| While I am at it..
My arguement against "traditional" marriage. (if there is such a thing)
Marriage was originally a method to bestow new ownership of property ( women being said property.). It involved the male buying a wife by providing a dowry (or sometimes a bride price) to her family. In turn, she becomes property of her husband. Should the wife become a widow, not only was she still property of his estate, she had no legal grounds to any other property the couple owned.
Often, both parties are expected to be virgins before their marriage, but in many cultures women were more strictly held to this standard.
Marriage did not involve divorce, and in some cultures had an age limit for women.
Marriage was not available to inter-racial or inter-faith couples.
Marriage was not a legal status, but a religious ceremony.
Marriage was often arranged by the families of the couple inorder to ensure their stability/advancement on a social and sometimes economic level.
These are all things that our society has changed to accomidate the rights of its citizens, and rightly so. Redefining marriage is not a new concept.
Currently other issues, besides the inclusion of homosexuals, are pressing governments to redefine, once again, the dynamics of marriage.
One example would be father's rights, especially in the instance of a "no-fault" divorce where mothers are granted custody by default.
Marriage has never truly had a concrete definition and therefore can not be considered "traditional" or non-traditional. Marriage is a concept that we have created as human beings, and has constantly and consistantly evolved to adapt to our ever changing society/culture. |