Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski
Huh? I just don't get that one.
|
I don't get it either.
In general, I found the appeals to "history" or "the ages" vague, unconvincing, and probably inaccurate (from a historian's point of view)
E.g.:
Quote:
|
Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special privileges aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these privileges to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.
|
I would consider this to be a very presentist definition of marriage. Or, at best, very clumsily worded.