Boxley wrote:

just wanted to make my point that marriage is a religious ceremony not a state function and most christian sects require kids.
No more no less

Marriage used to be about a lot of things:

1) Allowing people to have sex.
2) Cementing economic and political relationships between families, especially among the rich or powerful (e.g. dowries).
3) The creation of children.
4) Religious consecration of a union between a man and one (or more) women.

It has had a mixture of religious, cultural, and state aspects for a very long time (recall, e.g. Henry VIII and Catherine the Great). One could probably argue that in prehistory #2 was important before the religious aspects were. Saying that "marriage is a religious ceremony" is incorrect because it's too sweeping a simplification.

I'm unaware that Christian sects require a commitment to children in order to sanctify a marriage. Even in Catholicism, IIRC, the vows mention raising children in the Church, not that children must be produced.

Are you saying that some Christian churches wouldn't permit the marriage of someone who is infertile? Or that a woman who was 60 wouldn't be able to marry in a Christian church?

[edit: typo]

Cheers,
Scott.

You're cracking me up, Box.

Originally you said:

just wanted to make my point that marriage is a religious ceremony not a state function and most christian sects require kids. No more no less

You're now taking what religions say about marriage as being proof of your claim. It doesn't work that way.

Some other comments about marriage:

[link|http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html|Universal Declaration of Human Rights]:

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

[link|http://www.secularhumanism.org/family/declaration.html|Humanist Declaration on the Preservation of Families]:

# Consenting adults have the right to marry, without any limitation based on race, nationality, religion, or sex. Inter-racial, inter-faith, and same-sex marriage should be given full respect under the law. Representatives of all religious and nonreligious belief groups, as well as civil authorities, should have equal authority to conduct marriage ceremonies.

# A marriage of equal partners is the best foundation for personal growth and family happiness. Marital partners are entitled to equal rights when deciding to marry, during marriage, and at the dissolution of marriage. We oppose all attempts to obstruct or reverse the growth of women's equality and to subordinate women within marriage.

Bertrand Russell in [link|http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2528/br_sex-m.htm|Marriage and Morals]:

Christianity, and more particularly St. Paul, introduced an entirely novel view of marriage, that it existed not primarily for the procreation of children, but to prevent the sin of fornication.... (I Cor. vii. 1-9.) St. Paul makes no mention whatever of children; the biological purpose of marriage appears to him wholly unimportant. This is quite natural, since he imagined that the Second Coming was imminent and that the world would soon come to an end. At the Second Coming men were to be divided into sheep and goats, and the only thing of real importance was to find oneself among the sheep on that occasion. St. Paul holds that sexual intercourse, even in marriage, is something of a handicap in the attempt to win salvation (I Cor. vii. 32-4). Nevertheless it is possible for married people to be saved, but fornication is deadly sin, and the unrepentant fornicator is sure to find himself among the goats. I remember once being advised by a doctor to abandon the practice of smoking, and he said that I should find it easier if, whenever the desire came upon me, I proceeded to suck an acid drop. It is in this spirit that St. Paul recommends marriage. He does not suggest that it is quite as pleasant as fornication, but he thinks it may enable the weaker brethren to withstand temptation; he does not suggest for a moment that there may be any positive good in marriage, or that affection between husband and wife may be a beautiful and desirable thing, nor does he take the slightest interest in the family; fornication holds the center of the stage in his thoughts, and the whole of his sexual ethics is arranged with reference to it. It is just as if one where to maintain that the sole reason for baking bread is to prevent people from stealing cake. (M.M.p44-47)

[link|http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm|About.com on the History of Marriage]:

Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species, a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. For instance, ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.

[link|http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html|Gary Leupp in Counterpunch] in response to Mitt Romney's comments on marriage (warning - the language is graphic in places):

[...]

Over the last 3,000 years to which you specifically allude (someone else was telling National Public Radio that the Supreme Justice Court ruling defied 5,000 years, which would make departure from precedent even more serious), there has in fact been no global marriage norm. In some societies, a man and woman, of their own free will, formed a relationship, decided to forge a life-long commitment, got the necessary permissions and ceremonial legitimacy, started having sex after that, and maintained a monogamous union thereafter until one died. That's been very unusual, though. Arranged marriages involving varying degrees of input by the couple (usually less by the female) have been more the norm. (Do you realize, Governor, how radically sections of humankind departed from the prior "history" you so validate, when we started insisting on the freedom of young couples to marry without their parent's consent, and to do so based on "love"---which is another complex and evolving historical category? You might perhaps read Friedrich Engels' still relevant book The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, and learn something about how capitalism and the whole notion of the free market played a positive role here.)

For demographic and economic reasons (rather than articulated moral ones), monogamy has generally been far more widespread than polygamy. But in more societies than not, wealthy, powerful men have enjoyed the polygamous option. That of course goes for the ancient Hebrews, whose example inclined the founders of your church, that of the Latter-Day Saints, to enthusiastically endorse the practice from the church's founding in 1830 up to Wilford Woodruff and his Manifesto in 1890. Then, whether due to a divine revelation, or to a desire to get Utah admitted to the Union (it's not for me to judge) LDS up and banned polygamy. Although, of course, some rogue elements continue the practice which mainstream Mormons now consider illicit.

But to agree with three, or five, or twelve thousand years of random past practice would require you, Governor Romney, to oppose the ban that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has from its inception placed on polygamy. I tell you, though: if you refused to do that, I'd be right there behind you. I'm a tolerant person and I realize that lots of Thai and Nigerian and Saudi guys have multiple wives, and maybe I even sort of lust, Carter-like, in my heart to emulate them. But I'm not a total moral relativist, and as public policy, I think monogamy's the right road, and you should stand firm in its support, never mind the Mormon past, which isn't your fault in any case.

[...]

In short, marriage throughout history has not just been a religious function and it's not just about children.

Really, Box, for someone who has experienced life in so many cultures, I find it hard to believe that you think people should be forced to have a religion in order to be married. Or that you think that married people must have children or else have a "sham" marriage.

Cheers,
Scott.

[link|http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm|The history of marriage]:

In the time of the Roman Empire (17 B.C.- A.D. 476) the lower classes who became Christians later had common law or free marriages. The father would deliver the bride and the agreement of the two was called a consensus to wed. Then eventually as Christianity spread the church interpreted a "free" marriage as a conscience marriage. This agreement meant that each partner was to keep the marriage vows and the marriage intact.

There were Romans who were very wealthy who would sign documents consisting of listing property rights and letting all know that they wanted this union to be legalized and not to be thought of as a common law marriage. Thus this began the official recording of marriages as we do today. Roman men could dissolve the marriage any time as it was a male privilege, not one accorded to females.

In A.D. 527-565 during the rein of Justinian lawyers drew up laws called the Justinian Code and this was a regulation of their daily life including marriage. Up until the time of the Justinian Code just saying you were married was enough.

Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony.

Emphasis added.

I think we're not going to change each other's minds, so I'll let you have the last word.

Cheers,
Scott.