RE: "Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham
July 26, 2018 at 8:40 am
(July 26, 2018 at 6:38 am)SteveII Wrote:
(July 25, 2018 at 6:37 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Just wow.
Yes, in fact, it *is* a legal institution. There have been rules and regulations surrounding marriage for as long as we have records. That is hardly just the last 5 minutes.
For that matter, I'd like to see your evidence concerning the nature of marriage, say, 7000 years ago. Any evidence at all?
And, in a *secular* society, the *legal* aspect is the *primary* aspect of marriage *as conducted by the government*. This is why there are tax benefits, survivor benefits, ability to make decisions, etc.
Anything *other* than the *legal* aspect is fluff and I really don't care about it. What I care about is equal treatment under the law: that means that *every* couple who wishes to marry can legally do so with *exactly* the same rules and responsibilities.
Answer this question: are there times or places that didn't/don't require a government marriage license to get married (or even better--no government)? Yes or no? If you answer yes, then marriage is not a legal institution. To think that the "*legal* aspect is the *primary* aspect of marriage *as conducted by the government*" well...I feel sorry for you. There are like a thousand intrinsic reason to get married and maybe 3 legal reasons.
BTW, the "legal" aspects you brought up are separate laws (tax, insurance, privacy laws--not 'marriage laws') codifying ancient aspects of marriage.
Whether a license was required or not, *some* sort of official ceremony has always been required. That is the action of the government (or church, which is the same thing here). The piece of paper isn't the point: it is the societal and legal approval of the bond and the rights and responsibilities that come with it.
Before 'romantic love' became the paradigm, marriage was primarily an economic agreement. As such, it was a concern of government, which required its acknowledgement.
I believe a prior post showed there are over a thousand reasons to get married because of legal aspects of US law. There are many *legal* benefits, rights, and responsibilities that come with the designation of 'marriage'. In my own case, insurance benefits were a crucial reason we decided to let the government know of our commitment to each other.
I'm curious what you think the 'thousands' of intrinsic reasons are to get married that limit it to being only between people of opposite genders. Seriously, why that restriction? Because of tradition? Sorry, but that is just about the worst reason to keep a discriminatory practice going.
Even *if* your 10,000 year figure was accurate (and it is very far from being so), it would still be a poor argument for not changing to a better system that is more equal.