all riled up!

so dave sent me a link....
and things worked out from there in my head all day. now i do not know the person in question, but his post is here on facebook
this is my response
feel free to comment on your own!

Marriage:
-A bond of two people in love, declaring each other for one another alone.
Marriage:
-A contract signed between two parties cementing inheritance , rights and property. A merging of assets in two families.

Which do you think is more important?
It depends on when you lived, or where you live. If you think both are true for the average American family, you are kidding yourself. Love matches, or what we think of when we think white dress wedding bells, is a verymodern idea. Meaning the idea that you can choose your mate, and not only choose, but love them. This was completely unheard of just a few hundred years ago. You cite Judaism as the start of marriage, right area of the world, off by a thousand years. Look to the creation myths of the ancient Sumerians, Enki and Ninhursag, a precursor of the genesis myths. And yes, genesis is a myth, a story, with thousands of variations and interpretations. Meaning, you can’t find the definition of marriage in Adam and Eve. If you do, you’re forgetting Lillith. Marriage as it was known then was contracted selling of one sex to another family. It was never a merger of equals, never a merger of rights, never about love. Sex was often forced. Young girls often as young as 12 were sold off by their families to another, to unite grazing areas, political influence and cash value for dowries.
Using the bible as a scapegoat for marriage is fine, if you are only talking about religion. But this is not the case in modern marriage. This is sanctioned by the church and the state. You need a license from the government as well as a religious ceremony to seal the deal as it were. You can however have a wedding without involving any religion whatsoever. That is the appeal of keeping it simple or having a judge or captain wed two people.
Civil law should have the right to marry two equals, no matter what the laws. Recent marriage laws had to take into the fact that women were not the equal of men. they were “other” “ non-male” why should people who happen to love someone of the same sex be treated any differently under the eyes of the law? Laws change, they are beyond religion and faith of one person, or a group of people. They have the responsibility to hold values for all. Not just Christians. Or if this is purely and economic issue, would you deny marriage to two Buddhist lesbians? Two Shinto gay men? Santeria? Aboriginal? If this is a religion issue, we must avoid the use of ONE religion as the foundation of values. And I do not accept the argument that western culture is Christianity, because it could just as easily be Baal or Juno we worship rather than Yahweh. Thought it would be completely fitting to put this denial of equal rights of some over the comfort of others. That is fitting with the treatment of “non conformists” with the Christian tradition. Burn the heretics, kill the Jews and Muslims, convert and pray. Is this really what we want? Conformity? By denying some the rights of all, it is what we are doing. Pressuring some to conform, or in this case deny who they are in order to receive “fair” treatment.

Spread Freedom and Democracy

The Zimbabwe Crisis Continues
So here's a chance for our freedom and liberty and brotherhood and democracy president to do something good for the world and leave an existing system that would probably work (they have a new leader elected already). Bush remains remarkably complacent.

I've been interested in African politics/economics for a while now, and every time something like this happens (which is fairly often if you listen closely enough) my heart sinks a little. There's been people around that say Africa is a lost continent, which is not a sentiment I share. But like most ideas I've encountered, I can understand why someone would be lead to that conclusion. Once Africa becomes a net contributor to world GDP on a non-monoculture (generally oil) basis, we will all be better off. It will bring a new level of stability and peace to a very large segment of the world, and encourage the investments of Americans in a very underdeveloped part of the world, probably resulting in a very large payoff for those who choose to get in early. In all likelyhood, the change will take place following the current Asian development, but who knows for sure.

Anyways, I found this just before hand via Pharyngula. I'm still looking for a connection, but perhaps the two apexes serve their own purposes sufficiently by themselves.