Florida Pulse gay club attacked in Orlando

[Seth]

marriage has allways been a civil (monetary/land/moneymaking concern) matter, no reason to take it away from civil authorities

religious unions are another matter... they should be purely facultative and have no civil relevance (looking at israel there)

No, marriage has always been a fundamentally religious matter in that it's the joining of two individuals into one being. The civil aspects of marriage came along long after the religious institution of marriage was codified in religious dogma.

And the reason for taking "marriage" away from civil authorities is precisely because civil authorities tend to abuse their authority over "marriage" to the detriment of couples who wish to form a permanent physical, emotional and spiritual bond with one another. Getting civil authorities out of that entirely is the only way to resolve this deep societal conflict. The entire complaint of the gay community is that unlike "married" heterosexuals, which is to say heterosexual couples who have entered into a personal intimate domestic relationship, gays in the same sort of domestic partnership are legally discriminated against and denied the enjoyment of benefits that the states provides for "married" heterosexual couples.

This is not about the personal intimate bond, it's about the law, and the problem is that the law offers benefits to heterosexual married couples that it does not offer to anyone else, including gays and single persons as well as individuals who wish to bond emotionally and financially but not sexually who are not man and woman, such as two close friends who wish to meld their households and fortunes together.

So obviously the problem lies with the state offering benefits to "married" persons and then restricting who may be a married person to some irrational subset of the total population. The solution is to prohibit civil authority from making such determinations in the first place and to restrict civil authority to being the clerk and recorder of a private contract of civil domestic partnership, which contract is not under the general control of the government, which would have severely limited powers to regulate the terms of such contracts to begin with and no power to dictate which adults are authorized to enter into such contracts.

[rasetsu]

Civil unions or domestic partnerships were only available in limited states prior to legislation and court rulings granting marriage equality.
In no way were they a solution to unequal rights for same-sex couples.

They are a fully appropriate solution. The problem is that rather than gays arguing for the government to get entirely out of the marriage business and restrict itself to recording civil domestic partnership contracts they decided to kick the hornet's nest by demanding that they get to use the word "marriage" too. Then they went further and made even more enemies by abusing anti-discrimination laws to persecute people who simply want nothing to do with gay marriage. Shot themselves squarely in the foot on that one and it's coming back to haunt them.

The rational argument would not be "If straights get to use "marriage" in civil law so do gays," it would be "Since gays don't get to use "marriage" in civil law, then NOBODY should get to use it." That's the appropriate solution to the whole argument.

Marriage should be relegated to religious or spiritual ceremonies and never be mentioned in any law.

In what way would that be "more appropriate?" Despite your stentorious assertions, marriage is and has been a civil matter for a long time. Perhaps an equally just situation could result by replacing every instance of 'marriage' in law with civil union, and by setting up appropriate laws surrounding civil unions. That's little more than a semantic sleight of hand and is in no obvious sense 'better' or more 'appropriate'. In the United States, it was seen as more parsimonious to change the definition of marriage and whether you consider it appropriate or not, that is the solution which was chosen. Your solution would effectively be suggesting that all nations on the globe play your game of musical chairs to accomplish parity for committed same-sex relationships. How that is in any sense better than what transpired is a mystery. The government has a vested interest in regulating marriage and despite your objections to the contrary it is a legitimate sphere in which for it to exercise control. Your libertarian hogwash about the detrimental effects of involving government just doesn't wash.

[Seth]

In what way would that be "more appropriate?"

It would end the dispute, get government out of religious matters, force government not to discriminate against any couples and bring peace to the issue.

Despite your stentorious assertions, marriage is and has been a civil matter for a long time.

Fallacious appeal to common practice.

Perhaps an equally just situation could result by replacing every instance of 'marriage' in law with civil union, and by setting up appropriate laws surrounding civil unions.

Er, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

That's little more than a semantic sleight of hand and is in no obvious sense 'better' or more 'appropriate'.

This is a semantic issue in the first place, exacerbated by the government meddling in things it should not be meddling in to begin with. Remove the word "marriage" from civil law and nobody has anything to bitch about. Prohibit the government from discriminating based on the sex, gender or identity of domestic partners and nobody has anything to bitch about.

