It might be worthwhile to look back through history at the arising of the institution we call "marriage" and to discuss how and why it came into being in the first place.

It's been around a long, long time...probably longer than the most ancient historical records we have access to...and it was normally seen as a sanctified and officially recognized family arrangement between a man and a woman....or a man and several women (in some cultures). There may have been a few other variations too, but if so, they were quite rare.

Why was such a custom even started?

Well, the reasons appear quite simple.

1. Protection of the (physically) weak: In most societies of the past it was seen as absolutely necessary to protect the women and children from the many dangers of life. Men (who handled weapons, hunted, and went to war) were seen to be the protectors...as well as a very common source of danger! That is, men were seen as potentially dangerous to the unattached women...and not surprisingly. And children were in need of a father to provide for them and protect them.

2. Long term security for raising children: It takes roughly 20 years to raise a child (a bit less in more primitive societies), and it was seen as necessary to provide a stable family coupling of two people (and their close relatives) in order to provide the basis for doing that. Thus, a marriage with marriage vows and legal ties and responsibilities. This was a way of securing the future of the tribe or nation.

3. OWNERSHIP of the spouse: Now there's a thorny issue! Not very well looked upon by people nowadays, but that's what it amounted to. By marrying a woman, a man in effect OWNED her from that point on and had exclusive rights to intimacy with her. (She also owned him and had exclusive right to intimacy as well, of course, but the men tended to be in a far more powerful position in that regard...and tended to break the rules more casually as well, because they had the power to). Furthermore, the man basically OWNED the children that came along, and was thereby increasing his stake in the world and extending his power into the future.

And those, I think, were the most significant issues driving the formation of the institution of marriage in ancient times.

How much of the above relates to a gay marriage?

A little of it, but not much. A gay marriage is a different proposition that has been added on like an extra branch. I have no objection to it, because I see no reason why gays shouldn't marry if they wish to...but it's a departure from most of the basic social issues that drove ancient societies to create the institution of marriage in the first place.

It has more to do with the modern ideas of self-gratification than it does with anything else. "This would make me happy, so I want it." Well, okay, fine. Self-gratification is perfectly all right as long as it doesn't take people into completely irresponsible behaviour.....but it's a bit disingenuous to think that a gay marriage is the same type of arrangement in a social sense as a heterosexual marriage, because a gay marriage is not based on the very wide set of safety and security issues that a heterosexual marriage has been based on through the last many thousands of years.

Therefore it's not really the same thing, in my opinion. Perhaps that's why some traditionalists find it inappropriate to be called a "marriage" and would prefer to call it a "civil union".

It is a civil union, no doubt about that...it is as soon as it's been made official. But is it a marriage in the original sense of the word? That depends on what you think the original sense of the word was, doesn't it? In ancient times, and until very recently, the institution of marriage was seen by virtually everyone as the creation of a safe nest in which to raise children. That was its primary purpose in people's minds...and it's still seen that way in most poorer countries...but not so much in North America or in the affluent regions.

That's because we now live in an age of consumerism, instant grafification, selfishness, and a very short attention span. This has affected how a lot of people look at marriage. They're not out to take on responsibility, they're out to gratify themselves. It's marriage on a trivial level...short term gratification. And that's why so many marriages are breaking up and so many children have only one parent in the home any longer.

Not good.

If I was gay, I think I'd just live with my partner. Who needs the legal arrangements? But you say there are financial advantages to the legal arrangements? Okay. Well, then, perhaps I would go for the "civil union". That could be a good practical move, I suppose. Would I feel that I had to have the same kind of official church (or other type of) "marriage" as heterosexual people have in order to be happy and fulfilled? Naw...I'm not interested. But that's just me. ;-)

Heck, if that's what it takes to make a gay couple happy...well...I won't stand in their way.

But I do think this whole brouhaha has arisen out of a society of self-indulgent, spoiled people who probably have way too much time and money on their hands, and way too many choices that they can't decide among, and they are getting a bit silly on account of it all.