02-04-2010, 10:09 PM | #1 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
Gay marriage
To what degree is civil marriage in place, or originally put in place, to protect women?
And the same question for children. To what degree is civil marriage in place to protect children? Gay marriage, by definition, does not pair two people of different sex, thus class protection is not necessary. One might find the argument for the protection of marriage to be more compelling for gay marriage, as there are gay couples with children. But on the other hand, since gay couples, as far as I know, are much less likely to have children, the argument is relatively weaker for gay marriage than traditional marriage. How come in the arguments for and against gay marriage, I never hear discussion of marriage laws as traditional protections of women? |
02-04-2010, 10:48 PM | #2 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
02-04-2010, 10:50 PM | #3 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
|
02-04-2010, 11:08 PM | #4 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
The objection to needing protection would be offensive to line of argumentation.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
02-04-2010, 11:44 PM | #5 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
I'm saying that it is a historical reason for marriage laws.
Am I incorrect? |
02-05-2010, 02:09 PM | #6 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Rhetorical question.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
02-05-2010, 07:53 PM | #7 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
|
02-05-2010, 08:20 PM | #8 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
Where I served my mission:
1. 99% of people did not have a government-recognized civil marriage. As in they did not have some kind of government record that they were married, or that the marriage was sanctioned or approved by the government. 2. Marriages were essentially common-law. 3. The LDS church did not require persons to be "offically" married in order to be baptized. Although in other areas, with the same custom, the church did require it. Why the difference? I don't know. 4. I suppose that one reason that official government-recognized marriage was unnecessary is because the inheritance system there is matriarchal, not patriarchal. When a man and woman marry, the man lives on the woman's land with the woman's clan. Thus there isn't the same need to economically protect the women and children. At least that is my hypothesis. Ingenious? I knew that the system was matriarchal, but I had never thought about why. |
02-12-2010, 07:56 PM | #9 |
I must not tell lies
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,103
|
Have you heard about LGBT activist Kitty Lambert? Two days ago in Buffalo, she and her partner tried to obtain a marriage license but were denied. Then she turned to the crowd and asked if any men would marry her, and a complete stranger named Ed accepted, and they sat down and the very same clerks who denied her before then gave those two the license.
Here is video of the incident and more: http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/buffalo...-kitty-met-ed/ |
02-14-2010, 12:40 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DC
Posts: 995
|
I"m not sure you are right about historical origins. Historically, couples didn't divorce, and women didn't inherit, so how would they have been protected? I'm not sure of the time line for government regulation of marriage. I do know that divorces originated in the mid 19th century, and in those days they would be granted to a specific couple (a man) in the form of an individual piece of legislation. I doubt those pieces of legislation were concerned about alimony and child support for the ex-wife.
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|