- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I think the religious right does a disservice to their argument to reserve the definition of marriage to a man and a woman when they refer to it as the "traditional" definition. Historically speaking, marriage has changed definitions several times throughout history. Same sex marriage has even existed and been practiced by various culture throughout the world. Some evidence suggests that even early churches accepted same sex marriages.
Today's definition of marriage is far removed from the tradition of the last two millennium. The definition of marriage used to allow for a man to have more than one spouse, but the outlawing of polygamy has changed this in a large segment of the world. The definition of marriage used to heavily restrict how often a person could marry, but serial monogamy is now a common feature of marriage and few would condemn an individual for having been married once, twice, or even more times over the course of their life. The definition of marriage used to designate women to the level of property of their husband, and that has clearly changed with the emergence of women's rights.
The reality is that the argument for the "traditional" definition of marriage is actually an argument for a definition of marriage that has existed for only a few decades, a definition which allows a person to marry as many times as they want as long as they are married to a single partner at any one point in time and which is generally recognized legally as a partnership. What people typically mean by that term is to exclude same sex couples because they cannot procreate.
Fine, then I posit that it be referred to as the "biological" definition of marriage. Obviously a same sex couple cannot procreate. And while marriage is a sociological institution, if the premise is going to be based on the biological capacities of the participants then let it be named as such. Let's not perpetuate the myth that the definition of marriage has not changed several times throughout history by referring to a modern religious right perception as "tradition".
Today's definition of marriage is far removed from the tradition of the last two millennium. The definition of marriage used to allow for a man to have more than one spouse, but the outlawing of polygamy has changed this in a large segment of the world. The definition of marriage used to heavily restrict how often a person could marry, but serial monogamy is now a common feature of marriage and few would condemn an individual for having been married once, twice, or even more times over the course of their life. The definition of marriage used to designate women to the level of property of their husband, and that has clearly changed with the emergence of women's rights.
The reality is that the argument for the "traditional" definition of marriage is actually an argument for a definition of marriage that has existed for only a few decades, a definition which allows a person to marry as many times as they want as long as they are married to a single partner at any one point in time and which is generally recognized legally as a partnership. What people typically mean by that term is to exclude same sex couples because they cannot procreate.
Fine, then I posit that it be referred to as the "biological" definition of marriage. Obviously a same sex couple cannot procreate. And while marriage is a sociological institution, if the premise is going to be based on the biological capacities of the participants then let it be named as such. Let's not perpetuate the myth that the definition of marriage has not changed several times throughout history by referring to a modern religious right perception as "tradition".