• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Meaning of Marriage Has Changed

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Marriage was created as a means to regulate the sexual behavior between men and women in order to produce children and to ensure that those children would be with their own mother and father. Marriage has been essential to the survival of every society in order to produce each subsequent generation.

However, what many social conservatives refuse to acknowledge is that the meaning has changed significantly over the last hundred years due to political and technological advancements.

Women's rights: When women were allowed to work they had a viable alternative option to child rearing.

No fault divorce: When divorce became easy, married people could separate for their own happiness regardless of the negative effect it would have on their children. Remarriage after divorce (serial marriage) has become a viable option which means that children are no longer ensured to be raised by both their biological mother and father.

Paternity tests and Child support: Men no longer have to be married to a woman to be financially obligated to a child he has with her. Marriage is no longer necessary for paternal obligation.

Welfare: Welfare provided state benefits to unmarried mothers, so that they could raise their children without the biological father.

Child welfare: Parents who fail to provide for their children can now have their children taken away by the state and placed in foster homes or adoptive homes. This increases the likelihood that children will not be raised by their biological mother and father. Furthermore, adoption has demonstrated that children can be raised very well by non biological parents, particularly if they are adopted in infancy.

Contraceptives and abortion: These gave women control over their own reproduction and so they could have sex and not end up tied to a man by pregnancy. Marriage became a matter of choice rather than a necessity.

In vitro fertilization: With this, heterosexual intercourse is no longer even needed to produce babies. Using sperm donors or surrogates, even people of the same sex are able to have children.

Parenting: As social science has advanced our understanding of parenting, it has become repetitively clear that same sex couples can raise children just as well as opposite sex couples. There is no scientific support for the notion that children raised by a man and woman are inherently better off than those raised by parents of the same sex.

As you can clearly see. Even without same sex marriage, the meaning of marriage has changed dramatically. For better or for worse, in the modern age, heterosexual intercourse, procreation, and child care are not necessarily conjoined.

Same sex marriage is not a radical redefinition, but simply an attempt to reconcile the legal definitions of marriage with its modern meaning which is now far removed from its traditional heritage. Social conservatives would like to return back to the old meaning but unless you can roll back all the aforementioned advances, it is virtually impossible. The meaning of marriage will continue to change.

There have been a lot of consequences as a result of these changes, including increases in broken families, single parents, foster families, adoptive families, and step families. The basic unit of society continues to shift from the family to the individual.

Nobody knows what will happen to marriage down the road or what the consequences will be to a modern society. It cannot be argued that the state has an interest in maintaining an obsolete meaning of marriage just to exclude same sex couples. To do so would simply make the institution into a means of discrimination and would do nothing to serve society. Keeping same sex couples from marrying does not return marriage to a meaning of regulated procreation and child welfare and it will not stop the meaning of marriage from continuing to change with social and technological advances.
 
Last edited:

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Marriage as we think of it is less than 200 years old. For centuries, marriage was a property arraignment; the wife was property hence the dowry. Either that or it was arraigned by one's parents to increase the family fortune or it's political/social standing. I dont get why conservatives try to rewrite history to be this idyllic time when only good boys and girls got married after meeting in the park and falling in love. Marriage for love is a brand new idea.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Marriage as we think of it is less than 200 years old. For centuries, marriage was a property arraignment; the wife was property hence the dowry. Either that or it was arraigned by one's parents to increase the family fortune or it's political/social standing. I dont get why conservatives try to rewrite history to be this idyllic time when only good boys and girls got married after meeting in the park and falling in love. Marriage for love is a brand new idea.
Um...people got married for love in ancient Greece and Rome. And aside from polygamy, marriage has stuck pretty true to the two parent model.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Um...people got married for love in ancient Greece and Rome.
Not actually. Love was thought to come AFTER the marriage. Our idea of love and the Greco-Roman idea of love were fairly different, ours being a lot less emphatic about the role of lust and sensuality.

