Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaBlack";p="
If that is the case, then government should also have to stop giving benefits of any kind, including tax cuts, to married couples in particular. If it is none of the government's business, then it's none of the government's business. Though frankly I do see some purpose to a legal contract for keeping couples together except under strong enough circumstances that they're willing to go through the trouble of divorce and admit to breach of contract regardless of religion.
Marriage predates Christianity and is almost a cultural universal. The days in which it was founded in its earliest versions (nothing like those of today, or the traditional Christian ones for that matter) were in a context of religion and government being part of the same institution. Marriages have always existed for the purpose of social stability, people being forced by contract to take care of one another is the purpose that survives today as well as any children born or adopted. The really traditional versions were only partly that and mostly just a way of keeping track of whose kids were whose and how the clan property would be moved around. Actually most of the truly traditional reasons for marriage are obsolete in this day and age. It was not about love until fairly recently. I would suggest it's only purpose is to make two people take care of one another and any offspring. It does have the effect of building responsibility.
I could personally care less for whether government is involved in marriage or not. But to claim marriage is simply a creation of religion is false. It was created in a context where religion was government. And to think that what we call traditional marriage is really the oldest and most enduring model and that it has not changed is also false. Plus if government is going to get out of it, it had better be completely turned into a symbolic ritual and not an advantage for people in organized religious groups (even though I know most churches would still marry nonreligious people who pay them and don't embarass them).
|
Like you said it was created by religious law, religion was the government that created it. But our constitution clearly states that we are not to base our laws on religion. Yet marriage is something that is one of the most fundamental sacraments of the Christian faith. Not only that, by granting marriage licenses to two people, we discriminate against other religions that allow a man to marry multiple wives etc. A symbolic ritual is exactly what the process of marriage should be in a country that who's laws are supposed to be seperate from any relious beliefs.
Of course I'm probably being extremely idealistic in saying the government should quit licensing marriage since nobody even speaks about such a thing in gay marriage debate. It seems that people either want only heterosexual marriage to be licensed or both heterosexual and homosexual. I still say neither should be a recognized as legal binding. Sign a contract of some sort if you want to be held accountable by each other.