Posted by Nadezda on November 9, 2008, at 23:32:28
In reply to Marriage definition, posted by rayww on November 8, 2008, at 13:16:55
I agree with the points made by others, but also, marriage is a legal and social as well as-- or more than-- a religious event. As such, it doesn't matter what the Bible says about it, or what God hypothetically intended. What matters is that we have a legal institution, and cultural or social expectations, and rules that govern these. The rules and definitions can change over time, as with women's property rights, or women's not being property.
Moreover, having children is not by any means definitional of marriage; obviously, many married people don't have children, and never intended to. Does that make them any less married? Of course not. Since having children had nothing to do with their being "married," it clearly has no necessary relationship to the institution. As far as I can see, this stipulation is always mentioned primarily because it's the one aspect of marriage that gay people can't do (in a literal sense). It's used to create a seemingly essential barrier to their being married-- when there really is no per se difference between gay and heterosexual relationships.
While I see that some people of religious belief have a sense that it violates their idea of marriage, it doesn't violate mine in the least. There are some rights that simply shouldn't be subject to majority rule.
Nadezda
poster:Nadezda
thread:861505
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20081002/msgs/861970.html