There is an open thread asking what is "traditional" marriage. While the conversation is a good one to have, I think it misses the point.

The point, narrowly defined, seems to be the definition of marriage. What makes a marriage a marriage? What are the important attributes of marriage? Why are these attributes important? Does our law reflect these attributes? If not, why?

It seems to me that many want to make marriage about the sexual organs of those involved. I don't think that has anything to do with marriage. Marriage is more than some union between people having different bits between their legs, or so it seems to me. It seems to me, that the bits are the least important/relevant aspect of defining marriage.

So what is marriage all about? Because if its just about people with different bits getting it on and having kids, you don't need marriage for that...

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

Today, the definition of marriage is, to my mind, superior to what it has been in the past. We've evolved away from the previous property contracts, "arranged" unions, non-mixed-religious, non-mixed-race parameters that used to define "traditional" marriage--and that an ever-diminishing minority refuses to admit existed, in their all-too-blatant desperation to keep non-same-gender off the list. Marriage--which, by the way, did NOT start as a religious institution and was even actively OPPOSED by the Church for centuries--has now become something richer and deeper, especially in these cynical, greedy times. It's now about love, commitment, devotion, loyalty. Which wasn't traditional before, but is now, just in the last century or so.

Most of the anti-gay people whose comments I read tend to leave that stuff out, both in their description of what they think homosexuality IS ("a behavior") and in their description of what "traditional marriage" is ("one person with a penis and one with a vagina, regardless of sexual orientation or attraction"). I can't help but think what sorry, sorry relationships they must have if the most obvious element of what I--and most of those I know--feel today's marriage is about, so obviously eludes them.

Even if I never have the right to marry, at least I know what a loving relationship is... I know what marriage is, or at least should be, about--which is more than some who have that right do.

__________________
My kharma just ran over your dogma.

"If Jesus came back and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.”
― Woody Allen, Hannah and Her Sisters

Two people commit to stay together and have each other's back while also enjoying intimacy and possibly raising children. To own possessions in joint partnership and to care for the other as they age.

__________________
...

How are we to legislate love, commitment, and loyalty in marriage? There will be gay marriages for all the reasons used to condemn traditional marriage and there will be divorces as well. None of these things is an improvement over traditional marriage.

Many traditional marriages do not lack for love, commitment and loyalty although it must be comforting to gay marriage advocates to assume traditional marriages lack them.

It seems to me that same-sex marriage opponents are being allowed to dictate the terms of the debate.

The opposite of "gay marriage" is not "traditional marriage"; it's "straight marriage".
The opposite of "traditional marriage" is, I suppose, "contemporary marriage".
The opposite of "same sex marriage" is "opposite sex marriage".


See what I'm saying?
It makes a big difference in abortion debate when we quit allowing opponents to dictate the terms of the debate; I think it would make a difference when debating this issue, as well.
I would insist on accurate terminology being used, not coy euphemisms and childish babble.

__________________

"A rising tide has lifted all yachts." Warren Buffett

Obama is not a dark skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away free health care; you're thinking of Jesus.

Good question. We seem to be doing it via "marriage laws". That doesn't mean that everyone in a committed loyal loving relationship is married. That doesn't mean that every marriage is a committed loyal loving relationship.

Actually, marriage is an improvement over traditional marriage. Traditional marriage was a power relationship with the man at the head and woman subservient. Traditional marriage was about the man setting the rules and the woman abiding. Traditional marriage was about the man going out and making a living while the woman stayed home and popped out children.

There are a great many things traditional marriages were. Loving wasn't the foremost.

"Same-sex marriage" is marriage in the modern context. It allows those entering into the institution to determine how their marriage will function. The government and church are no longer dictating what can and cannot happen.

A true marriage does not lack commitment, loyalty, or love. A true marriage is based upon them. And that's why same-sex marriages are, and should be, just as valid as heterosexual marriage.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

It's a legal contract.

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

I just think involving the government in one's relationship by way of making them a third party to it via a legal contract is ****ing stupid, and I fail to see any reason to do it. I would never strive to remove the choice for others to have a threesome relationship with the government, though. I don't care what contracts other people enter into.

Well... sort of. I do think that the govt should be out of the marriage business altogether. But that would just return marriage to the realm of a social contract, where it should always have remained to begin with.

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

In part. Based upon what? Why? What's the purpose?

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942