And aside from polygamy, marriage has stuck pretty true to the two parent model.
Again, not true. As far back as the Code of Hammurabi, provisions for multiple wives were made and made clearly. The myriad of rules dealing with it suggests it was not a rare occurrence.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Not actually. Love was thought to come AFTER the marriage. Our idea of love and the Greco-Roman idea of love were fairly different, ours being a lot less emphatic about the role of lust and sensuality.


Again, not true. As far back as the Code of Hammurabi, provisions for multiple wives were made and made clearly. The myriad of rules dealing with it suggests it was not a rare occurrence.
Well for the sake of this thread we will assume that marriage as social conservatives conceived of it was about 200 years old. The whole point of my thread is that the modern meaning of marriage is considerably different than the traditional definition. Have you actually read the full post?
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well for the sake of this thread we will assume that marriage as social conservatives conceived of it was about 200 years old. The whole point of my thread is that the modern meaning of marriage is considerably different than the traditional definition. Have you actually read the full post?
I'm simply pointing out that an appeal to tradition, when talking about marriage, is an extremely weak argument to make.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm simply pointing out that an appeal to tradition, when talking about marriage, is an extremely weak argument to make.
I didn't really make an appeal to tradition. This thread has nothing to do with supporting the notion of a traditional definition of marriage. You probably should have read beyond the first paragraph.
 
Last edited:

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I didn't really make an appeal to tradition. This thread has nothing to do with supporting the notion of a traditional definition of marriage. You probably should have read beyond the first paragraph.
I'm well aware of that, I was posting information in support of your position
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How come not even one Conservative wants to discuss this topic?
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Marriage was created as a means to regulate the sexual behavior between men and women in order to produce children and to ensure that those children would be with their own mother and father. Marriage has been essential to the survival of every society in order to produce each subsequent generation.

However, what many social conservatives refuse to acknowledge is that the meaning has changed significantly over the last hundred years due to political and technological advancements.

Women's rights: When women were allowed to work they had a viable alternative option to child rearing.

No fault divorce: When divorce became easy, married people could separate for their own happiness regardless of the negative effect it would have on their children. Remarriage after divorce (serial marriage) has become a viable option which means that children are no longer ensured to be raised by both their biological mother and father.

Paternity tests and Child support: Men no longer have to be married to a woman to be financially obligated to a child he has with her. Marriage is no longer necessary for paternal obligation.

Welfare: Welfare provided state benefits to unmarried mothers, so that they could raise their children without the biological father.

Child welfare: Parents who fail to provide for their children can now have their children taken away by the state and placed in foster homes or adoptive homes. This increases the likelihood that children will not be raised by their biological mother and father. Furthermore, adoption has demonstrated that children can be raised very well by non biological parents, particularly if they are adopted in infancy.

Contraceptives and abortion: These gave women control over their own reproduction and so they could have sex and not end up tied to a man by pregnancy. Marriage became a matter of choice rather than a necessity.

In vitro fertilization: With this, heterosexual intercourse is no longer even needed to produce babies. Using sperm donors or surrogates, even people of the same sex are able to have children.

Parenting: As social science has advanced our understanding of parenting, it has become repetitively clear that same sex couples can raise children just as well as opposite sex couples. There is no scientific support for the notion that children raised by a man and woman are inherently better off than those raised by parents of the same sex.

As you can clearly see. Even without same sex marriage, the meaning of marriage has changed dramatically. For better or for worse, in the modern age, heterosexual intercourse, procreation, and child care are not necessarily conjoined.

Same sex marriage is not a radical redefinition, but simply an attempt to reconcile the legal definitions of marriage with its modern meaning which is now far removed from its traditional heritage. Social conservatives would like to return back to the old meaning but unless you can roll back all the aforementioned advances, it is virtually impossible. The meaning of marriage will continue to change.

There have been a lot of consequences as a result of these changes, including increases in broken families, single parents, foster families, adoptive families, and step families. The basic unit of society continues to shift from the family to the individual.

