Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarmouse0707
There is always another side to things-i.e how redefining of marriage is just a sign of the times, It's a valid point. But if It's not necessary, and will cause further issues for politics, religion, any institutions involved with marriage at all, then why not just have an alternative arrangement for same sex couples.
As I said before, redefining of marriage results in having to redefine many other meanings of words too-it's complicated and time-consuming and more problems emerge. If we keep 'marriage' to mean what it means, and have another option as an alternative, for same sex couples then why not do that.
|
We ... as in individuals, governments, churches ... do not, and cannot redefine marriage. It redifines itself in order to become compatible with human society which, like certain viruses, continually mutates and evolves. Problem seems to be that certain attitudes don't change at the same rate; or, in some societies, extreme Islamic ones come to mind, don't change at all.
Maybe one could, if one is interested, try to come to some understanding of why the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman came to be. I would start off, and this is a personal, maybe idiot-syncratic notion,
that it's all about sex, and the male fear of, or discomfort with female sexuality. This shows itself in female circumcision, sharia law, Pauline injunctions ... I think it was in one of his e-mails to the Corinthians, but I'm still not using google ... on the line of it is better to marry than to burn. Throw in the economic and political needs of a ruling class based on inheritance, and voila! We have the beginning of marriage as we know it.
"The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1500-1800" by Lawrence Stone is, though a little dated, still a good background read for anyone interested in exploring the topic. If not, it makes a good solid coaster for a pint of beer.