Marriage Debate

There's the rub. Is that true in the US today? I think not. I gave an example of a forty year old woman I know who suffered economic and emotional harm when abandoned by her husband. What did she get? She lost her house. She lost her support. She lost companionship. And none of the conversationalists on this board seem to think she got a raw deal. Could she have sued? She did in divorce court, but it was decided that they would divide the assets "fairly". Never mind that she had made a series of decisions that had economic consequences, but which were based on the assumption that she would be married for the rest of her days. Never mind that she chose not to have children based on her desire to be married to this guy, and she cannot change that decision. Never mind that it is very unlikely that she will find a partner for the second half of her life. Too bad, lady. "Get over it."

Ok propose a general solution to this problem? Sure she might have gotten a raw deal, so did one of my mothers step sisters when a drunk driver drove over her husband. How do you propose to fix such things?
 
What I think is most important is that the traditional view of marriage be available to young men and women setting out to build lives and families together. That includes the ability to view marriage as a contract. That includes viewing those "interpersonal commitments" (like not screwing anyone except your spouse) as contractual, and that includes financial compensation for a party if his or her spouse breaks the contract.

So marraige only for the young now? You can only get married once after than it is civil unions for you?
 
More to the point, marriage has historically mostly been between a man and his property...usually a woman.

As I often like to point out, traditionally, marriage has been an agreement between two men, a man and his future father in-law.

I think, though, Meadmaker is asking for something new to be implemented, compared to what we had in the 1950’s. Do you agree Dave? Tell me if I’m wrong, but it would be in addition to what we have now, and open to couples young and old, gay and straight, even though, to Mead, it’s built for young heterosexual couples (You know I object :)).

Its main similarity to what we’ve had in the past is it’s lack of “no fault” divorce, for couples who publicly attest that they don’t want access to it from the offset. But it seems it would be significantly different from past models in his focus on protections for females in heterosexual couples when things do go bad, and the flexibility to add restrictions.

I think it’d be a good idea to try it, as I think it would really give greater protections to all children and homemakers, male or female, gay or straight, and should save tax dollars, not to mention some human grief. Now to get myself elected to the legislature…
 
Originally Posted by ceo_esq :
I have some sympathy for this, especially regarding marriages with children. As we discussed on at least one other thread, many people don't realize, or are disinclined to acknowledge, how much of the conventional marital regime evolved for the purpose of protecting state interests relating to a couple's offspring, and no-fault divorce regimes (despite arguably presenting certain offsetting benefits) have generally made it more difficult for these purposes to be accomplished.
What planet do you come from? Marriages were traditionally about exchanges of property and inheritance of that property by the sons of the father. Marriage being about protecting children in a twentieth century convetion, not a traditionally religious one.

That's the view of people (from ages ago to today) who focus on property, not their children.

People like you.............
 
In light of your clarification of your position a few posts up, I suspect that your positions are closer than either of you realize.


In some sense, I think you're right. My problem is that I was clarifying, and clarifying, and clarifying, ..... And some people got it right away. Others still don't get it.

At some point I just had to say that the thing that was preventing people from getting it was hostility to the very concept, and I think that hostility was born out of a mistaken notion that these ideas were born in religion. I was looking forward to Upchurch walking me through my logic, because it was clear to me where it would end, and it ended in the predictable place, although he short circuited it by just jumping to the place instead of walking me to that place. He jumped to the notion of marriage as religious oppression.

There's nothing religious about two people agreeing to sexual exclusivity and economic partnership. There's nothing religious about making a contract to that effect. There's nothing religious about asking the courts to play the same role enforcing that contract as enforcing any other contract.
 
How do you propose to fix such things?

"Fix" is asking a lot. However, I think she should have received alimony. It should have been expensive to dump her.

The world isn't what it used to be, so I wouldn't force a young couple into a traditional arrangement, but today, it isn't even available.

Upchurch and ID have said that it could be arranged by pre-nuptial agreements. CEO-Esquire, if you are reading this, can you comment on whether or not they are correct? Are there limits on what can be in a prenuptial agreement?
 
That's the view of people (from ages ago to today) who focus on property, not their children.

People like you.............

You are right, arranged marriages(Probably the most common historic example) where always about the children and not about the property.
 
In some sense, I think you're right. My problem is that I was clarifying, and clarifying, and clarifying, ..... And some people got it right away. Others still don't get it.

At some point I just had to say that the thing that was preventing people from getting it was hostility to the very concept, and I think that hostility was born out of a mistaken notion that these ideas were born in religion. I was looking forward to Upchurch walking me through my logic, because it was clear to me where it would end, and it ended in the predictable place, although he short circuited it by just jumping to the place instead of walking me to that place. He jumped to the notion of marriage as religious oppression.

There's nothing religious about two people agreeing to sexual exclusivity and economic partnership. There's nothing religious about making a contract to that effect. There's nothing religious about asking the courts to play the same role enforcing that contract as enforcing any other contract.

Would that mean that historicaly the connection that religion has to marriage is that they where the court at the time then?
 
That's the view of people (from ages ago to today) who focus on property, not their children.

People like you.............

Please provide evidence to support your claim that I am only concerned with property, and not children. If you cannot, retract your lie.

Incidentally, I was under the impression that bearing false witness is a sin to Christians.
 
I wonder why they were worried about ensuring paternity, but not about children. Hmmm.....
 
Originally Posted by Huntster :
That's the view of people (from ages ago to today) who focus on property, not their children.

