|
Your unflinching commitment to a natural law/social-Darwinist definition of marriage is mind-boggling.
The underlying premise of MARRIAGE is to transfer property. Marriage was developed by societies to streamline the transfer of property between the male heads of families to appropriate male heirs in order to deal with scarcity of resources. The Family Values notion of marriage you espouse is a byproduct of that property purpose, but was NOT the underlying purpose of the civil and social institution that we call marriage. WOMEN (along with their dowries) were SOLD by one family to another in exchange for peace or access to resources or cows or cloth or something else. It was a society constructed mechanism for men to allocate and control their property. Children are a natural and convenient outcome of the arrangement, but the "purpose of marriage" was not to "make a safe and happy home for kids."
You have your very personal definition of what marriage means that represents an unwavering loyalty to an ideal that, as far as I can tell, is purely a construct of your own opinion. Furthermore, you are so committed to that definition that you would rather prevent other people from getting married and reaping the benefits of being married (of which there are many). THAT is the difference between me and you. My conception of marriage allows you to feel that way about marriage and Gilda to feel her way about marriage and will to feel his way and me to feel my way. And we can all get married by whoever we can find to marry us to whomever we want. You want to require the rest of the world to conform to your arbitrary definition of what marriage is and means for no other reason than you think it's right. That sentiment flies in the face of some 500 years of social progress across all spheres of human society, and explains why we're so confused and taken aback at how you respond to our argument.
|