Posted on 08/04/2003 3:51:44 PM PDT by redangus
In 1890 The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) changed their church dogma from a position that accepted and encouraged polygamy to one that condemned the practice. The reason for this change was simple. The U.S. government defined the institution of marriage as a joining together of one man and one woman. The good people of the Utah territory, who were predominantly Mormon, wanted statehood and they were not going to get it unless their definition of marriage was brought in line with that of the rest of the Country. This belief that marriage was a joining together of men and women predated this Country’s birth and was founded on the traditions and religious teaching of all civilized societies. Today the question of changing the definition of marriage to suit the selfish desires of a small segment of our society has arisen again. So again it is important to take a look at this Country's view of marriage from a historical and cultural perspective, and how it compares with the world as a whole.
The facts are that all cultures and all the major religions of the world overwhelmingly define marriage in the same way as we here in the United States have. An examination of the teaching of the 5 major world religions will show this to be true.
We can start with Christianity, a term that can cover a diverse array of denominations. The overwhelming consensus among Christians is that marriage, by definition, requires a man and a woman. There are of course minor exceptions, but those holding divergent views amount to less than 2.5% of Christians in the U.S. and 0.03% worldwide. Worldwide, 79% of affiliated Jews support the existing definition, while only 21%, most of whom live in this country, support same-sex "marriage."
Of the 3,000,000+ Muslims in the United States and 1,000,000,000+ Muslims worldwide, all are united in their belief that God has created two sexes, male and female, who have the duty to form a unique marital community. Muslims assume as principle, that marriage involves the union of men and women.
More than 1.2 million Hindus call the United States home, while a total of over 750 million people practice the religion worldwide. All branches of Hinduism consider marriage to be an important social and religious duty that is marked by a rite of marriage or Viraha in which a man and a woman become "one spirit."
Buddhist religious doctrine lends itself to three possible perspectives on marriage. The first is neutrality on the issue of homosexuality generally and more specifically homosexual marriage. In this sense Buddhism is not concerned with the ceremony of marriage considering it a secular function. The second perspective is based on the cultures in which Buddhism flourishes, i.e. Asian countries with strong Buddhist traditions. Most of these countries do not have a favorable view of homosexuality and are strong familial cultures. In those countries the argument could be made that at the very least, Buddhism does not endorse same-sex "marriage." Only in the U.S. has a Buddhist group reportedly begun to offer wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. According to its own website, this branch has 330,000 members, or 0.09% of the worldwide number of Buddhists.
So what does all this tell us? It tells us that this is not about right wing Christian conservatives trying to impose their outdated morality on others, as many in the homosexual community would like you to think. Instead it is about a cross-cultural, common sense understanding that marriage is an institution meant to join two people, one man and one woman in a bond of love for life. In the United States alone, of the more than 168,000,000 total adherents of the five major world religions, 98.1% are in bodies that affirm the classical definition of marriage. Worldwide, of the more than 3,000,000,000 total adherents of the five great religions, 99.9% are in bodies that affirm the classical definition of marriage. To believe that all these people are wrong and the 2% of the U.S. population that considers themselves to be homosexual are right, boggles the mind of any rational person. The homosexual community and the Country as a whole would be better served, if they feel the need for some sort legalization of their living arrangements, to look to the old model of common law unions which allowed for many of the legal benefits of marriage without an actual legally binding ceremony. While I do not personally agree with non-spousal benefit packages for homosexual or heterosexual live-in partners it is a much more palatable solution than defiling the sacrament of marriage.
For them, marriage is a matter of secular convenience.
Well ... perhaps I should have said anti-religion.
I agree with your post. I do caution people to be very careful about adopting the above logic though. There are times when the majority will clearly be wrong. The word Democrat comes to mind. The majority of them couldn't buy a clue with the contents of the U.S. Mint.
How true. While I fully agree with marriage = (one man + one woman), reading this article brought to mind the old saying:
"Each crap and die. 10 billion flys can't be wrong."
If one's religion allows a man to marry multiple wives or a woman to marry multiple husbands, why should GOVERNMENT interfere if all parties are CONSENTING?
If two men or two women want to marry...so be it. If it's wrong in the sight of GOD, then they'll pay that price on Judgement Day, will they not?
Why should we get our panties in a wad about it? God will handle it.
By the way, why should we have to have a GOVERNMENT LICENSE to MARRY anyway??
After reading the article, you can see why the pervert Nazis hated the Jews. They subconciously hated the moral strictures implied by the Jewish existance.
Unless the sex drive is appropriately harnessed (not squelched — which leads to its own destructive consequences) . . .
I will refrain from any further comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.