People like you.............
You are right, arranged marriages(Probably the most common historic example) where always about the children and not about the property.

It's about both. It can lean towards property in some cases, and lean towards the children in others, depending on the culture and individuals involved.

It still does. Witness the ugly divorces going on all around us. "Custody" (today's code for "ownership") of minor children comes with power over the other parent's pocket.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster :
That's the view of people (from ages ago to today) who focus on property, not their children.

People like you.............
Please provide evidence to support your claim that I am only concerned with property, and not children. If you cannot, retract your lie.

How about your posts throughout this thread, including the one I just responded to?

Incidentally, I was under the impression that bearing false witness is a sin to Christians.

I'm not bearing false witness, and I'm a very proficient sinner, anyway.
 
Please provide evidence to support your claim that I am only concerned with property, and not children. If you cannot, retract your lie.....

How about your very next post:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle :
You are right, arranged marriages(Probably the most common historic example) where always about the children and not about the property.

That is false. It was about property, inheritance, and ensuring paternity.

Are you married? How can you imagine and state that marriage has been all "about property, inheritance, and ensuring paternity" in the past? What kind of jaded view of history is that?

And you call me a liar?

Is your contention that "it was about property, inheritance, and ensuring paternity" a lie, or simply propaganda?

What is the difference between a lie and propaganda?
 
I was looking forward to Upchurch walking me through my logic, because it was clear to me where it would end, and it ended in the predictable place, although he short circuited it by just jumping to the place instead of walking me to that place. He jumped to the notion of marriage as religious oppression.
Oops, sorry. I got very distracted by other matters.

I wasn't saying that marriage is a form of religious oppression. I was saying that the legal recognition of some religions' marriages but not other religions' marriage was government oppression of those latter religions and a clear violation of the first amendment.
 
How about your very next post:



Are you married? How can you imagine and state that marriage has been all "about property, inheritance, and ensuring paternity" in the past? What kind of jaded view of history is that?

And you call me a liar?

Is your contention that "it was about property, inheritance, and ensuring paternity" a lie, or simply propaganda?

What is the difference between a lie and propaganda?

So what was it about, and please provide historical evidence for your claims
 
Originally Posted by Huntster :
How about your very next post:

Are you married? How can you imagine and state that marriage has been all "about property, inheritance, and ensuring paternity" in the past? What kind of jaded view of history is that?

And you call me a liar?

Is your contention that "it was about property, inheritance, and ensuring paternity" a lie, or simply propaganda?

What is the difference between a lie and propaganda?
So what was it about, and please provide historical evidence for your claims

The experience of the race, particularly in its movement toward and its progress in civilization, has approved monogamy for the simple reason that monogamy is in harmony with the essential and immutable elements of human nature. Taking the word natural in its full sense, we may unhesitatingly affirm that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage. While promiscuity responds to certain elemental passions and temporarily satisfies certain superficial wants, it contradicts the parental instinct, the welfare of children and of the race, and the overpowering forces of jealousy and individual preference in both men and women. While polyandry satisfied in some measure the temporary and exceptional wants arising from scarcity of food or scarcity of women, it finds an insuperable barrier in male jealousy, in the male sense of proprietorship, and is directly opposed to the welfare of the wife, and fatal to the fecundity of the race. While polygamy has prevailed among so many peoples and over so long a period of history as to suggest that it is in some sense natural, and while it does seem to furnish a means of satisfying the stronger and more frequently recurring desires of the male, it conflicts with the numerical equality of the sexes, with the jealousy, sense of proprietorship, equality, dignity and general welfare of the wife, and with the best interests of the offspring.
In all those regions in which polygamy has existed or still exists, the status of woman is extremely low; she is treated as man's property, not as his companion; her life is invariably one of great hardship, while her moral, spiritual, and intellectual qualities are almost utterly neglected. Even the male human being is in the highest sense of the phrase naturally monogamous. His moral, spiritual, and aesthetic faculties can obtain normal development only when his sexual relations are confined to one woman in the common life and enduring association provided by monogamy. The welfare of the children, and therefore, of the race, obviously demands that the offspring of each pair shall have the undivided attention and care of both their parents. When we speak of the naturalness of any social institution, we necessarily take as our standard, not nature in a superficial or one-sided sense, or in its savage state, or as exemplified in a few individuals or in a single generation, but nature adequately considered, in all its needs and powers, in all the member of the present and of future generations, and as it appears in those tendencies which lead toward its highest development. The verdict of experience and the voice of nature reinforce, consequently, the Christian teaching on the unity of marriage. Moreover, the progress of the race toward monogamy, as well as toward a purer monogamy, during the last two thousand years, owes more to the influence of Christianity than to all other forces combined. Christianity has not only abolished or diminished polyandry and polygamy among the savage and barbarous peoples which it has converted, but it has preserved Europe from the polygamous civilization of Mohammedanism, has kept before the eyes of the more enlightened peoples the ideal of an unadulterated monogamy, and has given to the world its highest conception of the equality that should exist between the two parties in the marriage relation. And its influence on behalf of monogamy has extended, and continues to extend, far beyond the confines of those countries that call themselves Christian.

Source
 
I hit this line and had to stop reading:
All authorities agree that during historical times promiscuity has been either non-existent or confined to a few small groups.
I wonder what definition of "few" and "small groups" they are using.

eta: Actually, add "all", "authorities", and "agree" to that list, too.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom