What's marriage anyway?

[Liar]

Religious hodgepodge aside.

Why is the government involved in sanctioning it?

It can't be for babies, which are produced in droves without it.

 

[Recidiva]

Law is involved because people living together comes with stuff and bodies, and there are rules about what can be done with stuff and bodies.

Then there are legal rights. Being unwed becomes a problem when you are not next of kin, have no rights or authority.

So marriage is saying "MINE" to varying degrees of bodies and stuff, and extricating them in divorce was more about what the law is about, because "MINE" can fade.

 

[Liar]

If it's mainly about avoiding legal kerfuffle down the road, does this warrant sponsoring them with benefits?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Government became involved to keep unions from happening. Government can enforce its will. Kids blow off parental and religious prohibitions but dare not resist the king. And often the parental opposition wasn't the business of church or anyone when Sonny wanted to marry the widow Jones who was twice his age.

 

[Recidiva]

If it's mainly about avoiding legal kerfuffle down the road, does this warrant sponsoring them with benefits?

No, it's about the kerfuffle that happens with a life together. Whether or not you are the parent of a child or a guardian of a child matters. Because of the child.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

Marriage - known by a variety of names dependent on culture - used to be about forming a family unit in which one passes on ones genes and property to legit heirs which in turns moves society forward as it gives everyone a stake in it. (The property angle is why socialists have always sought the destroy the institution of marriage. Interestingly, I just saw a video of a lesbian writer for Salon, The Guardian and others stating that she is fighting for gay marriage with the end goal of destroying marriage altogether. I guess she is a socialist.) You selected a mate not based on getting the warm fuzzes, but instead on how you would mesh as a child rearing household, social standing within the community etc. This is why most societies which were accepting of homosexuality (such as the ancient Romans) never had gay marriage.

In the sixties or so, it slowly started to be redefined as being about love. If marriage is about love, and we as a society has decided that it is, then there is no reason to treat homosexual and heterosexual unions differently.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No, it's about the kerfuffle that happens with a life together. Whether or not you are the parent of a child or a guardian of a child matters. Because of the child.

I agree with you, but it's also about any property they might acquire.

 

[BotanyBoy]

A legal contract for one person (usually the woman) to get a bunch of the other persons shit.....because reasons left over from 85'.....1885.

I think that's going to be the biggest challenge with gay couples that divorce....

The standard "give her whatever she wants, fuck him" style of family laws in this country simply doesn't work and that's going to fuck some shit up.

Hopefully it will spur some change but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[DesEsseintes]

(Marriage is) an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

Or, the Marxist view is here: Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State. Well worth reading, even if you don't agree with the overall argument, for some of the specific insights.

 

[Recidiva]

I agree with you, but it's also about any property they might acquire.

Yes, that's what it's about, what you do together. That involves things and people and permissions.

There's a reason why 'family' and particular 'chosen family' are the ones with the legal rights at your most vulnerable, illness and trouble.

In this case of Terri Schiavo. No kids, but she was kept alive despite her wishes because her parents fought for a right that belonged to her husband.

So it matters, who is in charge when bad shit happens, because bad shit always happens.

Yeah, if bad stuff, including falling out of love never happened maybe it wouldn't matter.

It isn't about the happy parts of being together, its for when reality hits the fan.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

Or, the Marxist view is here: Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State. Well worth reading, even if you don't agree with the overall argument, for some of the specific insights.

I have read it.

The marxist view is that the institution of marriage should be destroyed, so that women can be sexually free without shame, which will lead to a reduction in prostitution, and so that property may be returned to the State instead of passed to heirs.

 

[BabblingBrooke]

A legal contract for one person (usually the woman) to get a bunch of the other persons shit.....because reasons left over from 85'.....1885.

I think that's going to be the biggest challenge with gay couples that divorce....

The standard "give her whatever she wants, fuck him" style of family laws in this country simply doesn't work and that's going to fuck some shit up.

