[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

You mentioned the original ideal of marriage was for the "purpose of ensuring progeny" here: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=369

Historically, procreation was the primary purpose of marriage.

This is part of my point. That primary purpose has dramatically changed in the modern world. I would submit that in our society, there is only a tiny fraction of the population that enters marriage for the purpose of having children.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

In a world where marriage is mainly about companionship and access to government benefits, maybe it doesn't matter whether two individuals entering it can procreate. On the other hand, if the function and purpose of something changes, maybe it's not that thing any more, but rather something else.

That could very well be, but I suspect this is not the case. The fact remains that when one describes the purpose and function of marriage in the modern world that this description will be relational in nature for the promotion of intimate companionship. I think that you will find this is indeed the primary shape of what marriage has become.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I actually think a reasonable compromise would be for the gov't to get out of the marriage business altogether and allow any two human beings to register a civil union with the government. Then NGOs can administer marriages as they see fit, whether that's the Catholic Church or the local lawn bowling club.

This would seem on the surface to be a solution, but given that marriage has been adopted into the Christian tradition as a sacrament, it will never fly.