SO TRUE! But, when you've set yourself up as the final authority of all things...you can't be trusted with anyone else's welfare.

Well...maybe for the church. BUT...for society in general? I don't think ''oblivion'' is the word, unless you mean that the church will always prevail? If you've been to India, for example, there are many groups/belief systems which co-exist happily (for the most part.) ANY TIME you put religion onto a table, you risk venom from the godly. But the rest of us will thrive.

@LucyLoohoo Only societies which do not value pluralism and diversity, and in which the majority seeks hegemonic control, at the expense of minorities. Can you think of any socieities that fit this description?

Returning to religion (and here I’m mainly concerned with the Abrahamic faiths), the defenders of their creed have long believed that to allow new ideas and differences of opinion—such as same sex marriage, for example—leads to eventual compromise, dilution and eventual disintegration of the church as they know it to be. These ‘keepers of the faith’ do not wish, after all, to become Unitarians, which in their minds would be a step closer to unbelief, agnosticism and atheism—the oblivion that awaits all religions. As one of my favorite writers noted:

“From the organization of the first church until this moment, to think your own thoughts has been inconsistent with membership. Every member has borne the marks of collar and chain, and whip. No man ever seriously attempted to reform a church without being cast out and hunted down by the hounds of hypocrisy. The highest crime against a creed is to change it. Reformation is treason.”
Robert Green Ingersoll, 'Individuality' (1873)

Gay Pride events are WONDERFUL FUN! If you want to see the best...go to the West Hollywood GPP! People are in fantastic costumes, everyone is laughing and loving one another. (Well...I can't swear to what's going on under the "MAGA" hats observing the parade but...generally, it's fantastic!)

which is why part of me is always a touch disappointed that this march isn't to remove marriage as a state/government institution all together.

Apart from that I'm all for it, marry who you love.

@BeardedWonder Marriage is just an optional contractural arrangement, mediated by the state, optionally officiated by religious persons at the state's pleasure but is inherently just a civil / secular arrangement. I don't have any problem with people engaging in marriage if they wish to, or not engaging if they don't. The existence of the option isn't the problem, it's the social pressure to consider it mandatory that's the issue.

@mordant Apart from the societal pressure, the divorce process needs work as well. It's ludicrously expensive, alimony needs to be done away with, these implemented 1 year-to-6 months of mandatory 'separation' status before divorce courts just so states can attempt to 'save face' for their divorce statistics, and the cutthroat tactics of lawyers to 'take 'em to the cleaners' ought to be examined.

Child support is basically where it does make sense, but that's because it's no longer just the couple effected in that decision. Again I hearken back to the 'taken to the cleaners' wherein a divorcee will see taking the kids away forever as a way to 'stick it to 'em' which I find sad.

Then again I always find it such an odd concept to marry, and basically bring the state in as a third wheel to the relationship. I'd like to see it taken down a peg to something akin to joining a fraternity, and folks can have all their pomp and ceremony without all the legalese.

If it wasn't a state controlled thing, then who would be there to say that homosexual couples can't get married? The state wouldn't be able to make illegal what is not within their grasp to control. Though yes, folks falling down the slippery slope logical fallacy will be all aghast. Now that the state isn't protecting this institution now people are gonna marry their waifu pillows, and dogs and such like.

Either way, it's going to take an enormous amount of work to either improve the institution/divorce processes to make them viable. At the same time, changing the course of societal 'norms' is just as arduous, though not impossible.

@BeardedWonder I basically agree, children used as pawns is a particularly nasty misuse of the concept of marriage.

As a practical matter one of the reasons you enter into marriage is to be formally mutually responsible for any resulting children. If you make marriage a non government-sanctioned thing then there is no chasing down deadbeat Dads or abusive / neglectful parents and so forth. I don't see how you can have an enforceable contract without government involvement, at least provisionally.

@mordant I still fail to see how a contract provides any practicality to raising a child. It'd be practical to take a course in child rearing long before it'd be practical to get a contract from the state.

The protection is laws in place to protect the welfare of minors (children), CPS (Child Protective Services) will enforce their agency regardless of marital status. Child support can still be collected on, and enforced regardless of marital status.

If having a child is not enough to make a couple "..formally,mutually, responsible for any resulting children.." on it's own merit, then I'd hope they wouldn't have one to begin with.

If they're that reckless of a couple that literally creating a life doesn't jerk them into shape then a marriage contract is just another thing to break down the line. It solves nothing, and only needlessly complicates things. It's a frilly toothpick in a shit sandwich at that point.

The only thing marriage has on anything as far as use goes is will and testaments, and hospice visitation rights.
Then again there are Specialized Power of Attorneys, and Medical Power of Attorneys that can take care of both of those matters without any marriage contract required. Yes I will concede that they are still a contract in their own right, because they simply are.

@BeardedWonder Good points. It is true that one's responsibilities, morally speaking, have nothing to do with legal contracts. However ... it does make things simpler. I found the power of attorney thing to be problematic as in an emergency, a hospital for example might still exclude you from visiting or making medical decisions on behalf of your partner if you're not married, and who has the presence of mind to grab their POA before leaping into the ambulance. In some jurisdictions you can have these things on file in advance but those systems have a way of breaking down when you need them to work.

My wife seems to think being married makes us more committed, I think that is entirely in between her ears though. I was just as committed before we married; didn't change a thing for me. (We lived together for 9 years before making it official ... her choice not mine). What can I say; I'm traditional.

@mordant
Those same systems that store files in advance can also hold a Hospital Visitation Form and I could name a buddy of mine on that sucker. I'd expect the hospital to be far more concerned with saving my/their life than chasing down paperwork at any point in time really. Would it be a heart wrenching, panic-fest, topped with angst, and frustration? Yes.
Will it get resolved in time; hopefully, and in most cases it does.

I'm glad you addressed that the idea of commitment was a matter of perspective, as this entire comment chain was a brain-pick of our respective ones I'd like to think.

I find traditions to be merely so, but I also see a need to provide a way to move beyond them or else we never will. I find marriage to be as antiquated as religion itself personally.
what can I say; I'm progressive.