RE: "Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham
July 26, 2018 at 7:46 pm
(This post was last modified: July 26, 2018 at 7:51 pm by SteveII.)
(July 26, 2018 at 8:40 am)polymath257 Wrote:(July 26, 2018 at 6:38 am)SteveII Wrote:
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.
I can't help myself...
Now you're moving the goal post. When I point out an example of marriage where there was no church or government, are you going to say the two families are now stand-ins the 'government'? Your premise is getting more and more ridiculous when pressed.
Quote:Before 'romantic love' became the paradigm, marriage was primarily an economic agreement. As such, it was a concern of government, which required its acknowledgement.
This was really the one I wanted to press. Setting aside the fact that you have backpedaled to using the term 'concern of government' instead of a government institution--like you have been going on about, economic agreements are a concern of the government? Really? They require its acknowledgement? Really!? The haulmark of the US experiment was limited government!
Quote: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.
There are a few legal reasons to get married. The rest of this is just your under-appreciation of marriage--which I imagine is exaggerated to preserve your point. But, maybe you did just get married for the insurance.
Quote: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.
I said nothing of the kind nor can that conclusion be remotely arrived at by anything I said. Your premise is that getting married is for legal purposes. You continue to be wrong on several levels. You do realize that it seems you alone hold that opinion here, right?
