The separation of the words matrimony and marriage came about in the way you described, but currently they do provide a way to distinguish between religious and civil approaches to such unions.
The more pertinent point is that those who wish to use marriage to identify only religious unions are ignoring the salient fact that at least from the time of the Roman Republic, (and probably earlier), marriage was a civil function. Religion never imposed marriage on societies; societies have always seen marriage in a civil context. I generally point to Rome because so much European Law, (including monogamy), can be traced to Rome.
Roman weddings were religious celebrations, but at a time when no genuinely secular societies existed, all life events were undertaken in a religious context.
This isn’t the best argument, but it’s a good one. Why isn’t this good enough for you? Allowing SSM does nothing to affect hetero marriage, and benefits children and adults of same sex families. What’s the downside?
I don’t dispute the current meanings, of course. I just have trouble with the “societies have always seen marriage in a civil context” statement.
The historical record shows that pre-Greece (especially the Spartan city-state), marriage wasn’t an interest to the state so much as the adjudication of marriages in dispute. Marriages were originally between two people (husband-to-be and the father of the bride) and the state had no involvement. Between 2000 and 1000 BC, this grew into an actual private party contract affair involving the state in resolving disputes, but seemingly not the marriage itself. This time frame saw the rise of the first laws we can discern (examples: Hammurabi’s code, later followed by Jewish law) that deal with what happens when a dispute arises and how estates flowed to heirs (or widows)…but no law saying that the marriage itself will be issued/managed by the state. These laws look to be set based on bench rulings that became law - e.g. Judge 1 kept seeing widows doing X, and decided that X should be done in such a manner and then made it law for those under his purview.
So, you could pay the bride price to the father, perform the chicken dance, and then claim yourself wedded. You may get stoned by the devout, but the state wouldn’t declare it invalid.
So, while I agree we are largely a product of the Roman’s civil/religious marriage divide, I disagree that states have always had a vested interest in enforcing marriage.
Actually, even after the matrimony moved from Roman to Catholic hands, it was still largely a single-entity affair, which didn’t really erode under the Catholic control of Europe until the 1400’s. The Council of Trent defined marriage/matrimony as “in front of a priest and two witnesses” as a response to the rise of civil marriage handling by various European states. They claimed all marriages were invalid unless officiated by them (of course) and wouldn’t recognize marriages otherwise officiated. I opine that this is probably the root of modern-day civil vs religious division.
You can appoint heirs. That’s what a will is. What you can’t do is apply tax benefits which are limited to one class of people to another class on your say-so - except by marrying them.
How about characterizing it for what it is, which is simply an argument you find unconvincing?
But way to be wrong in every single sentence above. The SDMB should be embarrassed by the blinding bias of a Mod that is yours. I know I disrupt your pretty little echo chamber, but you know what, too fucking bad.
No, that’s because you refuse to address or even recognize the point that invalidates it, no matter how often it’s pointed out to you. You do not convince because you make no attempt to convince.
The downside is that you no longer have a symbol—a word—that describes that relationship which has been the cornerstone of society. A word, when defined in the traditional sense, represents the starting point for the ideal situation for children to be raised. And when that happens, the lie is put forth that SS unions are indistinguishable from OS unions. That is untrue. As I said, while I favor extending to SS couples all the benefits and privileges of Marriage, including adoption, the best SS parenting situation falls short of the best OS parenting situation. Children get different things from mothers and fathers. Men and Women are different. They offer children different things.
This? From you?! Comedy friggin gold. In any debate you’ve been involved in you can’t track a thread of logic for more than one post. You shuck and jive better than Ali. Only difference is that he was aware that he was doing it.
Okay, but that’s not even remotely about gay marriage. Straights have been abandoning marriage for a few decades now, and simply having children without it, even in committed relationships. Or divorcing even when they do marry.
Should we do something about that?
So children raised by single parents are at a disadvantage too? Should we do something about that, since it’s a way bigger occurrence than those raised by same-sex parents?
So tell us how refusing to allow same-sex couples the use of the word “marriage” does not force a second-class status on them. For the first time, tell us.
Yes you do. That word is marriage. If you only want to talk about hetero marriage, then say “hetero marriage”.
Still marriage. Two married adults are the ideal situation for a children to be raised. The genders don’t matter.
Only in a biological sense. In every other sense, including parenting, there’s no evidence that they are anything but equivalent.
This is false. There is zero evidence of this.
So do two different men, or two different women. Different people offer children different things. Again, there is zero evidence that same-sex parents are of any lower quality than opposite-sex parents in parenting skills and outcomes.
This is awful! It’s one of the worst things that could ever have happened to me. A word that once meant a relationship between a man and a woman now means a relationship between two people.
:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(
I’m not sure how I’m going to cope.
Who cares if some gay dude had to jump through firey hoops to visit his dying SO in the hospital, we’re talking about DEFINITIONS here!
Permitting gays to marry in my state has had no effect whatever on straight marriages, my own included. None. “The existing institution” has not been altered in any way whatever.
It isn’t even *changing *a definition of a word, not exactly - it’s eliminating an artificial, unfair restriction on the application of the word, as well as to all the legal rights and responsibilities that go along with it.
I want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly, because it sounds like you’re saying that marriage is an institute intended solely for heterosexual couples that have or intend to pro-create. Is that correct?
