WB9YZU
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Madison, WI
Well, deciding what's been around longer really depends on your view of history/religion, and I'm not going to get into that debate.
Marriage existing under a tribal government for the purpose of taxes, property rights, etc makes no sense in a nomadic tribe with a government existing largely to organize for war, distribution of food, etc as you see to be asserting. I'm not asserting that marriage is solely a Christian thing here. If you look at ancient tribes, marriage existed to aid in procreation, you would be guaranteed a partner to bear your children and she would be guaranteed someone to care for her and support her and the children. It was also used as a diplomacy tool. Chief A gives his daughter to Chief B's son to ensure peace between the two tribes.
Again, the gov't usurped marriage to tie in taxes, property rights, health care, etc, when a civil union would've likely worked better.
Now you are just arguing in circles. Substitute your new PC term "Civil Union" with "Marriage" and we have the same basic argument. Why? Because Marriage IS a Civil Union. You can go down to your local courthouse and engage in one right now and not involve religion.
What you haven't worked out quite yet, it that Marriage is not about religion, and it is not about love either. We both stated the reasons for marriage and they are the same reasons.
If any entity usurped anything, it was religion got into the Marriage game, not the other way around.
Ron