I'm sure a cursory google would find the documents and research showing the roots of marriage are in the property transaction. So, no it is not a verbal tradition.



Marriage has always changed based on the needs of the society in question. In societies where there were more men than women we find polyandry, and in societies with either more women or a strong hierarchical structure we find polygyny. In societies where homosexual relationships were considered normal there are examples of homosexual marriages.

In our modern American sense, marriage has dual meanings, the secular side which involves all of the rights granted to married couples and all the government benefits, and we have the religious side which is fluidly defined based on which religion one follows.

I, unlike the original poster, do not want to touch the second half. Religious institutions have a right to define their own beliefs and practices. They are a choice. I choose to belong to my church, you to yours, and some choose to belong to none.

We cannot, however, continue to deny people the same rights and opportunities based simply on who they wish to partner with (assuming all are consenting adults). Either our government, the secular institution that governs over us all regardless of our individual faiths and beliefs, must treat everyone equally or they must not offer those benefits.

Taking marriage to its most secular format, a contractual agreement between two parties to cohabitate, share expenses, and share incomes, to be mutually responsible for each other. The government has found that recognizing stable relationships such as this format creates more societal stability, regardless of the genders involved. Not less. The government has found that people who cohabitate and share expenses and incomes are significantly financially different than their peers who do not cohabitate and share incomes and expenses. Because of that acknowledged difference, the government gives those who do cohabitate and share tax benefits. Currently, the tax codes exclude homosexual partners from receiving those benefits, despite the fact that they are the same as their heterosexual peers who also cohabitate and share incomes and expenses.

Based on the purely secular understanding of marriage, allowing two men or two women to marry does not alter its meaning, its intent, or anything else about it.

The religious meaning and intent of marriage changes from church to church, religion to religion, faith to faith. I read an article recently about an Indian man marrying a cow, with the blessings of his local temple and his village. That wouldn't fly in a Christian church, or anywhere in America, but it made sense in their culture for their definition of marriage. For obvious reasons that marriage wouldn't be valid here, but you see my point. Yes?