- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- 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.
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.Um...people got married for love in ancient Greece and Rome.
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.And aside from polygamy, marriage has stuck pretty true to the two parent model.
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.
I'm simply pointing out that an appeal to tradition, when talking about marriage, is an extremely weak argument to make.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.
I'm well aware of that, I was posting information in support of your positionI 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.
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.
How come not even one Conservative wants to discuss this topic?
/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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The "this thing is going down anyway" defense is so weak it annoys me.
Valid points, but most conservative fundies don't necessarily approve of any of those changes, either.
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]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?