XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: ingilt@yahoo.co.uk   
      
   On 25/09/2014 19:11, RD Sandman wrote:   
   > "Alex W."  wrote in news:c8i3drFd87rU1   
   > @mid.individual.net:   
   >   
   >> On 24/09/2014 19:32, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >>> Just Wondering  wrote in   
   >>> news:5422fc1f$0$16445$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 9/24/2014 11:00 AM, deep wrote:   
   >>>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:12:30 -0700, "Wayne"   
   >>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Assume that man A has the right to marry a woman, and man B has the   
   >>>>>> right to marry a woman.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> In what weird world of logic does that mean that man A has a right   
   >>>>>> to marry man B?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> Because they are still people.   And the law says we have the   
   >>>>> responsibility to treat all people equally.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> We already do.  All people have always had the right to marry.   
   >>>> Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman.   
   >>>   
   >>> Marriage between  a man and woman is a religious construct for the   
   >>> purposes of procreation.  Unfortunately over the years people have   
   > made   
   >>> it become a legal one.  Not everyone follows the Christian   
   > bible....see   
   >>> Mormonism, or Islam.   
   >>   
   >> Or indeed the Old Testament part of the bible: many of its heroes and   
   >> prophets indulged in multiple wives, surrogate motherhood and other   
   >> shenanigans the modern churches forbid.   
   >>   
   >> You're wrong about your definition, though: marriage is not a religious   
   >> construct per se.  The god-botherers want to define the debate in those   
   >> terms, and they are dead wrong.   
   >   
   > god-botherers?  I am agnostic.   
      
   I wasn't referring to you but to the general mass of those who see this   
   debate and the concept of marriage in religious terms only.   
      
      
   >   
   >   Within the confines of their faith,   
   >> they have a certain definition, but in civil society marriage is a   
   >> contract, and no more.   
   >   
   > Yes, and the reason it was defined as man-woman was because that it what   
   > it was historically.  How did it get that way?  Via religious precips.   
      
   Here's an interesting factoid: Judaism does not ban polygamy.  They   
   simply do not practise it, but they do not see any theological bar to   
   such a union.   
      
   As to who first defined it as a union between man and woman only, and   
   for what reason, may be a chicken-and-egg question.  Was it for   
   practical reasons (the tribe needs to breed or die) or because some   
   shaman dreamed up a divine commandment?  My personal opinion is that   
   religion itself adopted this model for the same reason they drew up   
   dress codes and dietary rules: for social identity, cohesion and control.   
      
      
   >   
   >   
   >   Historically, it has always been a construction   
   >> to organise and dispose of very practical issues such as inheritance,   
   >> rights and duties, assets and liabilities, and suchlike.   
   >   
   > Which have absolutely nothing to do with marriage itself.  You may be   
   > married or single and still be involved in all you mentioned above.   
      
   Involved in, yes, but the bonds are not nearly as strong or close.  A   
   marital group of whatever composition is an unreserved and synergistic   
   pooling of resources.  It is also universally recognised as the most   
   fundamental social unit, which makes it much easier to construct   
   long-term planning and legal provisions around it.  This, in fact, is a   
   major reason why gay and Lesbian couples have been fighting for equal   
   standing: because over the years the state, business and society have   
   built up a dense web of special status provisions, rights and privileges   
   that kick in automatically, benefits both legal and financial (tax!).   
   To try and replicate these individually is impossible.   
      
      
   >   
   >    The farmer's   
   >> daughter marries the neighbouring farmer's son because it takes two to   
   >> work a farm and keep the lands together.  The merchant marries his   
   >> daughter off to his journeyman in order to ensure the continuation of   
   >> his business.  These concerns are not at all religious but of huge   
   >> practical and social importance, even today.   
   >   
   > We will have to agree to disagree on the original reasons for marriage or   
   > a union to be of mixed sex.   
      
   Wouldn't it be boring if everybody agreed all the time...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)