In the United States, it was seen as more parsimonious to change the definition of marriage and whether you consider it appropriate or not, that is the solution which was chosen.

And it was a stupid idea.

Your solution would effectively be suggesting that all nations on the globe play your game of musical chairs to accomplish parity for committed same-sex relationships.

What's difficult about it? The point being that by removing the authority of government to even inquire as to the sex, sexual orientation or desires of persons wishing to associate in an intimate domestic relationship you remove any possibility of government discriminating against gays or anyone else, which is rather the point.

How that is in any sense better than what transpired is a mystery.

Because the less government gets to meddle in private domestic relationships, the better life is for everyone.

The government has a vested interest in regulating marriage and despite your objections to the contrary it is a legitimate sphere in which for it to exercise control.

Does it? What is government's "vested interest" in regulating marriage, pray tell? And why is it a legitimate sphere for government to meddle in, and to what extent is such meddling legitimate, appropriate and/or necessary. Please be specific.

Your libertarian hogwash about the detrimental effects of involving government just doesn't wash.

Er, its the entire reason that gays are upset in the first place, or had that fact escaped your notice? Absent government-mandated discrimination against gay couples when it comes to the granting of legal benefits to "married" persons under the law, gays would not be upset about anything now would they?

[rasetsu]

In what way would that be "more appropriate?"

It would end the dispute, get government out of religious matters, force government not to discriminate against any couples and bring peace to the issue.

Simply ending societal disputes isn't always the best thing. A lack of uniformity in the regulation of rights granted committed partners would result in a mess of discriminatory practices. It would worsen the situation, not alleviate it. The lack of uniformity in treating committed relationships is what got us into this mess in the first place. As noted, only a few states had protections in place to provide parity for same-sex relationships. The rest had a hodge podge of different standards in which the only consistency was that those who held the power in housing, jobs, and other areas of life got to determine how same-sex couples were treated.

Despite your stentorious assertions, marriage is and has been a civil matter for a long time.

Fallacious appeal to common practice.

And your claiming that marriage has historically been a religious matter isn't? Oh you're a funny guy. This isn't a fallacious appeal to tradition. It's an acknowledgement that historically the civil authorities of government have considered marriage an institution which it has a legitimate interest in regulating.

How that is in any sense better than what transpired is a mystery.

Because the less government gets to meddle in private domestic relationships, the better life is for everyone.

Ah yes, the libertarian mantra. The government has a legitimate interest in promoting or discouraging certain forms of long term social congress. They can discourage marriages between children and adults, and provide incentives for committed relationships both because they are intrinsically desirable and because they provide a better environment for the raising of children. They can also discourage sexual activity outside marriage. In same sex relationships this is not as much of a worry as in heterosexual relationships. Moreover, the government has a legitimate interest in reducing unfair discrimination against persons in committed relationships. Your claim that life would be better for everyone if government did not regulate marriage is nothing but a naive article of faith.

[Brian Peacock]

"Marriage", being an inherently religious concept...

Prove it.

[Svartalf]

Actually, marriage is a civil, patrimonial concept... only since the high middle ages has religion taken it over and declared that there was no marriage without religious sanction

[Seth]

"Marriage", being an inherently religious concept...

Prove it.

Historically marriage has been performed by priests. In the US, marriage was regulated and registered by civil authority at first only to "license" marriages to prevent interracial marriages. Prior to such miscegenation laws if you were married by a church official you were married and the government had no opinion one way or the other.

Even going back into English history marriage between commoners was entirely unregulated by the Crown and marriage between nobles was regulated only to the extent that the King had the power to prevent or indeed force marriages that were beneficial to gto his rule and hereditary monarchy.

In Judaism marriage was and is a religious rite having nothing to do with secular law and has been for perhaps 5000 years.