Hopefully it will spur some change but I'm not holding my breath.

It will be interesting to see how this affects gender assumptions surrounding divorce.

 

[DesEsseintes]

I have read it.

The marxist view is that the institution of marriage should be destroyed, so that women can be sexually free without shame, which will lead to a reduction in prostitution, and so that property may be returned to the State instead of passed to heirs.

Feminist as well as socialist, yes. Marxism doesn't get enough credit for its view of women.

 

[Liar]

Marriage - known by a variety of names dependent on culture - used to be about forming a family unit in which one passes on ones genes and property to legit heirs which in turns moves society forward as it gives everyone a stake in it. (The property angle is why socialists have always sought the destroy the institution of marriage.) You selected a mate not based on getting the warm fuzzes, but instead on how you would mesh as a child rearing household, social standing within the community etc. This is why most societies which were accepting of homosexuality (such as the ancient Romans) never had gay marriage.

In the sixties or so, it slowly started to be redefined as being about love. If marriage is about love, and we as a society has decided that it is, then there is no reason to treat homosexual and heterosexual unions differently.

If marriage is about love, and we as a society has decided that it is, what is the reason for promoting it with special government sanctioned status? The historical rationale is clear. If there still is a rationale behind it, it must be that adults commiting to attempt long term relationships is deemed a greater good for society.

It's a package deal of property rights agreements, custodial agreements, attourney power agreements et al, that could just as well be handled piecemeal.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It will be interesting to see how this affects gender assumptions surrounding divorce.

Thankfully it's largely in the states that have the biggest problems with gay marriage in the first place. Most of the more progressive states have gotten over their gender assumptions with regard to family law...most back in the 90's so it won't be much of a problem there. Kentucky and Georgia might implode though....

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

Here is an interesting article I recently read, published by The Atlantic in 1926.

The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage


Excerpts:

The question whether marriage as an institution should be abolished is now being debated all over Russia with a violence and depth of passion unknown since the turbulent early days of the Revolution. Last October a bill eliminating distinctions between registered and unregistered marriages and giving the unmarried consort the status and property rights of the legal wife was introduced in the Tzik, or Central Executive Committee.

This paragraph reads like something I see on those men's sites:

The new sex relations have also raised certain problems in the cities. During the winter of 1924-1925 some of the older Communists accused the younger generation, especially the students, of indulging in too much dissipation, of squandering health and vitality in loose connections; they blame the girl students for practising frequent abortions. 'You must be either a student or a mother; under present-day conditions you can't be both,' declared one mentor to the modern Russian women students. The latter indignantly replied that love was almost the only cheap amusement left to them and demanded that they be given at least the same opportunity for free abortions that factory women enjoy.

The argument in favor of abolishing marriage, very relevant today:

'Why should the State know who marries whom?' he exclaimed. 'Of course, if living together and not registration is taken as the test of a married state, polygamy and polyandry may exist; but the State can't put up any barriers against this. Free love is the ultimate aim of a socialist State; in that State marriage will be free from any kind of obligation, including economic, and will turn into an absolutely free union of two beings. Meanwhile, though our aim is the free union, we must recognize that marriage involves certain economic responsibilities, and that's why the law takes upon itself the defense of the weaker partner, from the economic standpoint.'

The argument against describes what will happen as a result:

We now impose the responsibility for the consequences of loose living on men who are guilty of it, while at the same time we know that they can't undertake the burden of these responsibilities. Women don't get a hundredth part of the alimony to which they are entitled by court decisions because the husbands simply cannot pay. The proposed law seems to favor women, but it will really work out to their disadvantage, because even now husbands run away from their wives and wives run vainly after their husbands and their alimony. Women enter into temporary connections because they think the law will protect them. We must tell them that only registered marriage can involve economic obligations; then they will be more careful. You say we can put alimony defaulters in prison, but if we tried to do this we shouldn't have enough prisons to hold the guilty. Women will defend themselves better if they know that they can't rely on our laws for defense.'

