marriage equality in California

[financeguy]

But this doesn't matter one bit. It doesn't matter in the biblical definition and it doesn't matter in a legal definition.

Only if you set aside the historical and cultural reasons why marriage arose in the first place.

 

[martha]

Only if you set aside the historical and cultural reasons why marriage arose in the first place.

Ownership of women, consolidation of property, etc.

And before you get yer boxers in a bunch, please go back and reread all the old threads on this topic, where people OTHER than me have posted articles backing me up.

 

[martha]

Well, of course there are indeed plenty of heterosexual couples who get married without intending to have kids.

Exactly. We're just like the gay couples.

Or not, because many of them have kids already.

 

[BVS]

You're never prepared to give any conservative argument the benefit of the doubt, are you?

Conservatives' motives are ALWAYS suspect, aren't they, because, hey, they're probably only making up arguments to hide their deep-seated homophobia and hatred of all things good, liberal, progressive and true.

Look back at the two paragraphs I quoted when I said that, it's the textbook definition of a double standard, forgive me for being passionate about calling that out.

And as far as this whole "all conservatives are suspect" bullshit, you've tried to call me out on it before, it isn't going to work. If you come to me with an argument that is based on logic and reasoning I will always be willing to discuss the issue with you. If you come to me with pseudo-science, status quo, emotional response only, or what you heard on a blog, then you aren't going to get a whole lot of respect.

 

[BVS]

Only if you set aside the historical and cultural reasons why marriage arose in the first place.

Did you read my post? I spoke about two definitions, the two that are brought up all the time in this debate, only one that should. And neither of those mention children.

 

[financeguy]

Ownership of women, consolidation of property, etc.

Wow. That's straight from the Andrea Dworkin 'Great Big Book of Bad Men and How They Oppressed Us for Millennia' school of thought.

And before you get yer boxers in a bunch, please go back and reread all the old threads on this topic, where people OTHER than me have posted articles backing me up.

I will, if I have time. But I seriously doubt that these articles conclusively prove that 'ownership' of women and consolidation of property were the only factors in the historical development of marriage.

If I were going to read up on the cultural and historical reasons for the development of marriage, I'd probably read someone like Roger Scruton - http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200602140942.asp (though I certainly wouldn't agree with him on everything).

 

[financeguy]

And as far as this whole "all conservatives are suspect" bullshit, you've tried to call me out on it before, it isn't going to work.

You're right, I did try and call you on it before. We'll agree to differ on how effective my 'calling out' was. I'd argue that actually it was a reasonably fair 'calling out', and incidentally a contributor who I've previously strongly disagreed with on this forum PM'd me expressing agreement with what I'd said.

If you come to me with an argument that is based on logic and reasoning I will always be willing to discuss the issue with you. If you come to me with pseudo-science, status quo, emotional response only, or what you heard on a blog, then you aren't going to get a whole lot of respect.

Now the second thing you've mentioned is interesting, and possibly unintentionally revealing. Are you suggesting that the status quo is always wrong? That arguments based on the status quo are always illegitimate?

Well, see, while I'd readily agree that arguments based PURELY on "This is the way things are" or "this is the way we do things, and that's it" are insufficient, I don't believe that arguments based on the status quo are always illegitimate, because I tend to believe there are often good historical and cultural reasons for why things are the way they are.

 

[martha]

I will, if I have time. But I seriously doubt that these articles conclusively prove that 'ownership' of women and consolidation of property were the only factors in the historical development of marriage.

I looked for yolland's post on the subject, but quite honestly, I don't enough of a shit too look any further. You can be offended and scared of me and I really don't care anymore.


eta: You seem to think that feminist thinkers and authors are bad and to be mocked. That it somehow makes you more legitimate and me less so to "accuse" me of thinking like they do. If that makes you feel better, then go ahead.

 

[martha]

because I tend to believe there are often good historical and cultural reasons for why things are the way they are.

At times, yes. This isn't one of those times.

 

[BVS]

You're right, I did try and call you on it before. We'll agree to differ on how effective my 'calling out' was. I'd argue that actually it was a reasonably fair 'calling out', and incidentally a contributor who I've previously strongly disagreed with on this forum PM'd me expressing agreement with what I'd said.

To each it's own...

Now the third thing you've mentioned is interesting, and possibly unintentionally revealing. Are you suggesting that the status quo is always wrong? That arguments based on the status quo are always illegitimate?

Well, see, while I'd readily agree that arguments based PURELY on "This is the way things are" or "this is the way we do things, and that's it" are insufficient, I don't believe that arguments based on the status quo are always illegitimate, because I tend to believe there are often good historical and cultural reasons for why things are the way they are.

Status quo can be used to help back up a point, or as example, but never as reasoning.

 

[financeguy]

I looked for yolland's post on the subject, but quite honestly, I don't enough of a shit too look any further. You can be offended and scared of me and I really don't care anymore.

I am neither offended by you nor scared of you, and I'm at a loss to think where such a perception would derive from.

 

[martha]

I am neither offended by you nor scared of you, and I'm at a loss to think where such a perception would derive from.

Every time I bring up a feminist point, you are much too quick to take offense and belittle it, fell threatened by it, and discount its legitimacy.

 

[financeguy]

eta: You seem to think that feminist thinkers and authors are bad and to be mocked. That it somehow makes you more legitimate and me less so to "accuse" me of thinking like they do. If that makes you feel better, then go ahead.

Actually, it isn't that. It's more that you appear to view feminism as being utterly above criticism, whilst I tend to be sceptical of philosophies or movements that put themselves as above criticism.

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.

 

[financeguy]

Every time I bring up a feminist point, you are much too quick to take offense and belittle it, fell threatened by it, and discount its legitimacy.

Basically, that's simply incorrect.

Having said that, if you had, for example, started your post by stating, for example, 'I believe that marriage arose historically as a vehicle for men to own women and acquire property' or 'I agree with the well known feminist writer who theorised that marriage principally derived from male oppression of women', you might come across as someone who was capable of listening to differing points of view from your own - which currently, to me at least, you don't.

It's just that you often put forward your analysis as FACT (much like Bonovosupastar, frankly).

 

[martha]

It's just that you often put forward your analysis as FACT .

So if I find time to locate a piece that supports my view, you'd treat it as legitimate? Even if it was written by a :gasp: feminist?

 

[martha]

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]

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.

 

[phillyfan26]

Financeguy said "exclusively," which is the key word he was using.

 

[martha]

Financeguy said "exclusively," which is the key word he was using.

I didn't ever say exclusively. That was his word.

 

[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.

 

[financeguy]

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.

 

[martha]

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?

 

[phillyfan26]

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.

 

[martha]

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.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[phillyfan26]

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.

 

[financeguy]

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]

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.

 

[BVS]

Indeed, there were benefits for both genders.

One can probably find "benefits" in any relationship regardless of how one sided or repressed.

 

[Irvine511]

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.