The etymology of the word marriage traces back to religious ceremonies and texts; marriage has a long and established relationship with religion, hence, the word carries the denotation and connotation of being sanctified by religious institutions, such as the temple, mosque and church.. While many people are not aware of the words subtexts, they are aware they feel that it has something to do with God. The debate over whether God sanctifies homosexual love is still being loudly debated. Until the debate is settled, both sides would be rational to use a value neutral term, such as civil contract. Sadly, neither side wishes to see the people involved as anything but cannon fodder in an emotional fight. Clearly, both sides wish to use the word marriage as a weapon in their arsenal.

The slippery slope that many of the Left do not want to face is that once you create a non-religious or amoral (i.e. moral neutral contract), equal protection under the law would mandate opening civil contracts to other forms of unions, such as polygamy and inter-family unions. (This is not a comparison between these mentioned forms and homosexuality, but this is where many who are not able to follow natural entailments of existing positions may very well leap.) If society chooses to chance the law for civil contracts for homosexuals, the society must prepare itself for the law of unintended consequence.

This argument makes no sense. Why would extending marriage benefits to couples regardless of gender allow groups of people to marry? There's no reason why a "nonmoral neutral contract" could not be limited to two individuals based on the fact that it is a partnership contract.

If you want to argue that governments shouldn't sanction marriage because it is the domain of religion, fine. Good luck on that one. But allowing two individuals to marry regardless of race or gender, as is mandated by our constitution, does not lead to a slippery slope.

There's a fascinating website that rebuts the most common oppositions to gay marriage. Check it out: <link> I have yet to see an argument on the Fray opposing gay marriage that doesn't fall under one of these refutations. Interesting stuff. oh, and just a little pet peeve of mine: moral arguments can be made that don't involve religion. But that's another discussion for another day;)

Your link returns errors and does nothing you claim......

Sorry about that! Must be broken.

The flow of logic of the argument is this:

1. Marriage, by its nature and history, is exclusively a binding of men and women.

2. In the U.S.A. (and we are only debating American marriages, since other countries have different morals, customs and contracts, bringing in these marriages would make our discussion unwieldy) a necessary cause, though not sufficient cause, of marriage is one man wedding one woman.

3. This necessary cause arises out of religious convictions that have informed morality in the area of marriages; (e.g., though the Book of Mormon, the Bible and the Qur’an all call for marriage to be between a man and a woman, or multiple women, but never between two men).

4. Because religion excludes homosexual marriages, and as stated, marriage contracts arise from the religious institutions, marriages are by their nature extensions of religious institutions.

5. If we divorce the religious context from marriage, and called the new contract a civil union, we can also dismiss all religiously based moral arrangements from the contract.

6. Once the contract is pro-forma, simply a contract between two or more parties, agreeing to any legal enterprise, no outside morality is required.

7. Two or more parties can agree to any form or formation of joining for whatever period of time the parties feel fit their needs. This flows from the equal protection guarenteed in the Constitution.

For example, I can contract with Party A to build a house. He can subcontract it out to many other parties. As long as all aspects of the contract are satisfied, the contract is valid. The same principles can be applied to a civil contract, because, in fact, the civil contract is exactly that, a contract. It need not be limited in time or to the number of parties.

While not all morality arises from religion, and some religious principles are askew, God does provide for absolutes, or for the Absoulte. Contrarily, Humanistic morality has no preset limits; the limit of this form of morality, by it nature, will always run to the slippery slope. Any true adherent to the form must be willing to look down that very slope and accept what lies at the bottom or be existentially damned to falsehood.

IMKessel:

The etymology of the word marriage

The etymology of the word marriage has nothing no bearing upon the current meaning. The use of etymology is a rhetorical device to attempt to argue ones point while attempting to effect a snow job on the reader. Please go to an etymology site and attempt this argument.

The etymology of marriage, or any other word, links the usage of the word today to its origins. This connection can assist in the understanding of the word's connotations and how the word has evolved over time. I freely admit that I am not an etymologist; that I am not one does not restrict my use of word origins when making an argument, no more so than my lack of being a botanist restricts my enjoyment of the scent of a rose. Since the use of words affect our perceptions, any deepening of our understanding may lead to a new perspective on reality itself. And what is the point of debate and discourse if not to enlighten or persuade? No obfuscation was used during my argument.

So just where is your so called evedence?

I would hope that anyone who chooses to do so, can in fact dismiss all religiously based moral arrangements from the contract. Secular values in America have influenced religious ones and by many standards, have improved them. How do you know which religious principles are askew?? What absolutes does this God provide?? You should look at your religious morality and realize it too is a "slippery slope" in which absolutely anything can be done in the name of religion. I don't see the difference.