 

[Liar]

There must be som estatistics on gay divorce rates by now. My guess is that less shotgun weddings would cause the rate to be lower. But that less "let's stay together for the kids" weddings would counter that.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

Feminist as well as socialist, yes. Marxism doesn't get enough credit for its view of women.

Marxism absolutely gets enough credit for feminism, but only from right wing conservatives.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/spyridon-mitsotakis/the-marxist-roots-of-feminism/

And because it's being said by conservatives, left wing progressives don't want to hear it and instead deny feminism's roots in Marxism. Gay marriage is also very marxist.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

If marriage is about love, and we as a society has decided that it is, what is the reason for promoting it with special government sanctioned status? The historical rationale is clear. If there still is a rationale behind it, it must be that adults commiting to attempt long term relationships is deemed a greater good for society.

It's a package deal of property rights agreements, custodial agreements, attourney power agreements et al, that could just as well be handled piecemeal.

There isn't a reason for promoting it, which is why the institution of marriage is going to end in the West.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

Religious hodgepodge aside.

Why is the government involved in sanctioning it?

It can't be for babies, which are produced in droves without it.

Hear! Hear!

One of the primary reasons for marriage was to settle paternity. At common law, and still in many states in the USA, the law establishes an irrefutable presumption that a baby born in wedlock is the progeny of the husband, regardless of any contrary evidence.

Now, with modern genetic testing, there is never any doubt as to paternity. I believe government at all levels should get out of marriage and in this area focus only on child support. It would always be the duty of each parent, regardless of family status, to see to the support of any child. Of course, this would still allow for adoption, etc., which could transfer the duty to another where the government determined the interest of the child was not likely to be harmed.

As far as the property and other rights that come with marriage, these can be handled through agreements, wills, agencies, etc., which the government would still recognize and enforce under traditional contract and probate law. On the other hand, government would leave marriage entirely to the churches, mosques, synagogues, wiccan circles, etc.

 

[DesEsseintes]

Marxism absolutely gets enough credit for feminism, but only from right wing conservatives. And because it's being said by conservatives, left wing progressives don't want to hear it and instead deny feminism's roots in Marxism. Gay marriage is also very marxist.

On this, madam, it seems that we are of one mind. Fascinating links from The Atlantic, too - thank you for those.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

Hear! Hear!

One of the primary reasons for marriage was to settle paternity. At common law, and still in many states in the USA, the law establishes an irrefutable presumption that a baby born in wedlock is the progeny of the husband, regardless of any contrary evidence.

Now, with modern genetic testing, there is never any doubt as to paternity. I believe government at all levels should get out of marriage and in this area focus only on child support. It would always be the duty of each parent, regardless of family status, to see to the support of any child. Of course, this would still allow for adoption, etc., which could transfer the duty to another where the government determined the interest of the child was not likely to be harmed.

As far as the property and other rights that come with marriage, these can be handled through agreements, wills, agencies, etc., which the government would still recognize and enforce under traditional contract and probate law. On the other hand, government would leave marriage entirely to the churches, mosques, synagogues, wiccan circles, etc.

These are fine arguments on why marriage should be destroyed.

 

[Liar]

Marxism absolutely gets enough credit for feminism, but only from right wing conservatives. And because it's being said by conservatives, left wing progressives don't want to hear it and instead deny feminism's roots in Marxism. Gay marriage is also very marxist.

I'd say that Marxism and first wave feminism comes from the same place (industrialisation and urbanisation) and happened in tandem. From what I can grasp, they seem more intertwined than one having it's roots in the other.

 

[pointless]

more importantly does anyone really know what love has to do with it? as far as i can tell love is nothing but a secondhand emotion.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

These are fine arguments on why marriage should be destroyed.

"Destroyed"? That's not really the issue. I'm just arguing that it should be a legal nullity.