Marriage has always been a social institution. The civil and religious aspects are both later add-ons that may or may not exist in any given society.
Upvote
0
I disagree. Marriage has been a mostly legal institution. It has always been a method of transferring ownership and inheritance.Marriage has always been a social institution. The civil and religious aspects are both later add-ons that may or may not exist in any given society.
I disagree. Marriage has been a mostly legal institution. It has always been a method of transferring ownership and inheritance.
I disagree. Marriage has been a mostly legal institution. It has always been a method of transferring ownership and inheritance.
Maybe legal is not the best word. I'm pretty sure marriage in some form predated any codified judicial system. But brides were (and still are in some places) traded just like any other valuable commodity. Marriage arose from this system of bartering.I'd say that it's legal systems that responded to marriage rather than marriage being created by a legal system. Law usually has to catch up to the community rather than the community being defined by the law when it comes to civil matters.. of course once the laws are in existence things get kind of murky..
I don't disagree that marriage in itself, regardless of when it was codified was for most of history (and still often is ) a means to control who gets what.
As stated in the above post, I agree that marriage predated law, but I disagree that marriage predated property. Marriage is all about property. It severed the female from her prior family and bonded her to the new one (thus the change of surname).Marriage is prior to law, prior to religion, and prior to property. This is true, whether you study it from a legal POV, a sociological POV, or a religious POV. There was no property, no law, and no religion in the Garden of Eden, but there was marriage.
Later institutions recognized marriage and used marriage, but did not establish marriage.
As stated in the above post, I agree that marriage predated law, but I disagree that marriage predated property. Marriage is all about property. It severed the female from her prior family and bonded her to the new one (thus the change of surname).
It severed the female from her prior family and bonded her to the new one (thus the change of surname).
Cons - homosexuals still don't have the same rights as heterosexuals.
Nor do two girls or two boys having consentual sex need any. A family may, but homosexual sex cannot produce a family. And secular government doesn't wish to foster sex for sex sake (at least it once didn't). At least I don't see how sex benefits society except for the procreation of childern to fill various future roles in society. And make MODEL citizens. Are sex mongers model citizens or simply abusers of such?
Nor do two girls or two boys having consentual sex need any. A family may, but homosexual sex cannot produce a family. And secular government doesn't wish to foster sex for sex sake (at least it once didn't). At least I don't see how sex benefits society except for the procreation of childern to fill various future roles in society. And make MODEL citizens. Are sex mongers model citizens or simply abusers of such?
So who gets to define who is a "MODEL" citizen? And in what possible way could who a person finds attractive have anything to do with it?
Also, how in the world do "sex mongers" relate to homosexuals, homosexuals who in fact may or may not be sexual active just like heterosexuals.
What in the world is a "sex monger" anyway?
And who has given you the right to define family for the rest of us? Family is a nebulous term, that frankly over the centuries has covered a variety of social groups. And what prevents a homosexual from having children? Much like a lot of heterosexual couples these days, homosexuals can engage in artificial insemination or adoption to have a child. What invalidates these children and the corresponding family structure?
Why can't you just admit that you find homosexuality repulsive, and leave it at that. Why do you feel the need to try to enforce your morality on the rest of the world, when its quite clear it isn't wanted or appreciated?