[peeb]

An interesting article on who has the right to marry, from a historical perspective.
"The planters, for their part, were unshaken in their certitude that the slaves were a species of property, their property no less, and that the idea of any kind of formal marriage among them was preposterous, a great impertinence, an attack on their authority and rights of property, a threat to public safety, and a dangerous intrusion upon the sacrosanctity of European racial exclusivity and superiority."

Cecilia A. Green | "A Civil Inconvenience"? The Vexed Question of Slave Marriage in the British West Indies | Law and History Review, 25.1 | The History Cooperative

[stupendousman]

There have always been questions as to which men and women could join together in "marriage". In this case, with slaves. In other cases, with multiple partners or close relatives. Not too long ago, among mixed races.

What really has never changed was the basic definition had to involve a man and a woman in every case, most likely because of the unique biological and societal ramifications long term unions between opposite sexes normally produce that other types of unions cannot.

[BRussell]

I believe the most common form of marriage in history has been between a man and several women.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I believe the most common form of marriage in history has been between a man and several women.

Concurrently or subsequently ?

-t

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I believe the most common form of marriage in history has been between a man and several women.

Which may include your underage sister.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I believe the most common form of marriage in history has been between a man and several women.

I rest my case.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What really has never changed was the basic definition had to involve a man and a woman in every case,

As defined by whom?

[analogue SPRINKLES]

It is just a stupid ceremony and a piece of paper. I can't see what all the fuss is about.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Concurrently or subsequently ?

-t

Those words are too big. Try to keep 'em under 3 syllables for me.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

As defined by whom?

history.

Why limit it to one spouse. I say legalize plural marriage, as long one has the means and all are consenting adults.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What really has never changed was the basic definition had to involve a man and a woman in every case, most likely because of the unique biological and societal ramifications long term unions between opposite sexes normally produce that other types of unions cannot.

Ramifications? Like overpopulation? I can understand how that's a problem. Societal ramifications for heterosexuals getting married... well, that's a little more difficult. Maybe couples fighting at 2AM is a problem. My neighbors do that. However, I fail to see how the shortcomings of a union between two heterosexual couples is a reason to keep homosexual couples from getting married.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

As defined by whom?

Religious folk.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

All those straight couples that beat each other, abandon or murder their own children are the ones setting up the bad examples. Not gays.

Oh that and the 46% divorce rate. Now talk to me about the sanctity of marriage as all I see is a bunch of hypocrites.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Ramifications? Like overpopulation?

Possibly. But more to the point, men and women who get together and have sex long term have babies as the norm, whether they plan to or not. There are societal implications and ramifications in bringing new life into the world. That's not a concern for other types of pairings.

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

It is just a stupid ceremony and a piece of paper. I can't see what all the fuss is about.

Exactly, The piece of paper should be a legal contract between the two people drawn up by lawyer.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

All those straight couples that beat each other, abandon or murder their own children are the ones setting up the bad examples. Not gays.

Oh that and the 46% divorce rate. Now talk to me about the sanctity of marriage as all I see is a bunch of hypocrites.

I agree with this 100%. I've long said that marriage has been defined by heterosexuals as a life-long commitment you make to at least two people with prenups to protect assets.

Interestingly, Chongo had opined that plural marriages should be legal and this is pretty much as it is today anyway. I'm not sure if it would be more difficult to live with all of them at once, one formally and the other(s) informally, or one at a time. I give thanks to the Grace of God my marriage is still intact.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

history.

Why limit it to one spouse. I say legalize plural marriage, as long one has the means and all are consenting adults.

This is actually an interesting sub point. If same-sex marriage is allowed by law then there is really no reason why multiple spouses should not be allowed to be married under the same law. I say this seriously.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by greenamp 

This is actually an interesting sub point. If same-sex marriage is allowed by law then there is really no reason why multiple spouses should not be allowed to be married under the same law. I say this seriously.

Unfortunately many of the "slippery-slope" arguments follow the same logic. In my mind a two-person union between members of the same sex is wholly different than a plural marriage.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

It is just a stupid ceremony and a piece of paper.

Well, that would explain why so many gays fight so hard to get it

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Oh that and the 46% divorce rate. Now talk to me about the sanctity of marriage as all I see is a bunch of hypocrites.

You ARE aware that this has NOTHING to do with heterosexual people, but with PEOPLE in general ?
Or would you say that gay marriages NEVER fall apart ?

Thanks for bringing up this evar popular, albeit useless, argument.

-t

[Shaddim]

Of course gays should be allowed the same rights, straight people shouldn't be alone in their suffering.

