The is an important difference in the way PVC and myself presented these points though. PVC (IIRC) argued the point with producing children in order to justify the relevance of heterosexual marraige today. On the other hand, I was putting it more in a historical context, since I had just made the points on the meaning of marriage when it was institutionalised into the legal system, and explained the role of the traditional nuclear family etc.
I was saying that our idea of marriage has its roots in the nuclear family, although it is no longer justified by these. Historically, heterosexual couples generally produced children, they generally functioned very well as a social unit etc.
Because of these functions, we have over the centuries gained our understanding of what marriage is. Whether or every heterosexual couple actually produced children, or functioned well as a family, they generally had one thing in common - the one man and one woman.
This is the 21st century, much of the practical side of the old hetersexual marriage is irrelevent. A lot of people can't be bothered with kids, their role in life is not longer determined by their position in the extended family. But it is because of these historic functions that marriage came to be what it currently means to us.
And I was in reply mode before I was able to read what seamus wrote.
Although religious ideas are intertwined in the minds of those who opposed gay marriage, our arguments have never been based on them, but have been strictly secular. I never said gay marriage should be illegal because God says it is an abomination.
The question here remains simply whether or not homosexual couples deserve legal status as being 'married'. They are, of course, free to have a ceremony in their own church/gay person's club/whatever, and carry out a ceremony there, and call it marriage, if they feel so inclined.
Bookmarks