Those who oppose redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, has marriage EVER been redefined in ANY way?

Marriage has continually changed throughout human history. Different cultures have had different definations of marriage just as different religions also have different definations of marriage. Hinduism as at least 12 definations for marriage (types of marriage)....there are more in some parts of India (though Indian law made some of these illegal...such as polygamous/polyandrous marriages that were common in some parts of India up until India became an independent nation and decided to 'codify' marriage).

Marriage has not always been about love. Marriages have been about untiying peoples/nations and making alliances that way, about merging wealth/property/assets. In some ancient civilizations marriage was specifically for either politics or business and raising children while those in the marriages were free to have lovers outside of the marriage.

Thus marriage has continued to evolve as human cultures evolve and change throughout times. Marriage has changed to meet the needs of the people of that culture at that time and place and is often also a reflection of the people themselves. The fact that most of our marriages today are for love reflects something about our culture and people today when compared to people in the past when most marriages were about politics or business. Marriage is one good historical indicator to see how people and civilizations and cultures have changed and evolved over time (whether for the better or for the worse, they are constantly in change).

Marriage was a bargain struck to continue the patriarchal family line in days gone by... Nothing to do with love, everything to do with reproduction as a business. And the girls were YOUNG...under 10 in many cases, although marriages weren't consumated until she was at least...ooo...12 or 13?! And the men were often MUCH older. Read some damn history!

Modern "unions of love" were only invented a century or so ago. A gay couple is in my eyes no different to a straight couple... Why would they be? The only ways they are different are those ways that are NO ONE'S BUSINESS BUT THEIR'S...

I can only assume that Paul S. Bullfighter is being sarcastic. People used to get married at the age of 11 or 12, or be contracted in marriage even younger (in some cases involving what would probably would now be defined as pedophilia, as older men married much younger women). Marriage for love is a very recent innovation on the concept. I could go on.

Yes. If you're looking for a religious reference, I might point out that according to the bible, the human race was populated by the union of Eve and her sons, i.e. incest.

Polygamy has been and is a part of many cultures.

In the US, marriage between races was forbidden.

In Native American society, marriage between two men was commonplace.

In seventeenth-century China and nineteenth-century Africa, for example, the institution of same-sex marriage seems identical to opposite-sex marriage.

On the site mentioned below, there's a lovely piece by Plato called Symposium, where he discusses the mystery of one's desire for another person, including those of the same sex.

Kings David and Solomon only married one woman, why is that not good enough for all? Oh, wait...

What was King David's relationship to Jonathan? (1)

Look at the work of John Boswell. I think he made some wishful assumptions, but he does make important points.

In the US, the state definition of 'marriage' should have no religious influence, as per the non-establishment clause of the Constitution.

Yes! Previous answers describe changes. Mariage in the past for what evereason was to procreated offspring--the next generation--to cement the bond between two families. Same sex marriage does not unite families nor procreate children aka grandchildren/greatgrandchildren so this too shall pass.

I don't think there was ever need to redefine Nature; only when Nature was contradicted.

In my opinion, no one is opposed to same-sex couples living married to each other. The opposition is to their audacity to demand that it be official just like straight marriages.

If it had not been defined in any way... would same sex marriage not already be legal? Therefore you can turn to the law if you want a way to define marriage.. :)

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

No. In all cultures throughout the entire time that humans have existed, marriage has always been a ritual in which an adult man of at least 18 years of age and an adult woman of at least 18 years of age have mutually agreed before God to bind themselves as one until death do they part, for the purpose of providing a loving family in which to bear and raise children.

There has never been any deviation from that, the only normal definition of "marriage".

Furthermore, they've always lived in a single-family home, and the wife has always stayed home to raise the children, cook, clean, shop and sew for the family, while the man worked at the trade passed down to him by his father. All other forms of family life are illicit and perverse.

The children have always had exactly one grandmother, whose role has always been to give the grandchildren gifts and to bake cookies for them, and to come over on Thanksgiving to help the mother in the kitchen while the men watch football. If there are two living grandmothers, one has always been obliged to stay out of the family life, so as not to confuse the children.

Married couples have always been required to have a cat and a dog as pets. The dog must chase the cat, but not catch it, and both pets must cooperate when it is time to beg for table scraps.

The mother and the father must have sex, man on top, whenever the woman is fertile, for the sole purpose of becoming pregnant. All children must be baptized into the church to which the father and his parents belong - the mother must join that church as well. That may sound like a hardship, but because she is always of the same religion as the father, at most it means moving to a new congregation.

The father must chop wood for the stove, and mow the lawn - and I don't mean on one of those disgusting rider mowers. He is also obliged to tinker with the car on Saturdays, whether he can fix anything or not, and to discuss the car's mileage with the father who lives next door. They're also required to complain about taxes and the local sports franchise.

----------------

Jeff S seems to think that I'm being sarcastic, like he obviously is. Nothing could be closer to the truth.