Nobody knows what will happen to marriage down the road or what the consequences will be to a modern society. It cannot be argued that the state has an interest in maintaining an obsolete meaning of marriage just to exclude same sex couples. To do so would simply make the institution into a means of discrimination and would do nothing to serve society. Keeping same sex couples from marrying does not return marriage to a meaning of regulated procreation and child welfare and it will not stop the meaning of marriage from continuing to change with social and technological advances.
thanks. i for one am happy that women no longer have no options. i think we'll be okay.......after all, our society is still evolving.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
/right-wing ultra conservative nutcase mode on

No, goddamnit!! Marriage has ALWAYS BEEN the same. It is a TIME HONORED tradition that's been around EXACTLY as it is now for THOUSANDS of years!!! If we modify the US definition of marriage now, the WORLD as we know it WILL ****ING END. The very act of changing the words will open the first 4 seals and the four horsemen will be unleashed!!!

/right-wing ultra conservative nutcase mode off
 

winston53660

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,265
Reaction score
10,128
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
/right-wing ultra conservative nutcase mode on

No, goddamnit!! Marriage has ALWAYS BEEN the same. It is a TIME HONORED tradition that's been around EXACTLY as it is now for THOUSANDS of years!!! If we modify the US definition of marriage now, the WORLD as we know it WILL ****ING END. The very act of changing the words will open the first 4 seals and the four horsemen will be unleashed!!!

/right-wing ultra conservative nutcase mode off
/right-wing ultra conservative nutcase mode on

And taxes will go sky high!!!

/right-wing ultra conservative nutcase mode off
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
probably because it's a sane, reasonable post.
I certainly wouldn't want to take part in the discussion now that it's been exposed as nothing mroe than an excuse to bash idealogies, as evidenced by this post and the two following.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I certainly wouldn't want to take part in the discussion now that it's been exposed as nothing mroe than an excuse to bash idealogies, as evidenced by this post and the two following.
that was certainly a joke, jallman.
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
that was certainly a joke, jallman.
I'm just saying that it probably seemed that way to you and I certainly didn't get offended but...I can see how others would immediately get defensive over it.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'm just saying that it probably seemed that way to you and I certainly didn't get offended but...I can see how others would immediately get defensive over it.
point taken.
 

The Baron

DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,803
Reaction score
798
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
“How come not even one Conservative wants to discuss this topic?” - Critical Thought

“/right-wing ultra conservative nutcase mode on

No, [@]oddamnit!! Marriage has ALWAYS BEEN the same. It is a TIME HONORED tradition that's been around EXACTLY as it is now for THOUSANDS of years!!! If we modify the US definition of marriage now, the WORLD as we know it WILL ****ING END. The very act of changing the words will open the first 4 seals and the four horsemen will be unleashed!!!

/right-wing ultra conservative nutcase mode off”
- rivrrat

Because the above is the level of maturity and intelligence that we can expect to deal with and people with maturity and intelligence really don’t have the time, patience or inclination.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because the above is the level of maturity and intelligence that we can expect to deal with and people with maturity and intelligence really don’t have the time, patience or inclination.
OMG it's one of THEM!

:bolt
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I find this kind of argument odd and really inappropriate. The idea is that the institution of marriage is already being destroyed so what is one more step towards that end and that honestly is not helping the case for legalizing gay marriage. Like saying homosexuality is something people are born with this argument only provides a more compelling reason to reject same-sex marriage. As far as I am concerned the best argument a person can give for same-sex marriage is that this is nothing more than legal recognition of a committed relationship between two people that confers upon them certain legal privileges not enjoyed by unmarried couples and there is no reason to deny anyone access to these based solely upon that person's choice in partners. In fact, creating such access to an institution encouraging commitment in homosexual couples is more likely to alleviate certain social problems in the homosexual community.

The "this thing is going down anyway" defense is so weak it annoys me.
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,978
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Marriage was created as a means to regulate the sexual behavior between men and women in order to produce children and to ensure that those children would be with their own mother and father. Marriage has been essential to the survival of every society in order to produce each subsequent generation.

