Richie - I respect you coming up and actually answering the question.
Yes, untold numbers of marriages have been done without love. So the "sanctity" of marriage is in property and wealth transfers and alliances?
Procreation? So marriage should be denied those who can't (or won't) procreate? I can't have kids anymore and neither can my wife - but we married less than 2 years ago.
I have NOT lost sight of "traditional marriages in history" - THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT. The concept of romantic marriage IS a relatively recent development. But if you told someone you were "marrying for money" in this day and age, you'd be looked down upon.
You said it yourself:
Quote:
|
The only reason to even consider the "marriage" of same sex couples is because of all the laws that have automatically conferred societal privileges to marriages of heterosexual couples, that homosexual couples covet.
|
YES! You *do* "get it".
It's not about sex, it's about *all* the rights and privileges that "being married" conveys.
"Traditionally", at various times in history, you couldn't get married if you were poor (no dowry), the wrong race, the wrong religion the wrong sex (women couldn't pick a mate) or even the PARTICIPANT (since if you were getting married, your parents or a matchmaker had picked your mate).
That's why the "tradition" argument holds no water for me. We've redefinged marriage CONSTANTLY since the days of Solomon having hundreds of wives. Today, one's the limit (much to the contrary of Mitt Romney's grandfather's experience).