Government really only became involved in marriage as a civil matter when governments began offering benefits to married couples that were not offered to single persons. In the US the prime (and Supreme Court approved) reason for allowing civil control of who could and could not marry (meaning denying marriage to gays pretty specifically) was that the government decided that protection of the family unit and the mechanisms for proper rearing of children were appropriate subjects of legislation in order to produce social order. Thus, governments began offering legal advantages to married couples in order to secure cultural stability and to protect the rights of children, particularly when it came to divorce and support. Prior to that a man could, sometimes at his religious peril, produce children with any woman he wished and then abandon them without sanction or responsibility of any kind. Governments eventually decided that this was unjust and harmful to both the children and mothers themselves and to social order and stability and enacted laws making men legally responsible for children they fathered.

The notion that sanctified pair-bonding of man and woman (marriage) originated in civil law is utter nonsense.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Some sources, rather than just say-so:

What is the history of marriage?

Jesus lived and preached in a world that saw marriage primarily as an economic contract. Jews considered marriage a commandment, but one intended to benefit the wider community by ensuring stability and economic prosperity.

History of Marriage

It is said that the first union between a man and a woman took place in Mesopotamia at 2350 BC. Marriage evolved since then and such practice was observed by the Romans, Greeks, and Hebrews. However, the union was never about love or religion. The primary purpose of the marriage is to ensure that the man’s children are biologically his, and so women were treated as mere ‘property’.

A Brief History of Marriage

In European nations, marriage was traditionally considered a civil institution. Around [400] AD great Christian theologians such as Augustine wrote about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in the ceremony.

It was at this point that Christians began to have their marriages conducted by ministers in Christian gatherings, but it was in the 12th century that the Roman Catholic Church formally defined marriage as a sacrament, sanctioned by God.

History of Marriage

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

[Seth]

In what way would that be "more appropriate?"

It would end the dispute, get government out of religious matters, force government not to discriminate against any couples and bring peace to the issue.

Simply ending societal disputes isn't always the best thing.

It isn't? What nonsense. Ending social disputes is one of the primary purposes of the law.

A lack of uniformity in the regulation of rights granted committed partners would result in a mess of discriminatory practices. It would worsen the situation, not alleviate it. The lack of uniformity in treating committed relationships is what got us into this mess in the first place. As noted, only a few states had protections in place to provide parity for same-sex relationships. The rest had a hodge podge of different standards in which the only consistency was that those who held the power in housing, jobs, and other areas of life got to determine how same-sex couples were treated.

I agree, which is why I'm arguing for absolute uniformity of regulation of the rights of anyone and everyone (of legal age) with respect to committed partners in domestic relations by eliminating the state's authority to distinguish between individuals seeking to exercise domestic partnership rights completely and utterly. In my plan the state is expressly forbidden to inquire into or discriminate against any adult, regardless of sex, gender preference, race, or anything else when it comes to recording and enforcing a private contract of domestic relationship. Everybody is exactly equal to everyone else in the eyes of the state, and because the state would no longer be permitted to offer benefits to one group that are different from those offered to any other group or individual (ie: being "married" or legally contractually bonded would not mean you get any special treatment or benefits from the government) there would be no reason for anyone to complain about the state discriminating against this or that domestic paring because the benefits accruing to being in such a relationship would be the product of contractual negotiation between the partners themselves, with the state having nothing to do with it.

Just as the civil court system is compelled to rule on contractual disputes without regard for the status or nature of the parties to the contract, domestic partners would have the same rights and the same equality under the law as everyone else. Only the written provisions of the contract would be relevant and the rights defined by that contract would be entirely up to the individuals party to the contract, with some state-approved language with respect to dissolution of the relationship only as it applies to the protection of minor children who are part of the family unit. Like all contracts in civil law, certain fundamental concepts are ingrained in the legal system that make "unconscionable" contractual provisions void as a matter of law, such as a contract provision authorizing one person to kill another person. But this is all standard contract law stuff that doesn't involve inquiries into the sex, sexual orientation or anything else about the individuals themselves.

