do it....take govt out of marriage....
but marriage in a church is a completely different thing...
marriage is between a man and a woman, and no religion, no culture, no society, or civilization EVER has officially condoned two people of the same sex being "married" to one another...
I'd like to see what our govt is going to do when daddy wants to marry his dtr, or his son, or when brother wants to marry his sister, or when 3 perverts want to marry as a threesome...
I agree, to me it has the ring of rending unto Caesar, or in this case Obamabub.
Let them have it. Gay marriage and civil unions are a joke anyway. Very few of them will be able to marry in a church. Treat it like a joke, and if you’re a florist or a baker or whatever, give them what they want and make money off of it.
Hang on a moment here, you’re actually a few facts short.
First, let me say that I agree with your basic premise: take the government out of marriage. Mind you, they’ll probably keep the term marriage, but the sacrament is a religious thing, and that’s specific to whatever church they will. In the same way that we call an Buddhist couple “married” and an atheist couple “married”, I see no harm in the term being the widespread word for “in a recognized partnership of romantic value” or some-such. Frankly, that won’t change much.
At the same time, I think that churches should be able to marry or not marry according to their own tenants - it should have no bearing on the government as to weather you were married in a courthouse or a chapel, and so no church should be forced to marry anyone they don’t want to.
However, you’re not quite right in saying that no religion, culture, society, or civilization has ever married people of the same gender.
To begin with, the Roman Emperor Nero was married to a man - twice, actually. Straight from Wikipedia: First with one of his freedmen, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the bride, and later as a groom Nero married a young boy, who resembled one of his concubines, named Sporus in a very public ceremony with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse. A friend gave the “bride” away as required by law. The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies. Mind you, I can’t get behind that second one owing to of some of the other nastiness about it that I won’t get into, but it happened, and was celebrated.
Also Roman, Emperor Elagabalus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, as his husband. He also married an athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.
Mind you, the Roman law at the time *did* list marriage as between a man and a woman, so the above couples would not have had recognition under the law, but that sounds awfully familiar - in any case, their society clearly had a precedent for this, even if there was no law about it.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but the Netherlands (2001), Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010) and Denmark (2012), as well as Mexico (and some parts of the US) all recognize marriages between members of the same gender. While I’m sure you meant older cultures, these are all examples of cultures who have officially condoned two people of the same sex marrying.
And just to discuss your last bit:
The major reason incestuous pairings are disallowed - and indeed, the major reason that we actually feel revulsion when considering such things, is because of the genetic problems with it - inbreeding makes negative traits or mutations more likely to become exacerbated and shown. Essentially, our complaints are on reproductive grounds, given that the offspring would be potentially disadvantaged. The argument could be made that a non-reproductive pairing would be fine so long as the people involved were consenting adults; there are cases where this has happened between long-lost siblings who didn’t grow up together, for example (see, studies say that growing up together actually makes you think they’re icky; without that, there is potential for attraction).
You will notice that I’m speaking dispassionately about this - that is because I can repress revulsion for the sake of an argument; this is necessary, in that revulsion alone is not a solid ground for prohibiting something - otherwise I’d be lobbying to ban Twinkies.
Now then, the other example you mention is polygamous relationships - and that one generally is attacked for being exploitative, like in certain fundamentalist Mormon or Islamic sects. However, legislature in place to allow and regulate such relationships would fix that problem; you see, one of the reason that the exploitative forms of these relationships are still around is because *every* form of polygamy is illegal, and thus even in cases where it does no moral harm, it is hushed up and not mentioned - and that creates an environment where abuse can flourish, because they can’t get law enforcement involved.
Actually, I’m going to have to do the conservative thing here and stand in favor of allowing polygamous relationships. Oh, the laws will be annoying to redraft and they’ll get a measure of scorn, but nothing’s preventing loving trios-and-such from living together and sharing what is a marriage (civil, not sacred) already, and I see no reason not to extend the same sorts of civil duties towards such relationships. Frankly, when it comes down to it, I advise monogamy, but that’s not because it’s somehow morally better than polygamy (or, more broadly, polyamory), but because it’s *easier*. Hell, most people can’t properly handle a romantic relationship with *one* other person; adding more moving parts is only going to complicate things, and in the same way that independence is the staple of a lasting monogamous relationship, demanding trust between the couple and avoiding jealousy and things like that, and that’s only going to get harder if there’s another person for you to potentially feel jealous of. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that most people are not suited to it; it would require quite a bit of trust, independence, and self-respect. But that’s no reason not to let couples (trios? Quartets? Hah, can’t wait to hear which terms are PC...) make it work or die trying - that’s what marriage is all about these days.
Now, you might be confused: how can I call allowing polygamy the conservative thing? Well, it’s just like with interracial couples or couples of the same sex; frankly, it’s not of my business who anyone else loves or wants to spend their lives with, just so long as they are both able and willing to give consent and no non-consensual harm is done. If you’re not hurting anyone, your bedroom and home is not mine to meddle in, and nor should it be the government’s. That’s being conservative in my humble opinion.