This question or the idea behind it has been used by some to say that calling brideless or groomless pairing “marriage” would just be another change in something that has changed throughout history.
While there have been various restrictions on marriage (and the dissolution of marriages) through the centuries and around the world, and various ways people found a spouse, one of the only constants has been that marriage unites the two sexes. This has been true even in societies that did not consider homosexuality to be immoral or rare. Uniting the sexes is what makes marriage marriage. Mutual physical attraction or romantic love does not distinguish marriage from nonmarital relationships. Those things are not even required to obtain a marriage license, and if they had been what makes marriage marriage, than most marriages throughout history would not have been marriages from the start, such as many arranged marriages.
That something has undergone some changes over time does not require us to support any change that someone proposes.
A brideless or groomless pairing is simply not marriage. It is something else – something lacking the essence of marriage. It is no more marriage than a man is "gay" if he is, and has always been, attracted to women and not men, and never engages in homosexual behavior.
While there have been various restrictions on marriage (and the dissolution of marriages) through the centuries and around the world, and various ways people found a spouse, one of the only constants has been that marriage unites the two sexes. This has been true even in societies that did not consider homosexuality to be immoral or rare. Uniting the sexes is what makes marriage marriage. Mutual physical attraction or romantic love does not distinguish marriage from nonmarital relationships. Those things are not even required to obtain a marriage license, and if they had been what makes marriage marriage, than most marriages throughout history would not have been marriages from the start, such as many arranged marriages.
That something has undergone some changes over time does not require us to support any change that someone proposes.
A brideless or groomless pairing is simply not marriage. It is something else – something lacking the essence of marriage. It is no more marriage than a man is "gay" if he is, and has always been, attracted to women and not men, and never engages in homosexual behavior.
1) In addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
ReplyDelete2) The Roman empire (under Christian emperors) outlawed same-sex marriage in 342 AD, ordering that anyone so married be executed.
Seems contrary to your claim that uniting the two sexes has been a constant throughout the history of marriage. If you changed that to *uniting two people* you'd be closer, but still a little off the mark.