marriage equality in California - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-06-2008, 08:14 PM   #76
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Actually, it isn't that. It's more that you appear to view feminism as being utterly above criticism
Nope.

Yes, I tend to see things from a feminist viewpoint, which you continually dismiss every time, no matter what the context.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 08:15 PM   #77
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy

If someone is going to claim that marriage derives historically exclusively from a male desire to 'own women', then yes, I'll disagree with such a view, as I'd tend to feel that such a view derives from bad logic and bad history.
Notice that in the original post, I also said to consolidate property. It also consolidated family ties. Women were traded as commodities in marriages for a very long time. To think otherwise is to not have a clear grasp of history. Go look it up.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 08:17 PM   #78
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 05:03 PM
Financeguy said "exclusively," which is the key word he was using.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 08:18 PM   #79
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
Financeguy said "exclusively," which is the key word he was using.
I didn't ever say exclusively. That was his word.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 08:24 PM   #80
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 05:03 PM
Well, you addressed his point as if he was dismissing it entirely. He was merely saying that there are more reasons for the creation of marriage than you listed, and I agree with that. Sure, you said a couple of other things, but his point is that, even those thing included, it's not boxed in like that.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 08:27 PM   #81
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Nope.

Yes, I tend to see things from a feminist viewpoint, which you continually dismiss every time, no matter what the context.
I will listen to feminist perspectives, or any other perspectives, where they are well argued, have due regard to history and culture, and are capable of accommodating differing points of view.

If Gloria Steinem and Camille Paglia registered on the forum tomorrow, I would probably agree with, respectively, 80-90% and 60-70% of what they would have to say. Whether you choose to believe that or not is a matter for you, but you'd be mistaken if you were to view me as someone who has not read feminist literature, and you'd also be mistaken if you were to view me as someone who has no sympathy for feminism.

But, as you're absolutely determined to paint me as some kind of feminist hater, to be honest, I might as well inform you that I really wouldn't view you as being a great advocate for feminism, at this point, based on some of the things you've said on here.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 08:27 PM   #82
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
Well, you addressed his point as if he was dismissing it entirely. He was merely saying that there are more reasons for the creation of marriage than you listed, and I agree with that. Sure, you said a couple of other things, but his point is that, even those thing included, it's not boxed in like that.
Where the hell did I say those were the only reasons?
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 08:31 PM   #83
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 05:03 PM
Not explicitly stated, implied. The point is, his point was to note that there were many reasons for the creation of marriage, and to limit it to those things in this discussion is a bit disingenious. And I agree with that. You've made the point down to essentially three things: power over women, consolidating family ties, and consolidating property. Is your point to point out that marriage wasn't created as an absolute good? I think we can all agree on that. If it's not that, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 08:52 PM   #84
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
If it's not that, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
That the idea of marriage as an institution of love and companionship is pretty new. All these romantic ideas about how marriage has always been about love and procreation only are poppycock.

It was about continuing the species, consolidating families, property, and inheritance. Women were the means to that ends. The women of a family were married off strategically to get what the family wanted: connection, property, the right name. So many people who don't like the idea of the gays getting to get married like to think that modern marriage has always been the norm. It wasn't.

Now, when I have the time and I decide to care enough, I'll find that lovely post yolland made about this same subject.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 09:18 PM   #85
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


That the idea of marriage as an institution of love and companionship is pretty new.



this is really what gets to the heart of the issue, and it also ties into what Nathan has been saying -- the redefinition of marriage.

over the last 100 years, and moreso over the past 50 years, marriage has indeed been redefined by heterosexuals as the position of women in society has changed dramatically. women are now fully capable of earning as much as their husbands, and even conceiving without a husband, nor is there any sense of shame in a woman having sex or children or a fully actualized life outside of a man, thus changing the traditional definition of marriage.

today, more than ever, marriage is an institution into which two individuals *choose* to enter into on the basis of a variety of characteristics -- love, companionship, respect, admiration, affection, and a desire to start a family of one's own -- but i don't think anyone goes into marriage thinking that they'd be unable to survive without it. not so 100 years ago. and said characteristics, now, have absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. i can surely find a way to raise a child, should i so choose, and martha gets at it exactly -- children are often, but not necessarily, a result of marriage. i see absolutely no difference between myself and Memphis and martha and her husband. seriously. is a gay couple, really, any different than an infertile straight couple, or a straight couple who chooses not to have children?

