Comment Re:Lack of imagination? (Score 1) 1475
Friend. You get the point, but you analyzed it incorrectly.
Yes. Marriage itself (let's not talk about the word, as I don't know when it started to exist) exists well before the time of religions against it. But why? Why did it exist? It's because male and female "produce". To control the bloodstream identification and adding stability to the structure of the society, marriage is naturally borned as a social structure. It's not simply union, and it's not about love. It's more complex than that, serving a social purpose, and since far back in history, its pretty safe to assume it also represents coming up of new borned children in the future (that is, human nature, or animal nature, that attracts them to reproduce, or want to do so).
The foundation of marriage, are the points I mensioned above, if not more. Not just union. And definitely, love is only a good-to-have element (love can be a driver, but it's definitely not a compusory part of it).
Looking at the foundation of marriage, we can safely says it should be male and female. Now, let me put aside if I like same-sex-relationship or not. Marriage's foundation is clear. Union is union, and marriage is more than just that. People's thinking changed. Marriage is less stable than before, and love becomes a must element in most people's mind. But still, marriage is marriage. It's social structure that serves a purpose, it's not about love, though we all want to have this element in marriage. So, make up another term, or just use the term union if you want. But using the term marriage is not respecting the foundation and history of marriage.
Now in government point of view. Government keep record of union/marriages because it provide more structured data about its people. It provide benefits to families because it helps people financially and allow them to more easily consider "producing" new children. Adopting child is something different and have different fund. Governments doesn't look at give birth and adopting child/raising child as the same thing. So in government's view theoretically, they are different.
So from both the point of view of history/foundation of marriage, and the current point of view of governments and how they treate give-birth and adopt/raise child, both really doesn't treat marriage and union as the same thing.
I don't like same-sex-relationship, not because of my religion nor philosophym, but because I'm disgusted when thinking about it, which is a nature of norm human, without adding any thought to it (just like how some same-sex-relationship people may be disgusted by opposite-sex-relationship).
Now, let alone if I agree with same sex relationship or not. If these people are "proud" or think they're "right", free to create another term for it. Be proud of it (I don't care if I don't see it or pretent not to see it). But don't mess with something already have a definition for thousands of years.
World change, thought change, philosophy change, doesn't mean you need to replace old terms, especially when it really are not the same thing. Create new terms, or use some other terms. We'll be more comfort about the terms used for thousands of years. And you are free to feel pround about your own term (if you feel so).
Yes. Marriage itself (let's not talk about the word, as I don't know when it started to exist) exists well before the time of religions against it. But why? Why did it exist? It's because male and female "produce". To control the bloodstream identification and adding stability to the structure of the society, marriage is naturally borned as a social structure. It's not simply union, and it's not about love. It's more complex than that, serving a social purpose, and since far back in history, its pretty safe to assume it also represents coming up of new borned children in the future (that is, human nature, or animal nature, that attracts them to reproduce, or want to do so).
The foundation of marriage, are the points I mensioned above, if not more. Not just union. And definitely, love is only a good-to-have element (love can be a driver, but it's definitely not a compusory part of it).
Looking at the foundation of marriage, we can safely says it should be male and female. Now, let me put aside if I like same-sex-relationship or not. Marriage's foundation is clear. Union is union, and marriage is more than just that. People's thinking changed. Marriage is less stable than before, and love becomes a must element in most people's mind. But still, marriage is marriage. It's social structure that serves a purpose, it's not about love, though we all want to have this element in marriage. So, make up another term, or just use the term union if you want. But using the term marriage is not respecting the foundation and history of marriage.
Now in government point of view. Government keep record of union/marriages because it provide more structured data about its people. It provide benefits to families because it helps people financially and allow them to more easily consider "producing" new children. Adopting child is something different and have different fund. Governments doesn't look at give birth and adopting child/raising child as the same thing. So in government's view theoretically, they are different.
So from both the point of view of history/foundation of marriage, and the current point of view of governments and how they treate give-birth and adopt/raise child, both really doesn't treat marriage and union as the same thing.
I don't like same-sex-relationship, not because of my religion nor philosophym, but because I'm disgusted when thinking about it, which is a nature of norm human, without adding any thought to it (just like how some same-sex-relationship people may be disgusted by opposite-sex-relationship).
Now, let alone if I agree with same sex relationship or not. If these people are "proud" or think they're "right", free to create another term for it. Be proud of it (I don't care if I don't see it or pretent not to see it). But don't mess with something already have a definition for thousands of years.
World change, thought change, philosophy change, doesn't mean you need to replace old terms, especially when it really are not the same thing. Create new terms, or use some other terms. We'll be more comfort about the terms used for thousands of years. And you are free to feel pround about your own term (if you feel so).