And I don't follow your logic in # 6. A religious couple adheres to their religious morality, an secular couple adheres to their own morality. A religious gay couple can adhere to their religious morality. Gay marriage doesn't even exclude religious morality.

You want etymology?

Try the word sodomy.

eiruduais:

oh, and just a little pet peeve of mine: moral arguments can be made that don't involve religion. But that's another discussion for another day;)

Yes! Thank you! I am religious myself, but I don't think I have some special knowledge about morality. I, and I hope other religious, think that morality is based on logical and intrinsic truths. For example, I think murder is really and truly wrong; it's not just wrong because God says it is.

Further, I think that gay marriages could be defined in a moral and just way, without defining them in the context of religion. For example, gay marriages, like straight marriages, are between two consenting adults and do not cause harm to either party. That is to say, there is no way that gay marriage would open up the possibility of a 40 year old man and a 5 year olf girl (for example) getting married. For one, the 5 year old is not a consenting adult and such a marriage could cause irreversible pychological and physical harm. That's why we have laws about age of consent and statutory rape.

Marriage is a social and legal construct that binds two families together in order to legitimize the children produced by the couple and to provide for benefits/insurance that the husband is there to raise the child. Since Homosexual couples CANNOT produce with each other, it is impossible for them to even fall under anything that could be considered marriage. The only way to rationalize homosexual marriage is by redefining marriage. Furthermore, the idea comes from Roman and Greek law without any intention besides property rights between families.

Ceremony and the rest were added hundreds of years afterwards, and even the Romans/Greeks didn't really see them as an important facet.

But thanks for improperly defining marriage, you ass.

"San wrote the following post at 07-05-2007 2:49 PM:

Marriage is a social and legal construct that binds two families together in order to legitimize the children produced by the couple and to provide for benefits/insurance that the husband is there to raise the child."

No, it is about property and inheritance rights. Children, wives and sex are all tertiary issues to the contract of marriage.

"Since Homosexual couples CANNOT produce with each other, it is impossible for them to even fall under anything that could be considered marriage. The only way to rationalize homosexual marriage is by redefining marriage."

Um actually you may want to retract that as well. You do READ the Human Nature section of Slate? It is YOUR idea of marriage that you think will be redefined for SSM and Poly marriage. If marriage is a legal contract there is no legal reason to deny ANYONE from entering into a contract.

"Furthermore, the idea comes from Roman and Greek law without any intention besides property rights between families."

Um, no. Marriage contracts preceed those cultures as well and yes, even in Greek and Roman cutlures it was about property and inhieritance rights with women and children as a tertiary consideration. In fact women didn't even have rights as citizens.

San wrote the following post at 07-05-2007 2:49 PM:

Marriage is a social and legal construct that binds two families together in order to legitimize the children produced by the couple and to provide for benefits/insurance that the husband is there to raise the child. Since Homosexual couples CANNOT produce with each other, it is impossible for them to even fall under anything that could be considered marriage. The only way to rationalize homosexual marriage is by redefining marriage.

Hey, San I Am:

In reading the above, it’s apparent that you have never heard of the word “adoption.”

First of all, this is how it’s pronounced: &-'däp-sh&n

Second, it’s a noun.

Third, below are some definitions and descriptions:

* To take into one's family through legal means and raise as one's own child.

* A legal proceeding that creates a parent-child relation between persons not related by blood; the adopted child is entitled to all privileges belonging to a natural child of the adoptive parents (including the right to inherit).

* The official transfer through the court system of all of the parental rights that a biological parent has to a child, along with an assumption by the adopting parent of all of the parental rights of the biological parents that are being terminated and are assumed in their entirety by the adoptive parents, including the responsibility for the care and supervision of the child, its nurturing and training, it physical and emotional health, and its financial support.

* The process by which a legal parent-child relationship is created between individuals not biologically parent and child; the biological parent gives up all parental rights and obligations, and these rights and obligations are assumed by the adoptive parents.

Your specious syllogistic construct (purpose of marriage is to legitimize children “produced” by couple; homosexual couples cannot reproduce with each other; ergo, homosexual couples cannot marry) is clearly erroneous since you fail to take into account that while homosexual couple cannot reproduce, they certainly can adopt. Your argument is so weak that it’s amazing that the words themselves haven’t crumbled under the sheer weight of your argument’s extraordinary fallaciousness.

Now, before you hurriedly respond with your usual 5th grade level taunting, please take a moment to be a bit more creative with typical troll-like invective; try calling me something other than an ass, idiot, retarded, ignorant ass, illiterate, etc.

I look forward to reading your inevitable name calling; I surely don’t expect anything approaching a reasoned argument or an illuminating point.