what's happened is that the gender dynamics that have been a part of the understanding of marriage, a part of the dynamic of a marriage, have been obliterated. this isn't to say that men and women are the same, but it IS to say that men and women no longer *need* one another in any manner other than they choose to need one another. martha could divorce her husband and get along quite well by herself. she wouldn't *need* him, or *need* to get married like she might have 100 years ago.

so, yes, marriage has been redefined. and, to my mind, for the better. i do challenge anyone who would wish to return to a marriage based upon gender roles whereby a man provides a woman with financial security and labor, and a woman provides a man with housekeeping, children, and occasional sexual relief.

i see no role for the requirement of an opposite sexed pairing in marriage. and, no, not even when it comes to children. not every marriage wants children, not every marriage can have children, and for those that do, there are ample ways to go about having a family that does not involve procreation.

the stabilizing nature of a one-on-one coupling, especially as it relates to the rearing of a family, again, is not predicated anymore upon opposite sexed pairing. it's good for both partners, male/male or male/female, insofar as they choose to be part of this coupling. and insofar as the coupling becomes destructive or hurtful, both partners can willingly separate from one another. it is about choice, it is not about survival.

the modern nature of marriage has no need to maintain any kind of exclusion.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 09:21 PM   #86
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
That the idea of marriage as an institution of love and companionship is pretty new. All these romantic ideas about how marriage has always been about love and procreation only are poppycock.

It was about continuing the species, consolidating families, property, and inheritance. Women were the means to that ends. The women of a family were married off strategically to get what the family wanted: connection, property, the right name. So many people who don't like the idea of the gays getting to get married like to think that modern marriage has always been the norm. It wasn't.

Now, when I have the time and I decide to care enough, I'll find that lovely post yolland made about this same subject.
I follow you now. Thanks for the detail.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 09:23 PM   #87
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


That the idea of marriage as an institution of love and companionship is pretty new. All these romantic ideas about how marriage has always been about love and procreation only are poppycock.

It was about continuing the species, consolidating families, property, and inheritance. Women were the means to that ends. The women of a family were married off strategically to get what the family wanted: connection, property, the right name. So many people who don't like the idea of the gays getting to get married like to think that modern marriage has always been the norm. It wasn't.

Now, when I have the time and I decide to care enough, I'll find that lovely post yolland made about this same subject.
All of these are legitimate points, in and of themselves, and most of it is probably correct, but once again you seem to have ignored the positive reasons why the contract of marriage might have historically developed into such an important position in society - for example, as I previously mentioned, the benefits as regards bringing up children in a reasonably stable environment, the benefits for woman that their husbands were required to stay loyal - and vice versa for men, that their wives were expected to stay loyal - and also, if we go far back, in history, if we go back to tribal societies, that in a sense, women were protected by marriage, in terms of, for example, not being carried off by the neighbouring tribe, or whatever. So it could certainly be argued, in early tribal societies, that marriage protected women.

When you state 'women were the means to that ends' - yes, of course they were A means to that end, and SO WERE MEN. Men, also, were a means to the end of a stable society - a society founded on strictly observed social contracts, ritual, defined roles for men and women, etc. These may well be outdated concepts and no longer useful in today's society, but we'd be foolish to deny the very good reasons - at the time - why they evolved in the way that they did.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 09:25 PM   #88
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
so, yes, marriage has been redefined. and, to my mind, for the better. i do challenge anyone who would wish to return to a marriage based upon gender roles whereby a man provides a woman with financial security and labor, and a woman provides a man with housekeeping, children, and occasional sexual relief.
Indeed, there were benefits for both genders.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 09:30 PM   #89
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Indeed, there were benefits for both genders.
One can probably find "benefits" in any relationship regardless of how one sided or repressed.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 09:32 PM   #90
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Indeed, there were benefits for both genders.


and now both genders are able to provide these benefits for themselves.

marriage is really about ideals now, about aiming to be something greater as a couple than you could be as an individual.

and i see sexual orientation as having nothing to do with this.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com