Trigger words: Marriage (9) marriage (4)
Indicator sentences: Marriage is basically a homonym. It has a religious meaning and a legal meaning.
Negotiation parts: The whole debate around marriage equality, in my eyes, boils down to the refusal of both sides to give up the word 'marriage'. I'd argue that marriage should retain its legal definition and be divorced (ha!) from religion. Religious marriage should be called 'matrimony' Isn't the term for having been through a matrimony a marriage? That might not come out quite right but hope you can understand it. I got a good chuckle out of your divorced idea. I agree both sides want it and I think the easiest way to fix it, is change the legal side. That is quite easy, just change a word on a document and BAM! Done.
Trigger words: Marriage (9) marriage (6)
Indicator sentences: You say that marriage is a historically religious concept. But what we now call science also used to fall under the auspices of religion, in pretty much every society.
Negotiation parts: Also, religions have historically provided what we now call a legal or governmental framework. The Hebrew scriptures, for example, outline penalties for various behaviors they define as crimes. So if we are free now to separate science from faith, and church from state, then we are free to choose whether the word "marriage" belongs solely to religion, or if it is one of those matters, like criminal penalties, divorce, and the rights of adult daughters to disobey their fathers, that we now place in the legal/governmental realm. Your appeal to history also breaks down inasmuch as the definition of marriage has alreadychanged drastically over the years, in the hands of both religious and governmental authorities. Marriage in many major religions used to allow for one man and many wives, but few religions and governments allow this now. Marriage used to be synonymous with male ownership of a wife, and everything that she owned. In most religions, the wife didn't even have to be willing; she was the property of her father to begin with and had to marry whomever he chose to sell her to. The laws in western nations have put an end to this idea of ownership in a marriage, at times over the objections of religious authorities. Marriage used to be until death, without exception, a permanent state of being. Now it's quite temporary in some cases, at the insistence of legal authority. So this couples-only, egalitarian, potentially temporary, entirely voluntary arrangement is still called marriage, when it used to be polygynous, involuntary for the woman at least, male-dominated, and permanent. If we can change a thing that much without changing the name, we can allow same-sex couples and still call it marriage. I see your points and your are right. The idea and definition of marriage has changed a lot but how long did that take to happen. Since the government is changing this, it means more to people rather than if society, just changes it. Its going to change, just give it time. This event is similar to events like you said when polymony was made illegal, was as many people affected, no. But similarities can be see as the definition of a word was changed by a government and people were affected.