That's the benefit of my system. If you want to "marry" someone, that's a religious/spiritual thing that you can do with whomever it pleases you to do so with and it's sanctified in any manner that you choose to sanctify it, from a pagan celebration to a Catholic wedding, but that sanctification has absolutely no force or effect in civil law and is neither recognized nor enforced by civil authority. The ONLY way to gain legal civil rights in such a partnership would be to duly register a contract of domestic partnership with the state, with the state acting only as the recorder and enforcer of the contractual provisions through the legal system just like any other contract dispute. Without such a contract the only "rights" that accrue to a "married" couple (under religious/spiritual bonding ceremonies) are those rights and obligations that the partners themselves freely agree to recognize and obey. There would be no civil recourse if one partner violates a religious/spiritual agreement, the ultimate recourse would be to simply separate if the violation of whatever oral agreement was created by the sanctification ceremony is intolerable.

However, if those provisions are reduced to writing in a contract recorded with the state, then they become enforceable provisions just like any valid contract. The purpose of restricting partners to a written contract duly recorded is to prevent anyone from seeking legal redress outside of the four corners of the contract.

Despite your stentorious assertions, marriage is and has been a civil matter for a long time.

Fallacious appeal to common practice.

And your claiming that marriage has historically been a religious matter isn't? Oh you're a funny guy. This isn't a fallacious appeal to tradition. It's an acknowledgement that historically the civil authorities of government have considered marriage an institution which it has a legitimate interest in regulating.

But is that claim valid? If you are arguing that gays are being discriminated against by the state where it prohibits gay marriage you are necessarily arguing that the state has NO legitimate interest in such regulations, right?

Whatever civil government has been doing "historically" has no bearing on what civil government may be required to do TODAY, by those in the society who exercise their right to control what government does using democratic methods.

That is why your argument is a fallacious appeal to tradition or common practice. Just because that's the way it is done, or has been done in the past is not a valid argument for why it must continue in that fashion. To produce a rational argument one must examine WHY it has been done that way and see if the reasoning used that produced those rules is sound and the results still useful. Arguing "but that's the way it's been done for a long time" with respect to civil marriage laws is no more rational than arguing that religious practices are rationally valid merely because that's the way religious people have been doing it for a long time. As rationalists we all have a duty to examine the situation rationally and decide whether the way it has been done is irrational, arbitrary, capricious, biased, bigoted or unfair and to propose changes if it seems rational to do so.

I'm frankly puzzled by your support for traditional civil marriage laws given that I interpret your stance as being pro-gay marriage. Why the resistance to a plan that would resolve the issue completely and in doing so ensure equal rights for all persons in all domestic relationships and get the state OUT of regulating who can and cannot be married and what perks they get for being married?

How that is in any sense better than what transpired is a mystery.

Because the less government gets to meddle in private domestic relationships, the better life is for everyone.

Ah yes, the libertarian mantra. The government has a legitimate interest in promoting or discouraging certain forms of long term social congress. They can discourage marriages between children and adults, and provide incentives for committed relationships both because they are intrinsically desirable and because they provide a better environment for the raising of children. They can also discourage sexual activity outside marriage. In same sex relationships this is not as much of a worry as in heterosexual relationships. Moreover, the government has a legitimate interest in reducing unfair discrimination against persons in committed relationships. Your claim that life would be better for everyone if government did not regulate marriage is nothing but a naive article of faith.

So, if that's what you believe, then are you saying that banning gay marriage is appropriate? That's what government feels it has a legitimate interest in doing in many places, for precisely the reasons you cite. I thought you were opposed to such government interference. I'm confused as to your reasoning here.

The objectives of providing stable households for children is indeed a legitimate function of government under its innate authority to act in loco parentis and as guardian ad litem for minor children who might be abused or neglected by their parents, but that authority is not dependent upon the status of the domestic relationship even now. The state has such power whether or not the parents are married and no matter who they are or what their sexual orientation might be. If you are the parent of a child the law enforces certain duties of care regardless. You can be held legally and financially liable for the welfare of a child even if it is the product of a one-night-stand ten years earlier and you had no idea at all that a child was produced.

