- May 10, 2004
"the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history"No, not necessarily with religious connotations. Follow the citations given. Wikipedia is fine in this context.
Silver Persian said:2) Even if it were true that marriage always had been a religious practice, this says nothing about whether marriage has to be a relifious practice, or whether it should be a religious practice.
Feel free to suggest a religion it has come from, then, considering it certainly predates most of the religions currently practiced today."the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history"
Straight from your wikipedia article, so that would mean noone is at liberty to say whether it originated from religion or not.
I now expect someone to tell me that i've missed something.
Exactly. Let there be marriage for everyone, no matter what religion, race or sexuality. Besides, the final hurdle should always be the in-laws. It's an equality thing. Who is someone to deny rights to another person for no reason?The important fact regarding the 'religion vs politics' question for the origin of marriage is that it certainly predates Christianity, which in turn means that Christians do not have a fair case for arguing against it as a secular practice. If the Churches themselves refuse to marry gays (irrespective of state/secular practice), then that too is acceptable (their freedom of choice etc).
touche!traditions change.. yes?
women, negros, indigenous australians etc are being granted more rights than what they were previously afforded... so why shouldn't the gay community be allowed a small thing that has absolutely no effect on the heterosexual community?