Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually marriage as we know it is a fairly recent invention, until a few hundred years ago, a marriage was an entirely private affair. No recognition was required from the state or church, a marriage simply involved two people saying they would marry each other. I can see where you are coming from that returning to this state of affairs would be better, perhaps having the only government involvement being a simple acknowledgment that the two people are now kin.

Of course my knowledge is only limited to a "western" viewpoint, I have no idea how the rest of the world went about things.

That institution was based on the principle that two Christians will be bound by their word - there is a whole body of canon Law about it. Prior to the advent of Christianity the various pagan City-State religions sanctified marriage. So it has been, from inception, bound up with religion.

[Beskar]

I think I made the best post earlier in the thread, which I have seen no one comment on, except for Rory, who referenced part of it, when I said about 'marriage' being unnatural.

[miotas]

That institution was based on the principle that two Christians will be bound by their word - there is a whole body of canon Law about it. Prior to the advent of Christianity the various pagan City-State religions sanctified marriage. So it has been, from inception, bound up with religion.

I presume the christian institution had something to do with the belief that God is everywhere so he would always be witness to any marriage. Practically however it was still a private affair, and prior to Christianity marriage was a simple contract between two people and had nothing to do with religion.

I think I made the best post earlier in the thread, which I have seen no one comment on, except for Rory, who referenced part of it, when I said about 'marriage' being unnatural.

It's only in recent years that this has become the case, in the past two people making a contract for life made perfect sense because by the time they had some kids together and raised them to adulthood they would be about ready to drop dead anyway. Nowadays we live a hell of a lot longer, and no one get married anymore to "continue their line" so spending all of that long life with one person is somewhat unnatural.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I presume the christian institution had something to do with the belief that God is everywhere so he would always be witness to any marriage. Practically however it was still a private affair, and prior to Christianity marriage was a simple contract between two people and had nothing to do with religion.

It had to be witnessed, and preferably sanctified by a priest, it was never a "private" affair - quite the opposite. A marriage was something recognised by the whole community. Prior to Christianity in Europe you had Roman-Pagan marriage, Jewish marriage, Greek-Pagan marriage, etc... the Gods (or God) were always invoked both as witness and sanctification. The difference with the coming of Christianity was that divorce went into terminal decline (until the collapse of Christian moral supremacy in the West).

Note, by "moral supremacy" I mean the dominace of the Christian moral outlook.

It's only in recent years that this has become the case, in the past two people making a contract for life made perfect sense because by the time they had some kids together and raised them to adulthood they would be about ready to drop dead anyway. Nowadays we live a hell of a lot longer, and no one get married anymore to "continue their line" so spending all of that long life with one person is somewhat unnatural.

Has it occurred to you that maybe the problem is with our modern society and not with traditional marriage?

[ajaxfetish]

I think I made the best post earlier in the thread, which I have seen no one comment on, except for Rory, who referenced part of it, when I said about 'marriage' being unnatural.

I'd say it was only the third best post.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

Don't forget, gay marriage will lead to the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. becoming extinct, why would someone support this genocide?

[PanzerJaeger]

PJ I don't know you as someone deliberately missing the point, not that I disagree with you, but it isn't about the specifics but the institution itself. If you have a certain outlook on it, the centuries old one, then how is it not a perversion of that institution. It's an empty word for me, but can those who care keep it real? Why can't they have that? How much value will a gay marriage have for the gays once I can marry my cat anyway, really love my cat.

In order to see it as a perversion of the institution, I would have to view homosexuals, and their relationships, as somehow worth less than heterosexual relationships. I just don't.

On the other hand, as mentioned, the heterosexual divorce rate that hovers around 50% in the Western World has made marriage essentially nothing more than one level up from boyfriend/girlfriend. Yet somehow it's the gays that are going to render marriage meaningless? That happened a long time ago.

It's not even that. Having a genetic predisposition to something still doesn't force others to approve of your behavior. What if arsonists were found to be born with that tendency? Would anyone think less of their behavior?

Would it not depend on the behavior? Arson is destructive. There are victims and damages involved.

It takes a much more advanced form of mental gymnastics to justify a negative attitude toward a naturally occurring, non-chosen behavior that affects no one.

Don't forget, gay marriage will lead to the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. becoming extinct, why would someone support this genocide?

As worthless as her uncle.