However, what many social conservatives refuse to acknowledge is that the meaning has changed significantly over the last hundred years due to political and technological advancements.

Women's rights: When women were allowed to work they had a viable alternative option to child rearing.

No fault divorce: When divorce became easy, married people could separate for their own happiness regardless of the negative effect it would have on their children. Remarriage after divorce (serial marriage) has become a viable option which means that children are no longer ensured to be raised by both their biological mother and father.

Paternity tests and Child support: Men no longer have to be married to a woman to be financially obligated to a child he has with her. Marriage is no longer necessary for paternal obligation.

Welfare: Welfare provided state benefits to unmarried mothers, so that they could raise their children without the biological father.

Child welfare: Parents who fail to provide for their children can now have their children taken away by the state and placed in foster homes or adoptive homes. This increases the likelihood that children will not be raised by their biological mother and father. Furthermore, adoption has demonstrated that children can be raised very well by non biological parents, particularly if they are adopted in infancy.

Contraceptives and abortion: These gave women control over their own reproduction and so they could have sex and not end up tied to a man by pregnancy. Marriage became a matter of choice rather than a necessity.

In vitro fertilization: With this, heterosexual intercourse is no longer even needed to produce babies. Using sperm donors or surrogates, even people of the same sex are able to have children.

Parenting: As social science has advanced our understanding of parenting, it has become repetitively clear that same sex couples can raise children just as well as opposite sex couples. There is no scientific support for the notion that children raised by a man and woman are inherently better off than those raised by parents of the same sex.

As you can clearly see. Even without same sex marriage, the meaning of marriage has changed dramatically. For better or for worse, in the modern age, heterosexual intercourse, procreation, and child care are not necessarily conjoined.

Same sex marriage is not a radical redefinition, but simply an attempt to reconcile the legal definitions of marriage with its modern meaning which is now far removed from its traditional heritage. Social conservatives would like to return back to the old meaning but unless you can roll back all the aforementioned advances, it is virtually impossible. The meaning of marriage will continue to change.

There have been a lot of consequences as a result of these changes, including increases in broken families, single parents, foster families, adoptive families, and step families. The basic unit of society continues to shift from the family to the individual.

Nobody knows what will happen to marriage down the road or what the consequences will be to a modern society. It cannot be argued that the state has an interest in maintaining an obsolete meaning of marriage just to exclude same sex couples. To do so would simply make the institution into a means of discrimination and would do nothing to serve society. Keeping same sex couples from marrying does not return marriage to a meaning of regulated procreation and child welfare and it will not stop the meaning of marriage from continuing to change with social and technological advances.
Valid points, but most conservative fundies don't necessarily approve of any of those changes, either.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The "this thing is going down anyway" defense is so weak it annoys me.
That wasn't the argument I made. But nice strawman.

The argument I made was the meaning of marriage has already permanently changed form the "traditional definition" as a direct result of those advances. Are you advocating that we rescind all those advances that have collectively changed the meaning of marriage over the last century? If you aren't advocating that position then you really aren't defending the alleged "traditional definition" of marriage you are just trying to keep same sex couples out.

The argument you guys are basically making is, at one point in time marriage was about procreation and so now we want to ban same sex couples from marrying.
 
Last edited:

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Valid points, but most conservative fundies don't necessarily approve of any of those changes, either.
It doesn't really matter. Unless they support rescinding all of them, their argument that they are defending a "traditional definition" of marriage is moot.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Because the above is the level of maturity and intelligence that we can expect to deal with and people with maturity and intelligence really don’t have the time, patience or inclination.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Well you can respond to my post.
 

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
The meaning of marriage has changed and even to this day it can have multiple meanings.

What social-Conservatives need to realize is that there is a difference between the Law of man and the Laws of Religion / God. Lawful marriage is not the same as a marriage in faith. Homosexuals simply want legal equality. The First Amendment ensures that the Law cannot change the functions of a Church and the Church should not chance the functions of Law.

Stop trying to legislate your religion. It doesn't work that way.
 
Top Bottom