As for child marriage, the state has authority (under my plan) to simply make such acts unlawful without even mentioning marriage or domestic relationships because of its aforesaid authority to protect children when the parents fail to do so. That power does not require regulation of marriage at all, it simply says that no adult may enter into any kind of sexual domestic partnership with a minor child, period. So, that's a fallacious argument too.

As to "unfair discrimination against persons in committed relationships," you do not provide any information about the sort of discrimination you are referring to or by whom committed, but I'm going to assume that you mean the internal workings of a particular domestic relationship and are concerned about one partner abusing the other without any possibility of recourse for the abused partner.

That is a private matter between the partners in the relationship and such things would be controlled by the provisions of the registered domestic partnership contract and enforceable in a civil court under the standard rules and processes for resolving contractual disputes and violations. This puts the onus on the partners to the relationship to carefully examine the nature of the partnership they are entering into and make explicit the terms under which the relationship is to be carried on. If domestic violence is a concern (as it should be) then provisions in the contract can prohibit such acts and provide for consequences to the offending party in the event of violation of the contract, such as explicit monetary damages ("Each and every blow shall result in the forfeiture of $10,000 from the estate of the offending partner to the estate of the victim partner") or performance requirements and guarantees ("An offending partner shall immediately leave the partnership premises and shall not reenter or reoccupy said premises until the case has been fully adjudicated in court.") that are equally as effective as what is used today, if not more so, where the police decide who stays and who goes.

This system is beneficial because it requires partners to actually consider such things as a part of the partnership negotiation and to explicitly set forth and agree upon how the partnership will operate and what rights and duties each partner enjoys. This is standard partnership stuff and very quickly the lawyers will produce detailed boilerplate domestic partnership contracts and language that will be available on the Internet in a pick-and-choose format that will spit out a completed contract as soon as each party has agreed to each of the terms. It will be simple, easy and bullet-proof, and best of all, the state won't be involved in anything other than having certain limited boilerplate language that applies to ALL such partnerships as a matter of law that deals with the rights of minor children in the relationship that the state may require as a part of its duties and powers as guardrian ad litem.

In this way, it is the partners who get to decide what their relationship will be, not the state. I'd think you would find that attractive.

But perhaps I'm mistaken and your agenda isn't about equal rights for everyone in domestic relationships but rather is about abusing the law to shove homosexuality in the face of everyone else by forcing the government to make "gay marriage" legal, for no better reason than so that you can stick your tongue out at those who object and want "marriage" to retain its traditional meaning.

My plan is about equal rights and fair, equal treatment for everyone, not political agendas and petulant behavior.

[Seth]

Some sources, rather than just say-so:

What is the history of marriage?

Jesus lived and preached in a world that saw marriage primarily as an economic contract. Jews considered marriage a commandment, but one intended to benefit the wider community by ensuring stability and economic prosperity.

Therefore inherently a religious rite.

History of Marriage

It is said that the first union between a man and a woman took place in Mesopotamia at 2350 BC. Marriage evolved since then and such practice was observed by the Romans, Greeks, and Hebrews. However, the union was never about love or religion. The primary purpose of the marriage is to ensure that the man’s children are biologically his, and so women were treated as mere ‘property’.

A Brief History of Marriage

No evidence that civil authority ruled the custom.

In European nations, marriage was traditionally considered a civil institution. Around [400] AD great Christian theologians such as Augustine wrote about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in the ceremony.

It was at this point that Christians began to have their marriages conducted by ministers in Christian gatherings, but it was in the 12th century that the Roman Catholic Church formally defined marriage as a sacrament, sanctioned by God.

History of Marriage

Unsupported assertion in the first sentence followed by evidence that marriage was indeed considered a religious matter at least as of 400 AD. No evidence is shown that marriage was a strictly civil matter prior to that time.

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it.

Private contracts intended to protect family dynasties and cement alliances. Still no evidence of such marriages being matters of civil law. Moreover, this refers to the upper classes where family alliances were important (think Romeo and Juliet) and says nothing about the much more common practices of commoners and serfs whose marriages were ordinarily conducted by religious authorities not civil ones.

