Why does marriage exist?

I posed the question in the title, but the simple reality of it goes back beyond our generations of understanding. Why does it exist in the first place?

Lets be realistic here, tribes went and crushed other tribes, then after much of that civilizations were born, but as we well know rape and pillage was customary, how did marriage become a way of life??? What IS THE BASIS OF MARRIAGE???? Why is it so important???

Any homosexual that can't answer those basic questions has no right to ask for the ability to marry anyone...

 

People value and seek marriage for varied reasons.

But the answers to the questions you ask, are debatable... and many will certainly argue over the same.

 

No offense but you offer no answer...

 

Historically it served as a way to ensure daughters was "tranferred" from the care of their fathers to the care of their husbands, usually for a dowry. It served as a reflection of the dominance and supremacy of men and was like that for thousands of years before the "modern" definition came along. Today in most of the western world marriage is a free and equal partnership - a mere shadow of it's former misogynistic self. The female equality movement changed the dynamics of the family unit and marriage now treats both partners as equals. Due to the social differences and legal inequity of the genders fading into insignificance/nonexistence, same-sex marriage has started to emerge as the next logical "step" in the continuing evolution of the institution.

There's arguments for why it shouldn't exist at all since it could be seen as "discrimination" against single people and those who are related, but I believe it serves a purpose for couples given the way the law affects people's lives. I think as long as marriage exists it should honour life-long commitments between "legal strangers".

 

Because women seek guaranteed security for their feelings and their babies .
Men have to sacrifice their nature to enter marriage and yes this applies to gay male couples.

 

Actually marriage developed in many different ways. The kind of marriage we see today is the result of the development of cities and even more so with a division of labor in family development. Sexual repression also played a role.

Today marriage is more about a public expression of a love between two people often blessed by the God the people worship.

Actually rights are not decided by what you know about history. Marriage today is remarkably different than in the ancient world that was the foundation of western culture, even more different here in the US than in many African, Asian, and Pacific Island cultures. But the rights attached to the government endorsing of a relationship is something that should be offered to all who are free to consent and enter into said relationship without coercion. Your premise is simply a shinier form of bigotry. mazel tov.

 

That's another point I forgot to mention - it tames the male nature to **** everything that moves. Given it's social status and the consequences of infidelity once married (being financially penalised through divorce), it helps maintain monogamy. For gay men this would be especially useful in helping to curb rates of HIV infection/STDs in my opinion, which benefits society as a whole.

 

I don't think there is actually an answer. The question is particularly 'broad'.

I think it would mean more to people overall, if you asked them:

What does marriage mean to you?

Different question, more pertinent (IMO).

 

Says who?

 

Government grants privileges special privileges to heterosexual couples and denies them to homosexual couples. Because homosexual couples live under the same government, they have every right to advocate for equal privileges. That is all that needs to be said.

 

From BC Roman civil law.

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....

 

Nonsense. Dowry isnt something that was practiced that widely. Wasnt a fundamental part of marriage. Even matriarchial societies had marriages limited to men and women.

 

Heterosexual couples are given special privilege because of the potential of procreation. What possible justification could there be for limiting marriage to sexual couples? The potential of an orgasm? Doesnt really create any need for government to even be concerned.

 

Why not?

BTW the question "Where did marriage come from?", has absolutely no relevance to today.

 

Since we are talking about the government licensing and regulationg the relationship, the more pertinents question is why government licenses and regulates the relationship. I know a woman who married an old fart twice her age to gain access to his wealth. Which has nothing to do with governments intent in licensing and regulating the relationship.

 

bc roman law and matrimony have nothing to do with the legal institution of marriage.

 

I think my question is just as (if not more) pertinent, as marriage is being seriously considered by many more (and more deeply) Americans today. It is clear that the "licensing and regulation" WILL change, but exactly what changes remain to be realized.

We'll see.

 

the potential for procreation has nothing to do with marriage.

 

It is why marriage is limited to heterosexual couples in 41 states. Whether you view it as relevant or not, couldn't be more irrelevant

 

it's not relevan in any state. You are right about one thing though, what I view it as is irrelevant. the only thing that matters is reality. and here in reality, the potential of procreation is utterly meaningless for who can marry. it's not mentioned anywhere in any marriage law or marriage license application. Sexual intercourse isn't either.

 

Two gay men, there are no women giving birth and two lesbians there is no man to be presumed to be the father.

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage; ....

 

long ago refuted. it's a paternity law, not a marriage law. it's not binding. if daddy isn't daddy, he has no responsibility.

this repitition of a previously refutd argument has nothing to do with my statement that........

 

Try to notice, you are not contradicting a thing Ive said. STILL, Two gay men, there are no women giving birth and two lesbians there is no man to be presumed to be the father.

 

And back to the question of the thread.

Family. Thats why marriage exists. Mothers and fathers providing and caring for their children together as opposed to apart or not at all. Because only the mother and father are obligated by law to provide and care for the child, upon the birth of the child. Otherwise they only have the hope of someone voluntarily assuming that obligation. And because the most frequent alternative is for a child to be born to a single mother,and an absent or unknown father. And no one else voluntarily assuming that obligation.

Two gay guys adopting a baby IS NOT the "natural and fundamental group unit of society". It is a very recent and novel invention having nothing whatsoever to do with society. As the Supreme Court says, "marriage and procreation" are a fundamental right. Not marriage and orgasms. The limitation to men and women, as old as the institution itself, has nothing to do with excluding homosexuals and is instead an intent to include ALL with a potential of procreation. By encouraging all heterosexual couples to marry, all heterosexual couples with the potential of procreation are encouraged.

 

Its all FAMILY law. Mothers and fathers providing and caring for their children.

Texas Statutes - FAMILY CODE
• Title 1 THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP
• Title 2 CHILD IN RELATION TO THE FAMILY
• Title 3 JUVENILE JUSTICE CODE
• Title 4 PROTECTIVE ORDERS AND FAMILY VIOLENCE
• Title 5 THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND THE SUIT AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/FA