Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
14. Actually, it was rearely about "love" until recently...
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 07:22 PM
Mar 2013

although it was about property rights and distribution, protecting bloodlines, and establishing a safe haven for procreation (i.e. the "household&quot . Arranged marriages were often the norm, and if love dared to appear it was often enough outside of the formal marriage. If marriage ceremonies were even conducted at all, as they seem to have been rare before the Council of Trent required them.

More to the point, it was to establish paternity in the millennia before we knew about DNA so those property rights and bloodlines could be adjudicated. Seems like everyone was diddling everyone else back then, too, but that piece of paper from the priest decided who the "official" father was.

Some places in ancient Greece seem to have sanctioned same sex marriage of sorts (Sparta particularly celebrated such unions) but nowhere else in world history has it been a major institution and in ancient Rome, Europe, and many places in Asia, it was strictly forbidden. Africa and pre-Columbian Americas? Not likely.

Now, that doesn't mean it's not time for it to be accepted, but silly arguments from all sides should be put to rest.

So, the question now is how do we reconcile the thousands of years of marriage history, law and culture to the present need to respect the rights of same sex couples and give them full access to to the social and legal benefits of marriage.

The simplest way might be to eliminate marriage entirely and make civil unions the norm for everyone, with a big church wedding optional (but legally meaningless) for anyone who wants it. Simple, but not so likely to happen.

We don't think much about it any more, but for much of history marriage not only assumed a sexual relationship, but also required it. Repopulating was behind that and isn't a problem now. Civil unions, however, defuse any moral arguments about sex of any sort since they don't make any assumptions, much less requirements, of sexual activity.



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It's called "grasping at straws" because all your other Warpy Mar 2013 #1
+1 LiberalLoner Mar 2013 #3
That's not to say certain conservatives don't dump their wives after child-bearing age Tab Mar 2013 #7
I suppose at one point it might have been about having children gollygee Mar 2013 #2
Hey, I got my nuts clipped 18 years ago, but it is still fun to practice. talkingmime Mar 2013 #4
+1 Blue_Tires Mar 2013 #19
it's hardly new . . . that argument has been around for years DrDan Mar 2013 #5
Stupid argument .... Trajan Mar 2013 #6
When I asked the procreation question to someone on Twitter justiceischeap Mar 2013 #8
play the wingnut game rickford66 Mar 2013 #9
Gotta mask all their hate somehow, so lame excuse time again. blkmusclmachine Mar 2013 #10
As much as I loathe her for even existing and spewing her incessant shit, Ruby the Liberal Mar 2013 #11
They really didn't fuck up. The 1%, who got a lot of mileage out of Teh Gay eridani Mar 2013 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author Iggo Mar 2013 #12
I think it might be about controlling others, to restrict freedoms we have. Thinkingabout Mar 2013 #13
Actually, it was rearely about "love" until recently... TreasonousBastard Mar 2013 #14
As far as the government is concerned, marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper Major Nikon Mar 2013 #16
Marriage for the early Church was worldly, not a desirable attribute for spiritual growth. MissMarple Mar 2013 #17
No marriage for anyone over 50 then. n/t cherokeeprogressive Mar 2013 #18
That would leave out first cousins in about 9 states. LiberalFighter Apr 2013 #23
That isn't what they are arguing. duffyduff Mar 2013 #20
It is such a weak and tortured argument. morningfog Mar 2013 #21
I shut down an anti-gay religious extremist who tried this argument on me once magellan Mar 2013 #22
Hehehe. Good one. freshwest Apr 2013 #24
I was surprised I even had to point out the flaw in his thinking magellan Apr 2013 #25
I was re-reading The Age Of Reason by my fave, Thomas Paine. The introduction says: freshwest Apr 2013 #26
Love it magellan Apr 2013 #27
The only people threatening the marriage of others are the bigots gtar100 Apr 2013 #28
I'm straight and married and I have no intention of procreating davidpdx Apr 2013 #29
Yeah, get divorced Tab Apr 2013 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What's this new crap abou...»Reply #14