In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

[/quote]

Still no evidence that as of 1215 marriage was primarily or originally a civil matter, and compelling evidence that since at least 400 AD marriage has been an innately religious thing. I suspect the same will be found to be the case in non-Western cultures going right back to aboriginal inhabitants who paired exclusively with one another long before civil authority even existed.

[rasetsu]

In what way would that be "more appropriate?"

It would end the dispute, get government out of religious matters, force government not to discriminate against any couples and bring peace to the issue.

Simply ending societal disputes isn't always the best thing.

It isn't? What nonsense. Ending social disputes is one of the primary purposes of the law.

No, regulating societal disputes is one of the primary purposes of law. Preventing undesirable unregulated private resolution of irresolvable conflicts is a goal.

A lack of uniformity in the regulation of rights granted committed partners would result in a mess of discriminatory practices. It would worsen the situation, not alleviate it. The lack of uniformity in treating committed relationships is what got us into this mess in the first place. As noted, only a few states had protections in place to provide parity for same-sex relationships. The rest had a hodge podge of different standards in which the only consistency was that those who held the power in housing, jobs, and other areas of life got to determine how same-sex couples were treated.

I agree, which is why I'm arguing for absolute uniformity of regulation of the rights of anyone and everyone (of legal age) with respect to committed partners in domestic relations by eliminating the state's authority to distinguish between individuals seeking to exercise domestic partnership rights completely and utterly. In my plan the state is expressly forbidden to inquire into or discriminate against any adult, regardless of sex, gender preference, race, or anything else when it comes to recording and enforcing a private contract of domestic relationship. Everybody is exactly equal to everyone else in the eyes of the state, and because the state would no longer be permitted to offer benefits to one group that are different from those offered to any other group or individual (ie: being "married" or legally contractually bonded would not mean you get any special treatment or benefits from the government) there would be no reason for anyone to complain about the state discriminating against this or that domestic paring because the benefits accruing to being in such a relationship would be the product of contractual negotiation between the partners themselves, with the state having nothing to do with it.

First, contracts and negotiation for things like housing and employment would be outside the scope of such contracts. Second, replacing one, unified legal concepts with billions of private contracts actually would increase government involvement in the matter, not reduce it. Your 'plan' is simply unrealistic.

How that is in any sense better than what transpired is a mystery.

Because the less government gets to meddle in private domestic relationships, the better life is for everyone.

Ah yes, the libertarian mantra. The government has a legitimate interest in promoting or discouraging certain forms of long term social congress. They can discourage marriages between children and adults, and provide incentives for committed relationships both because they are intrinsically desirable and because they provide a better environment for the raising of children. They can also discourage sexual activity outside marriage. In same sex relationships this is not as much of a worry as in heterosexual relationships. Moreover, the government has a legitimate interest in reducing unfair discrimination against persons in committed relationships. Your claim that life would be better for everyone if government did not regulate marriage is nothing but a naive article of faith.

So, if that's what you believe, then are you saying that banning gay marriage is appropriate? That's what government feels it has a legitimate interest in doing in many places, for precisely the reasons you cite. I thought you were opposed to such government interference. I'm confused as to your reasoning here.

Where that is the will of the people, so be it.

As to "unfair discrimination against persons in committed relationships," you do not provide any information about the sort of discrimination you are referring to or by whom committed, but I'm going to assume that you mean the internal workings of a particular domestic relationship and are concerned about one partner abusing the other without any possibility of recourse for the abused partner.

I was referring to discrimination in the public sphere such as in housing, employment, visitation rights, and so on. The fact of the matter is that government has vested interests in regulating marriage. Whether this is done by contract, or by having a unified concept of marriage, the ultimate goal is regulating marriage. Having a unified concept is simpler to administer and provides less fertile ground for abuses.

But perhaps I'm mistaken and your agenda isn't about equal rights for everyone in domestic relationships but rather is about abusing the law to shove homosexuality in the face of everyone else by forcing the government to make "gay marriage" legal, for no better reason than so that you can stick your tongue out at those who object and want "marriage" to retain its traditional meaning.

My plan is about equal rights and fair, equal treatment for everyone, not political agendas and petulant behavior.

