freedomdwarf1
Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
|
FR~
This topic has intrigued me quite a bit.
Firstly, the term "marriage" as far as I can work out, only dates back to around the 14th century when the church was really becoming the powerhouse behind any ruler.
The idea behind a "pairing" ceremony has been around a long time before christians and similar religions came into being.
Various peoples around the world had some form of ceremony for the celebration of two people coming together as a single unit. The Pagans, Wiccans and similar spin-offs had a "hand-fasting" ritual. Others such as the Inca, Mayan etc also had something similar.
The term "marriage", other than the explicit meaning of a wedding, also means "an intimate or close union" which most people seem to have forgotten.
The christians stole this idea and used it for themselves; along with several other bits from Paganism and other cultures.
The pairing ceremony was almost exclusively performed by the religious elders or leaders of the group or society because those being 'paired' wanted recognition of the act and with that recognition came various other priviliges and niceties.
This is where the civil rights from marriage came from originally and subsequently enshrined in law because the religion and the leader/state were effectively being rolled into a single unit by the time the christians came around.
I personally think that the religious leaders of christianity (and similar others) were some of the first to disentangle themselves from the leader/state totalitarianism that was evolving. But, despite being quite separate in many ways, they are still inextricably entwined together when it comes to legalities.
For instance... Theoretically, anyone can marry any other two (or more) people within the confines of whatever group/religion they happen to follow and for that group, they would be classified as "married" or "paired". However, since the division of the state/leadership from the religion over the last couple of millenia, you now have to satisfy certain state conditions before you are considered "married" and qualify for those extras and priviliges.
A good example of this can be shown in Pagan, Wiccan, Buddhist, some Islamic religions and many others where the "marriage" ceremony is not recognised by the state because it hasn't followed a particular ritual or contained certain words for them to recognise it. And if the state doesn't recognise it, you miss out on the other 'legal' niceties. Some examples of these niceties could be keeping the land/property/livestock/posessions if your spouse dies instead of it going to the next (usually male) in line to inherit.
Take my particular case.... As a Pagan, my brother (a Pagan/Wiccan high priest) married us with a full hand-fasting ritual and for our Pagan community we were considered "married" to all intent and purposes. But, because it wasn't performed by a state-certified person (payment required) or on designated ground where such rituals are allowed (more payments) AND it didn't contain certain phrases pertaining to "our lord god" - it was not recognised by the state and as such we had to go through a minimal civil marriage ceremony with those certain words ( ) so it was "legal" here.
As for same-sex marriages or partnerships, I do tend to agree with Michael that the word "marriage" does usually mean a religious connotation and because of that it would also usually infer a pairing between a (natural) man and a woman. Because the religious zealots (mainly the christians) have effectively monopolised the word for their own uses it would be ridiculous for the state to use the same word for a ceremony/ritual that the church would not normally allow in their own followings/teachings. So it would make sense to call those pairings in the religious world a 'marriage' and the pairings to satisfy the state definitions/benefits as a 'civil union/partnership' or some other such phrase.
I'm sorry if the gay/lesbian population don't agree and can't understand why the religious zealots and 'normal' sheeple don't agree with the word 'marriage' for them, but it's a simple case of distinction of where your ceremony/ritual is held and what religious/legal status it has.
As for Zonie's comment, a "marriage" is more than 'just a contract'. Anyone can draw up a contract between two or more people and explicitly lay out all the terms and conditions that all parties agree to and what the implications would be should anyone be in breach of it. A marriage has certain other benefits that come with it that are enshrined in law and are automatically invoked at conception without reference to a long and complex document each and every time.
|
RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 
Profile
, the traditional 98%, being hetero-sexual, is permitting the historical homosexual 2% to destroy one of its institutions. How is this possible without the complicit activity of the Progressive liberal left? I swear, liberals are more destructive than the atom bomb, acting with wild abandon and giving no thought to the destruction being wrought. Liberals actually applaud it, rationalizing its inherent betterment over centuries of civilization which their betterment is actively destroying.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread