The Neverending Debate: Marriage Should Be a Sacred Institution Between Only a Woman and a Man

Every time I stumble on this debate question, I feel a little chuckle come over me. I guess to me, the question really should be "Has Marriage ever been a sacred institution?"

One only needs to look back through history to see that Marriage has never been a sacred institution. Marriage has, from its earliest beginnings, represented a financial contract, where families of those who were to marry would benefit for political gains, financial advancement, land boundaries, and more. It was not uncommon for a father to barter and use his daughter(s) as bargaining pawns for his own advancements. There was no love between the two that were to be married, and in some cases they never even met before the wedding day; what is so sacred about that?

Keep looking at early marriage right on down to today, and you will see how Marriage gave man the right to treat woman as a second class citizen. It was quite common for man to have a mistress or seek out women for sexual purposes though they were married and had entered that supposed sacred institution. In fact, it was almost expected that man sought out other women and even other men for sex, while their wife was strictly for the purpose of giving off-spring and helping him carry on a good name.

Today, both man and woman cheat on each other, they abuse each other physically and emotionally, and they take relationships for granted. So, how sacred is this institution? Just look at the divorce rate and you can see that marriage is far from a sacred institution.

With that said, why should anyone have the right to dictate who can and cannot get married? Chances are if you are against homosexuals getting married, you would not be on the invitation list to their weddings. How would you even know if a homosexual couple got married? How would it interfere with your life? How would it stop your marriage from being sacred?

Marriage is a sacred institution only when two people are willing to commit their time and effort to truly making a monogamous relationship work. Man and woman are capable of doing that, but so are man and man, and woman and woman.

There is way to much hypocrisy surrounding this topic and debate. We have an United States Vice-President who has a lesbian daughter. His daughter has been in a long-term relationship with another woman and they have even brought a child into the family dynamics. So, why is it okay for Dick Cheney's daughter to live in this relationship? I mean she is breaking every moral rule conservatives spit out. She is a homosexual, she is not staying in the closet, but rather in an openly homosexual relationship, and they are now raising a child out of wedlock no less; however, they have wealth on their side which protects them from persecution and denial of rights

When you strip the sacred institution out of the equation what you are left with is a marital union, which is what married couples have. It is generally for the purpose of legalities and financial abilities. This is what homosexual couples want. They want to be able to make financial decisions legally, medical decisions legally, life decisions legally, and more, just like heterosexual couples get the right to do when they marry.

Who are heterosexuals to say that a homosexual marriage cannot be sacred? Sacred is just a word that you can interchange with special and get the same meaning. When all is said and done, if homosexuals were granted the right to marry legally, who would that hurt? It would hurt no one, except the homophobic and religiously intolerant.