?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Ys
ysabel
..:: .::: .:: .::.::.:.: .. ..:: .::: .:: ....

May 2011
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31

Ys [userpic]

When you see people talking about traditional marriage, it's sometimes good to remind them what that means:

So I really am "Daddy's girl." And no man can approach me as an independent agent because I am not my own, but belong, until my marriage, to my father. At the time of my marriage, my father gives me away to my husband and there is a lawful change of ownership. At that point and at that point only, I am no longer bound to do my father's will. Instead, I must answer to my husband. If you read the rest of Numbers 30 you will see that this is the case. Notice that there is no intermediate point between Daddy and Hubby. There is no "limbo land" where the girl is free to gallivant on her own, "discovering herself" as she walks in fields of gold, apart from any defining covenant head, doing whatever she sees fit.
[...]
Dating was invented within the last 200 years. Prior to that time, marriage always involved much more input from the parents, and "trial relationships" leading up to marriage (what we now call "dating") were not conducted at all.
Traditional marriage was about property rights (where the woman was part of the property) and the merging of families, whether the couple serving as the agent of said merge wanted it or not. This is part of why polygamous marriage (one man, multiple women) was not all that odd — it was no stranger for a man to own multiple women than it was for him to own multiple cattle. There's quite a lot of biblical and historical support for that view of marriage. And there's a reason why, to this day, most marriage law is property law.

In feudal societies, marriage in the nobility was a political way to combine families, a way to jockey for power. This was true in both the West and the East.

Marriage as a representation of something between two (or more) people who want to spend their lives together is a relatively new concept, as is the idea that the people getting married have any say in the matter.

Remember these things when people talk about "defending traditional marriage". Either they're lying (quite possibly to themselves as well as everyone else) or they don't mean at all what it sounds like.


For the record... That site quoted above may sound a little far out. But as far as I can tell they're dead on about the biblical view of what marriage means. It's a transfer of property (the daughter-now-wife) as a way of binding families together. Without any say from the woman involved.

Which makes homosexual marriage nonsensical in any traditional sense. A woman can't own anything (and thus can't own another woman), and if a man owns another man, that's slavery, not marriage. Neither can be used to bind families together via traditional property rights.

Just something to think about.

Current Mood: workingworking
Comments

Shut up, stop posting and get back in the kitchen. Wench.

Given that I'm not married per any traditional definition (and quite possibly can't be), I think you have to speak to my Dad about that. I'm sure he'd have some choice words about what a terrible daughter I am.

On the flip side saying that marriage has always only been about love is also a huge ass lie. The tradition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman, or women as the case may be. So why use the term at all? My sister and her partner do not call themselves married although their relationship is just as serious. The term has so much baggage attached to it I do not understand why gays want to fight for it. If I were gay I'd be fighting for a simple acknowledgement by the government which grants the same benefits as a marriage contract and is as simple to obtain. I just don't think this is the right battle to be fighting.

Given that the fundamentalist line - and they're the ones driving this debate - make no distinction at all between civil marriage and civil unions/domestic partnerships, and given that they control the Republican party's social agenda, I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference.

In a more ideal world, maybe, government would do CUs and leave the M word to churches. But this isn't a particularly ideal world.

I don't think you listened to what I said. And I'd like to point out the Democrats dropped their support of gays just for some votes. It's not just Republicans who are assholes. The government shouldn't have any say in this at all, straight or gay. That is what I push for, get the government the hell out of our personal lives entirely. This fight is UNWINNABLE at this time. There is no state in the union which is going to pass gay marriage and most will probably end up banning it. Is it fair? Hell no. But it's how it is. If you can't win this fight you pick some other approach, marshal your forces, and try again.

On the flip side saying that marriage has always only been about love is also a huge ass lie.

Um, how is that on the flip side? I believe that was my entire point. The idea that marriage had anything to do with love is very, very new.

I'll address the other question in a seperate reply.

This raises an interesting point. While I think that anyone in *any* relationship should have the opportunity to commit lifelong and gain any benefits, why call it marriage with all the 'negative' viewpoints that go with it, both from a historical and modern day view? Why not come up with something new and special that has a whole different (and better) meaning? :)

See, I think that's the best idea, and always have.

Unfortunately, it's not very practical. There is so much legal precedent in "marriage", so much tied up in there, that it's unlikely to be workable.

Not to mention the fact that most folks who want to deny marriage to nontraditional families want to do so as a way of reminding Those People to stay in their place where they belong. It's not about this or that right, it's about not approving of Those People's "lifestyles", about making sure that they're somehow punished for "choosing" that "lifestyle". Letting them have something that's just as good would be approval, after all; you have to deny them something.

I agree. And this time keep the government out of it so you don't need to worry about them gettin involved in your business.

Solarbird covered the gist, but essentially, marriage as it is today is nothing like what it 'traditionally' was, for any sane definition of tradition. Nor is it anything like 'sacred'.

Marriage is a secular construct with significant legal ramifications, from taxation to administrivia to visitation to powers of attorney and so forth. The fact that it happens to have the same name as a Christian religious sacrament does not make it the same entity.

In my world, it is reasonable for anyone to say, "Hey, those people have this right and I don't. Why is that?" To me, that's part of the principles on which this country was founded and is the basis for all sorts of things, including suffrage and emancipation.

That is independent of fighting for the right to have one's union recognized religiously — that's purely a church matter, purely within one's own church.

In an ideal world, these two things would have different names, and it would be obvious that they're separate. Because they don't, things are muddled, and the end result is that some people's religious views are driving government policy to deprive other people of the same rights the ones with the religious views enjoy.

Most of the folks I know who are all hot on "protecting traditional marriage" would be pretty pissed if, say, someone was in power and arranged to make taking communion illegal because it violated their religious beliefs. I suspect that would generate quite the flood of feelings of religious oppression. I suspect it would get even bigger if, say, donations to Christian churches had an extra tax applied.

I don't see how this is any different. As far as I can tell there are Christians who are quite happy with the current state of things because they're the ones on top and not the ones being screwed, and would be quite put out were the roles reversed.

Mmm, Chalcedon Foundation. Mmmmm, Christian Reconstructionists. Mmmm, Dominionist Theory. Mmmmmm, crazy fascist bastards.

Bad solarbird! They're NOT for EATING!

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . . can I have some?

Please! After all, they'll make more!

Good point. However, I really doubt that most of the folks arguing for "traditional marriage" even know anything about Roman marriage customs. *grin*