"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[polymath257]

---

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.

[Angrboda]

Anthropologists describe marriage as originally being a social ritual aimed at alerting people to the change in sexual availability of two people within a community, with the obvious function of securing patrilineage of the offspring for the male and ensuring the profit of his genetic material. I think that's a reasonable explanation, just as sure as I am that it's not relevant to how marriage functions today.

[Amarok]

Anthropologists describe marriage as originally being a social ritual aimed at alerting people to the change in sexual availability of two people within a community, with the obvious function of securing patrilineage of the offspring for the male and ensuring the profit of his genetic material.  I think that's a reasonable explanation, just as sure as I am that it's not relevant to how marriage functions today.

But often it's had a political function too and in most societies population control and distribution has been a government matter .

[SteveII]

---

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. 

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!

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. 

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?

[The Grand Nudger]

"I'm not saying anything in particular....except that teh gay is yucky!"

Go blow somebody Steve. Get it out of your system.

[Amarok]

I don't know how he thinks he's done well on this thread 

[polymath257]

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. 

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?

Getting married is a *legal* act. That's the whole point.

Yes, my wife and I got married (told the government of our relationship) because my insurance was poor and hers was good. If it wasn't for that, we wouldn't have done so (well, maybe eventually for survivor benefits). We were committed to each other. We had a house together, etc. But getting *married* was telling the government and getting the *legal* benefits it conveys.

Now, having a loving relationship *is* something quite apart from the legal aspects. But that isn't something that depends on gender either.

You mentioned *thousands* of benefits of being married that are separated from the legal. Since those seemed to be why you think gays can't be married, they must have *something* to do with gender.

So, what specifically is it about marriage that prevents a gay couple from being married? Something that *requires* having an opposite gendered couple to make it valid?

[Angrboda]

[SteveII]

[Angrboda]