.

A lot is being discovered about a possible genetic basis for homosexuality. Scientists mapping the human genome have found a segment of the X chromosome which is likely to be the site responsible for, at the very least swaying or more likely determining, sexual orientation. The site is known as Xq28 and is about 4 million base pairs in length. While it only represents less then 0.2% of the human genome it's still long enough to contain hundreds of genes which means looking for any "gay genes" is like looking for a needle in a large haystack. However, it represents strong supportive evidence for the fact that homosexuality is as much a choice as one's skin colour, thus any sort of prejudice against homosexuality is equal to racism.

There is also strong supportive evidence for the role played by hormones. A strong predictor of homosexuality is the number of older male siblings a person has. Each male child a mother has the more testostorone that is present in subsequent pregnancy's and this has been shown to have a strong effect in determining ones sexuality.

There was also a paper published last year (http://drrobertepstein.com/downloads...mMIND-3-06.pdf) by an american psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein which demonstrated quite convincingly that the majority of the population (90%) are in fact bisexual, with just 5% of the population considered absolutely homosexual and 5% absolutely heterosexual. This is exactly what one would expect to find given how natural selection operates. You can go to http://mysexualorientation.com/ and complete Epstein's sexual orientation inventory scale and see how homosexual/heterosexual you are.

A person's geneotype will either determine, or at the very least greatly influence, one's sexual orientation and socializing pressures determine what's acceptable sexual behaviour. In other cultures, the Romans for example, bisexuality was the norm. In Judeo-Christian and post-Judeo-Christian societies bisexuality and homosexuality is still very much not the norm and social norms do not allow for the open expression of a person's bisexual tendencies yet whenever controlled scientific studies are conducted the evidence is overwhelming; people are bisexual is nature but do not act upon it due to societal pressures. Modern society forces people into distinct categories; you're either striaght or you're gay. Whether it be the genetic pressures or the societal pressures, homosexuality is not a simple matter of choice, nor is it any way unnatural.

Im going to have to answer in different posts cos I dont know how to quote properly sorry :sad:

There is not natural occurring dangerous bacteria living in the vagina /penis so therefore sex between hetrosexuals is not defined as dangerous. What I mean by this is, we as a human race have created sexual disease, so it is not naturally occurring danger, unlike the bacteria in anus which is naturally occurring.

Let me put it this way, if we were all faithful hetrosexuals we wouldnt have sexual disease. Whether we were homosexual or not the bacteria in the anus which is dangerous to the human body is always there and a natural danger. If we all had anal sex the world would be wiped out by e coli , so how can this been seen as a natural choice for sexual pleasure.

Sexual pleasure can be gained in many ways it doesnt mean it is all considered natural.

To your 2nd paragraph - Just because a person can have an orgasm doesnt mean it is ok to go ahead, this is where choice comes in... take this as an example. A brother and sister begin a sexual relationship, this is illegal, why? Because its dangerous for their offspring , they might be deformed.

However much gay sex is enjoyed it cant produce offspring , so I dont see your point of saying "An organism which enjoys sexual activity has a good chance of reproducing."

Dawn

This sexual research paper is full of bull... you can sway it to how you like, including the inventory scale, it certainly does not prove anything. However I do agree with your comments on hormones playing a part.

Surely what is dangerous and not for the body should sway those to what type of sex they have !

Who you love and what type of sex you have is always a choice.

Dawn