You sound positively homophobic.

[Scot Dutchy]

You sound...

[rasetsu]

Some sources, rather than just say-so:

What is the history of marriage?

Jesus lived and preached in a world that saw marriage primarily as an economic contract. Jews considered marriage a commandment, but one intended to benefit the wider community by ensuring stability and economic prosperity.

Therefore inherently a religious rite.

This doesn't show that marriage is 'inherently' anything. At one time, marriage was a private matter between individuals and neither the state or religion had anything to do with it. At one time, marriage was considered a sacrament that could be obtained for marriage. At one time, marriage was (and is) a largely civil matter. None of this shows that marriage is 'inherently' one thing or another. What marriage has inherently been is a social custom designed to regulate sexual congress and provide recognizable customs for acknowledging the voluntary entry into marriage by individuals. Marriage is above all a social institution and exists at the whim of the social relations in effect in the society in which the marriage occurs. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds. It is neither inherently religious or civil. It is a social custom.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Some sources, rather than just say-so:

What is the history of marriage?

Jesus lived and preached in a world that saw marriage primarily as an economic contract. Jews considered marriage a commandment, but one intended to benefit the wider community by ensuring stability and economic prosperity.

Therefore inherently a religious rite.

The source says marriage was viewed "primarily as an economic contract." You choose to ignore that because it contradicts your unsupported assertion.

History of Marriage

It is said that the first union between a man and a woman took place in Mesopotamia at 2350 BC. Marriage evolved since then and such practice was observed by the Romans, Greeks, and Hebrews. However, the union was never about love or religion. The primary purpose of the marriage is to ensure that the man’s children are biologically his, and so women were treated as mere ‘property’.

No evidence that civil authority ruled the custom.

It's unequivocal evidence that it wasn't about religion, which again directly contradicts your unsupported assertions in this thread.

A Brief History of Marriage

In European nations, marriage was traditionally considered a civil institution. Around [400] AD great Christian theologians such as Augustine wrote about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in the ceremony.

It was at this point that Christians began to have their marriages conducted by ministers in Christian gatherings, but it was in the 12th century that the Roman Catholic Church formally defined marriage as a sacrament, sanctioned by God.

Unsupported assertion in the first sentence followed by evidence that marriage was indeed considered a religious matter at least as of 400 AD. No evidence is shown that marriage was a strictly civil matter prior to that time.

Considering that your posts on this topic have consisted entirely of unsupported assertions, you're hardly in a position to point your finger. When you present a source that supports your position, I'd be interested in looking at it. Until then, I'll stick with the sources I've cited. Your empty bloviations carry no weight.

History of Marriage

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it.

Private contracts intended to protect family dynasties and cement alliances. Still no evidence of such marriages being matters of civil law. Moreover, this refers to the upper classes where family alliances were important (think Romeo and Juliet) and says nothing about the much more common practices of commoners and serfs whose marriages were ordinarily conducted by religious authorities not civil ones.

It doesn't say that it refers to "the upper classes." Another unsupported and therefore worthless assertion from you.

In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

Still no evidence that as of 1215 marriage was primarily or originally a civil matter, and compelling evidence that since at least 400 AD marriage has been an innately religious thing. I suspect the same will be found to be the case in non-Western cultures going right back to aboriginal inhabitants who paired exclusively with one another long before civil authority even existed.

Your conjecture is useless here. I've presented sources that refute your assertions, and your tiresome tactic of empty, inaccurate "yeahbuts" is a failure.

[Seth]

Some sources, rather than just say-so:

What is the history of marriage?

Jesus lived and preached in a world that saw marriage primarily as an economic contract. Jews considered marriage a commandment, but one intended to benefit the wider community by ensuring stability and economic prosperity.

Therefore inherently a religious rite.

The source says marriage was viewed "primarily as an economic contract." You choose to ignore that because it contradicts your unsupported assertion.

That's what the word "therefore" means, although I could have been more clear by adding "and not a civil authority matter" which is also the case even if it's entirely an economic matter.

