Gay marriage - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 02-04-2010, 10:09 PM

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?

Archaea · 02-04-2010, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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?

It would offend feminist as it sounds too paternalistic.

MikeWaters · 02-04-2010, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

It would offend feminist as it sounds too paternalistic.

Feminists who like to ignore the history of the Western World?

Archaea · 02-04-2010, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Feminists who like to ignore the history of the Western World?

"Feminists", and "ignore the history of the Western World" is a bit redundant, don't you think?

The objection to needing protection would be offensive to line of argumentation.

MikeWaters · 02-04-2010, 11:44 PM

I'm saying that it is a historical reason for marriage laws.

Am I incorrect?

Archaea · 02-05-2010, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm saying that it is a historical reason for marriage laws.

Am I incorrect?

Rhetorical question.

MikeWaters · 02-05-2010, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Rhetorical question.

so the answer is yes?

I don't know what the answer is. I assume it was put into place to protect women and children, economically for the most part.

MikeWaters · 02-05-2010, 08:20 PM

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.

ute4ever · 02-12-2010, 07:56 PM

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/

RedHeadGal · 02-14-2010, 12:40 AM

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.

02-04-2010, 10:09 PM	#1
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	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, 11:44 PM	#5
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I'm saying that it is a historical reason for marriage laws. Am I incorrect?

02-05-2010, 08:20 PM	#8
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	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
ute4ever 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
RedHeadGal 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.