Comment: About the Etymology of Matrimony

(See in situ)


About the Etymology of Matrimony

I definitely think that true thinking is in important sense taking care of language and one can only truly take care of something one understands as well as possible. To think as caring for language always means being highly conscious of the etymologies of words.

In the Wiki-link it says: The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition."

This would mean that male-gay marriage at least does not make sense at all if the word originates from 'mother' unless the mother is taken only in a metaphorical meaning. But does that also mean that a woman who is not a mother, that is, in 'state', 'action' or 'condition' of mother is not actually married. And is the original bond or union here not between the man and woman but between the woman and the baby which makes a woman a mother? Or does the 'action' which makes the mother originally into the 'condition' or 'state' which is the presupposition of motherhood, that is, the sexual act which produces a child and in that sense also the mother the original matrimony. But only a sexual act that conceives a child makes the union of marriage. The sexual act that does not produce a child and for that matter a mother is not a matrimony. Would this also mean that in etymological sense a woman who has children with many men is actually in some sense married to all of them, meaning in some metaphysical sense. Here metaphysical means both what we understand normally by metaphysical, but also in the etymological sense of 'meta' meaning 'after'. So physical act of sex came first and then 'after' came the child and the motherhood, that is, the matrimony which are the meta-physical of physical act of sex.

In this sense homosexuals would not be able to be in matrimony in the etymological sense of the word as their physical act of sex will never be able to produce the meta-physical motherhood.

If this train of thought has any sense in it what kind of consequences would it have? For example, would it mean that instead of the idea that which many Christians have, that is, "no sex before marriage", it be turned pretty much upside down as now the idea would perhaps be "no marriage before motherhood".

These were few extempore thought that came from reading your comment. I am not even sure do I agree with them myself if I would think the matter little bit more. So they are truly extempore, that is, thoughts that I have not thought before reading your comment.

Thanks for inspiring my mind! By the way Lysiandad I always enjoy reading your comments.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--