History of Marriage

It is said that the first union between a man and a woman took place in Mesopotamia at 2350 BC. Marriage evolved since then and such practice was observed by the Romans, Greeks, and Hebrews. However, the union was never about love or religion. The primary purpose of the marriage is to ensure that the man’s children are biologically his, and so women were treated as mere ‘property’.

No evidence that civil authority ruled the custom.

It's unequivocal evidence that it wasn't about religion, which again directly contradicts your unsupported assertions in this thread.

You don't know that, nor does the cite make any claim that it is not inherently religious in nature. If the determination of parentage is or was a matter of religious scruple, as it often is and has been, then it is about religion. I suppose an archeologist might be able to speak to the religious beliefs and scruples of Mesopotamians circa 2350 BC, but I rather doubt it. Note that the citation provides no evidence whatsoever other than opinion supporting the claim that "the union was never about love or religion." It merely asserts it, and it asserts it with what appears to be a more-than-a-little pro-woman bias.

A Brief History of Marriage

In European nations, marriage was traditionally considered a civil institution. Around [400] AD great Christian theologians such as Augustine wrote about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in the ceremony.

It was at this point that Christians began to have their marriages conducted by ministers in Christian gatherings, but it was in the 12th century that the Roman Catholic Church formally defined marriage as a sacrament, sanctioned by God.

Unsupported assertion in the first sentence followed by evidence that marriage was indeed considered a religious matter at least as of 400 AD. No evidence is shown that marriage was a strictly civil matter prior to that time.

Considering that your posts on this topic have consisted entirely of unsupported assertions, you're hardly in a position to point your finger.

I'm in exactly such a position. You're free to point out that my opinions are opinions and I'm free to point out that your sources are inconclusive at best. That's how it works.

When you present a source that supports your position, I'd be interested in looking at it. Until then, I'll stick with the sources I've cited. Your empty bloviations carry no weight.

And neither do yours, as I've demonstrated.

History of Marriage

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it.

Private contracts intended to protect family dynasties and cement alliances. Still no evidence of such marriages being matters of civil law. Moreover, this refers to the upper classes where family alliances were important (think Romeo and Juliet) and says nothing about the much more common practices of commoners and serfs whose marriages were ordinarily conducted by religious authorities not civil ones.

It doesn't say that it refers to "the upper classes." Another unsupported and therefore worthless assertion from you.

"It" doesn't say that, I say that. Feel free to post citations authoritatively disproving my claim...something you haven't yet done.

In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

Still no evidence that as of 1215 marriage was primarily or originally a civil matter, and compelling evidence that since at least 400 AD marriage has been an innately religious thing. I suspect the same will be found to be the case in non-Western cultures going right back to aboriginal inhabitants who paired exclusively with one another long before civil authority even existed.

Your conjecture is useless here. I've presented sources that refute your assertions, and your tiresome tactic of empty, inaccurate "yeahbuts" is a failure.

No you haven't, you've cited a few items of a vague nature that make unsupported claims themselves. Nowhere have I seen an authoritative citation from a recognized anthropological expert supporting any of the "refutations" you claim prove your case. And anyway, your citations DO NOT state explicitly that state control and regulation of marriage is a long-term historical fact. That's because it's not.

But, even if it were, that wouldn't change the fact that claiming that marriage used to be strictly a civil law matter would be to state a fallacy because the whole point of this part of the discussion is about changing the way things are done precisely in order to remove "marriage" from within the purview of state sanction. Recent involvement of the state in marriage, even historical involvement is irrelevant to whether it is a better idea to do as I've suggested and get government entirely out of the marriage business.

I find it interesting that none of you care to discuss the actual merits of my plan but instead evade and weasel around the issue. That seems to me to confirm my thesis that "gay marriage" isn't actually about marriage at all, or even about equal rights for gay couples, but rather it's about radical gays wishing to rub everyone else's noses in the radical gay agenda of forcible homosexual social normalization, which seems petty and juvenile in the extreme, not to mention counterproductive and harmful to the cause of equal rights for homosexuals.

Why is it that you are uninterested in discussing THAT aspect of the subject?