marriage

[Nurvingiel]

oops, sorry, please repost

[Earniel]

Personally I wouldn't be calling marriage building blocks to society, but I think there is more to them than merely the religious or financial context. The love two people have for another may very well be their private business, but for some that is not enough. They want to pronounce themselves as a couple toward their society, to show that they are tied by more than merely living in the same house and sharing the same bed. And marriage is a very good tool for that.

Edit: Duh... cross-posted with Nurv and she said it better than me.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by nurv

You can get married religiously and/or governmentally (???) and not have the same last names. If someone did think less of me for not having the same last name, I sure wouldn't be marrying them in the first place

i was only picking last names as one example, the point i was trying to make was you dont have to have a scrap of paper to say that you love someone, although if marriage does exist, it should be open to all forms of sexual relationship, monogamous, bigamous, polugamous, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transexual, and pansexual - so long as it consists of a union between consenting adults who love each other

[Lotesse]

my sentiments exactly, Chrys.

[Rían]

(whenever I see the title of this thread, I can't get the Princess Bride wedding ceremony out of my head - "mawwidge!" )

[Lotesse]

That cracked me up, Rian! How funny... I LOVE, love "The Princess Bride".

[inked]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

i agree wholeheartedly with lotesse,
IMO marriage is just between two people, and all this religious/state sanctioning is a bit ridiculous, ok sure 500 years ao, when religion meant more to more people, then we are talking a whole different kettle of fish, but now in this post-modernist world, then we have to wonder, is it really worth it? would anyone really think any less of their husband/wife if they had their own surname etc? somehow i dont think so

LCoU,

I think your history is off a bit. Marriage has been a societal building block for millenia. The Church evolved forms to bless marriage.

The problem with the "postmodern world" is that it refuses to learn anything from the past due to chronological snobbery. It thinks it knows best about everything.

So, in your ideal "postmodern world" how should the issue of the result of "two consenting adults doing whatever" be handled when it comes down to dirty diaper changing, clothing, food, and shelter? Because in my professional experience of the "postmodern world" it comes down to that for the progeny. How do you propose to provide such care for the offspring of heterosexuals who employ your and Lotesse's conceptualization of relations between the sexes?

And, in regards to homosexual liasons, how do you propose that the former partners are to resolve issues of custody (if they have adopted), support, and health care for the ill member of the former relationship, or the poor job prospects for the "homemaker" after being out of work?

I am serious, not needling. Just how do you propose to resolve these issues?
Lotesse, feel free to answer these also. I would like your ideas to be expounded as well.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

The problem with the "postmodern world" is that it refuses to learn anything from the past due to chronological snobbery. It thinks it knows best about everything.

Actually, the idea that marriage has been some static unchanging institution since time immemorial is incorrect. Its evolved with time. In fact, despite what many "traditionalists" would have us think, marriage for the majority of history has NOT been about love. It has been more often a result of other more practical reasons. As industry and technology and distribution of resources has changed so too has the concept of why we marry and exactly what marriage is.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by inked

LCoU,

I think your history is off a bit. Marriage has been a societal building block for millenia.

actually, formal marriage is not more than about 3,500 years old

The Church evolved forms to bless marriage.

and that was a mistake

The problem with the "postmodern world" is that it refuses to learn anything from the past due to chronological snobbery. It thinks it knows best about everything.

actually, post-modernism shows us that old perspectives are clearly out of date, but rather than thinking it knows best, post-modernism builds on the perspectives of pre-modernity, and the main perspectives of modernity (functionalism, marxism, feminism, new right)

So, in your ideal "postmodern world" how should the issue of the result of "two consenting adults doing whatever" be handled when it comes down to dirty diaper changing, clothing, food, and shelter? Because in my professional experience of the "postmodern world" it comes down to that for the progeny. How do you propose to provide such care for the offspring of heterosexuals who employ your and Lotesse's conceptualization of relations between the sexes?

adults will care for their young exactly as they do now, excepting that they need not be married (which is a reality in this time now anyway)

And, in regards to homosexual liasons, how do you propose that the former partners are to resolve issues of custody (if they have adopted), support, and health care for the ill member of the former relationship, or the poor job prospects for the "homemaker" after being out of work?

I am serious, not needling. Just how do you propose to resolve these issues?
Lotesse, feel free to answer these also. I would like your ideas to be expounded as well.

all of these issues, plus any more you can think of, would be handled exactly the same way that they are now among hetero couples

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by Valandil

SD - (is/did) your second one not (working/work) out?

No its not. If there is another round of this for me, it will have to be common law.

[inked]

LCoU,

I rest my case. Everything will continue as it has in regard to relationships and support. So, no need for postmoderns to do anything except complain about how bad the system is until they have to think of something better. I believe this is called crying "Uncle".

[Spock]

Marriage is and homosexual is; they are not interchangeable, therefore why should the terminology of the coupling be different in name, it preserves the distinction. please excuse my hasty spelling

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Spock

Marriage is and homosexual is; they are not interchangeable, therefore why should the terminology of the coupling be different in name, it preserves the distinction. please excuse my hasty spelling

well, by that reasoning, the term 'marriage' can't exist, because 'homosexual' is not a term used for the coupling itself, merely the orientation of the partakers, and so if the joining is the same as orientation, then there is no need to define marriage, i rest my case, somewhat confusedly

[Spock]

But if marriage defines heterosexual unions, and homosexual defines life style choice or orientation then "civil union" or some such should define those unions and not be put into the definition of the former.......he said shaking the confusion from his brain

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

there's that 'L' word again, i must get me a weapon to fight such sweeping generalisations, for that is what they are, some people seem to act as though gay men and women are simply one homogonised group, when in reality, there is little hegemony at all, simply a common sexuality, imagine the uproar if I were to make one vast sweeping generalisation about Het's the restriction of marriage to hetero/monogamous relationships is clearly sexualist, and ethnocentric

[Lotesse]

Society is set up in such a way as to distinctly reward those who join together in sanctioned marriage, and why do you think that is? Two people of the opposite sex joining together often results in children - new people, new future taxpayers/soldiers/jailbirds (don't let me get started on the prison industrial complex in this nation). The state and/or the church, and the people who comprise the heads & leaders of said church and state, will not reward non-breeders, because what are THEY getting out of it?
Something to think about for a sec.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

ah yes, here we have another reason for the destruction of the traditional marriage as it is seen by society, the fact that marriage exists for the following reasons
1. social control by the ruling classes
2. creating a new generation of subservient workers, to ensure the success of capitalist economy
3.perpetuating the current system

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

: the restriction of marriage to hetero/monogamous relationships is clearly sexualist, and ethnocentric

Of course it is unless you're a Mormon and can have more by law, one man, one woman. Society is thus structured.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

ah yes, here we have another reason for the destruction of the traditional marriage as it is seen by society, the fact that marriage exists for the following reasons
1. social control by the ruling classes
2. creating a new generation of subservient workers, to ensure the success of capitalist economy
3.perpetuating the current system

You've been reading those little red books too much

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Spock

Of course it is unless you're a Mormon and can have more by law, one man, one woman. Society is thus structured.

Tibet: traditionally women are not just permitted, but encouraged to take as many as 10 husbands
Islam: men have as many as 3 wives

but you miss the obvious point about sexualist