Ok, I'm not disagreeing that marriage has come about because of mating behaviour. It has become more than that. Although love/companionship are part of other relationships many people feel it is the essence of their reason for marrying; to make a commitment to themselves in front of everyone. In one way I do see your point about the duality of nature, the universe. Then this applies to any hetero relationship (except perhaps any of ours). At the end of the day, marriage is just a legal formality, a piece of paper contract. It is not something unto itself. Isn't it a tad sentimental in lamenting a change in marriage? The union of two genders will still be that for those two involved. A pagan ceremony celebrating such duality calls itself a marriage without requiring a piece of paper. I know what that thought leads to, why can't SS do something similar... but like I said the other day, it was tried with 'civil partnerships' and a mistake (IMO) was made in not allowing the same legal rights and recognitions within that, so the GLB have gone all out for equal marriage rights. If it's what they want, and it isn't going to directly change any individual's marriage (wording will not change that couple, will it) then why not. Like I said it's a legality. The celebration of duality of two sexes will still apply to that couple and can be pronounced/affirmed within the ceremony/vows.Kimare'a wrote;
I didn't reduce marriage to it's 'original definition', I reduced marriage to it's fundamental purpose. That is so important, social scientists assert that if procreation were not a product of mating behavior, marriage would not occur.
I have never denied that many other aspects are a part of marriage. However, love and companionship are a part of almost every relationship. They certainly don't need marriage to exist.
Sorry for being picky, but I see it as being accurate.
I noticed you avoided addressing the issue of 'equating'.
Perhaps it is because of my condition that I embrace engaging life in the union of both genders, instead of as one. There is a vast difference that requires distinction. The degree is often described as the union of Mars and Venus.
At the most intimate level, there is clearly a design where male and female 'fit' together. In gay intimacy that union has to be manipulated to even be marginally safe.
The marriage union can even be seen as restoring us to our earliest roots, a genderless, simple life form.
Enjoyed the subtle humor at the end...
I didn't mean to avoid the issue of 'equating', but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it. If it's the gender thing, then like I already said, each person has aspects of both in themselves and in the relationship. And even opposite sex couples often have aspects of the same. If I were to equate the two types of marriage, then I'd equate on the basis of the relationship and on love. Of course reproduction wise they can't be the same. They are equal in love and each person feeling that they've found their other half. You may say not because of the duality, but there is more to love than gender. Love is genderless as are soulmates. Gender is the mind and the body, not the essence of a person, their soul if you like.
The amoeba, the alpha, and the ?, the omega. Some say the world is becoming genderless, the distinctions blurring; and with hormones in the food chain. An eventual return to the start, like the universe that expanded contracts back again, or God being both the beginning and the end. Ok, I'm well into off topic drivel mode. Way too much coffee this morning.