Marriage, according to my anthropology classes, is most universally a social institution for assignment of responsibility in child-rearing. I'm all for domestic partnerships and fair play, but making love the reason for marriage pretty much tears the heart out of any legally useful definition of the term.

My viewpoint will never, ever become that of the majority because, of course, it requires considerable reference to things outside the extant culture. People don't do that in any culture. Instead, in keeping with our progressively more wooly-headed ideas of egalitarianism and ever more pre-packaged notions of individuality, gay identity will be increasingly homogenised, and gay marriage will inevitably become normative. Our greatest challenge will be to find someone to feel smugly enlightened towards. Increasingly marginalised "red state" reactionaries will no doubt rise to the challenge.

So are you then opposed to post-menopausal women getting married? They presumably get married for love rather than child-rearing.

You are making the mistake of invoking history as the reason to continue a particular practice. In addition to what the other poster raised, it also implies that only people both capable and willing to have/raise children should be married. I'm married, but my wife and I have no children and never will (I've been sterilized). Under this very narrow viewpoint, should we have been banned from getting married? Of course, in previous historical eras, people usually didn't know before engaging in protracted sexual relationships that they were incapable of fathering/bearing children. ...But now the choice is valid and accepted.

Beyond this, society (all western societies of which I am aware, and the vast majority of other societies) confer legal rights upon people that are married that have nothing at all to do with their status as a child-bearing couple.

BTW: If I extend your argument a little, then you would seem to favor polygamous marriage (either multiple wives, multiple husbands, or a combination) because it fits the historical model or assigning responsibility in child care.

Sorcha:

So are you then opposed to post-menopausal women getting married? They presumably get married for love rather than child-rearing.

That is the implication- not necessarily the result. if it was just about love and not child rearing then incest should be fine asl long as there was love and concent which seems to be the argument for gay marriage.

Nope, people don't necessarily marry for love ro for children. Many marry for money, or security, or companionship. Marriage is a perfectly sensible way to live and automatically conveys many legal protections and privileges for the couple.

Zonemind:

My viewpoint will never, ever become that of the majority because, of course, it requires considerable reference to things outside the extant culture.

Translation: Those who disagree with my views only do so because they are less enlightened than me.

It's a good thing that you don't believe love alone to be a basis for marriage, or else you'd be looking to marry yourself!!