Oh that and the 46% divorce rate. Now talk to me about the sanctity of marriage as all I see is a bunch of hypocrites.

I don't know what's wrong with most couples. We have three people in our union and it's been working (amazingly well) for years now.

[Chongo]

I heard on the news some time ago ,he first couple that married in Massachusetts, Tanya McCloskey and Marcia Kadish filed for divorce. 4 years of marriage after 18 years together. Getting a living trust would have been a better idea that getting married.

The rise in the divorce rate has been credited to no fault laws.(49/50 states, NY is the lone fault state) Before that you had to go to court and prove fault.

When did marriage change from a strictly religious institution, to a civil/religious one? I did some searches and it looks like civil licensing came out of the Protestant Reformation. The Marriage Ordinance of Geneva (1546), and later, in England/Wales, Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act (1753).

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You ARE aware that this has NOTHING to do with heterosexual people, but with PEOPLE in general ?
Or would you say that gay marriages NEVER fall apart ?

Thanks for bringing up this evar popular, albeit useless, argument.

-t

It's not totally useless. A common argument is that gay marriage is a direct affront on the sanctity of traditional marriage. Based on the shear number of marriages that end in divorce it's obvious that heterosexuals have already affronted traditional marriage, thus rendering their argument useless.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenamp 

This is actually an interesting sub point. If same-sex marriage is allowed by law then there is really no reason why multiple spouses should not be allowed to be married under the same law. I say this seriously.

Well, the two ideas are not linked in any way, but I agree with you - there is no good reason to prevent consenting adults from marrying multiple spouses.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There have always been questions as to which men and women could join together in "marriage". In this case, with slaves. In other cases, with multiple partners or close relatives. Not too long ago, among mixed races.

What really has never changed was the basic definition had to involve a man and a woman in every case, most likely because of the unique biological and societal ramifications long term unions between opposite sexes normally produce that other types of unions cannot.

Nonsense. What we've seen over the years is a gradual increase in the groups who are allowed to marry. Slaves got the right, then mixed race folks. We're seeing the last pieces of discrimination and exclusion removed from the basic right of people to marry who they want to.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You ARE aware that this has NOTHING to do with heterosexual people, but with PEOPLE in general ?
Or would you say that gay marriages NEVER fall apart ?

Thanks for bringing up this evar popular, albeit useless, argument.

-t

What the hell you getting all huffy about as usual?

I am saying that those religious folk say gays destroy "the sanctity of marriage" by getting married yet they are the ones that also have a 46% divorce rate which pretty much craps all over their own values.

dig?

[paul w]

I'm in the separate marriage from civil union camp. Let marriage be a specific religious right that carries, on its own, no legal standing. Married people would still be required the same civil union status as the rest of the secular couples (which would ultimately be a simple formailty, like civil marriages are anyway).

Let the churches define who gets married in their house. And let unions be something broad and universally defined. A domestic partnership, whatever.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

What the hell you getting all huffy about as usual?

I am saying that those religious folk say gays destroy "the sanctity of marriage" by getting married yet they are the ones that also have a 46% divorce rate which pretty much craps all over their own values.

dig?

Did I ever say that the sanctity of marriage is based on a low divorce rate ?

You know, NOT being divorced does not automatically translate into a good marriage.
Same as you can be a great gay couple w/o being married, right ?

-t

[smacintush]

Let's treat marriage licenses like any other license: give it an expiration date with the OPTION to renew in 5 years or so.

Seriously, am I the only one who thinks that the idea that a relationship should be expected to last FOREVER is retarded? Why do SO many of us think this way? It often extends beyond religious belief.

Divorce is NOT "wrong" and it should not be considered "wrong". It is not "weak" or "lazy" to end a failing relationship. It is human nature to change and to make mistakes. We'd all be better off if we would accept that and move on.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Divorce is NOT "wrong" and it should not be considered "wrong". It is not "weak" or "lazy" to end a failing relationship. It is human nature to change and to make mistakes. We'd all be better off if we would accept that and move on.

It is both weak and lazy to terminate a marriage that has produced children for nothing more than; "I think I fell out of love with you." When we elevate our own interests above all other things including our children we leave behind implications we failed to fully consider in the first place. It's screwing kids up. It's wrong.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I rest my case.

And that's just what it is; your case, and you trot out the same old, and tired, argument about the necessity of procreation every time this subject comes up, without taking into regard that there have always been, and will always be, variables that have to be accounted for. It's just an easy excuse to cover your irrational beliefs about the unjustified slippery slope argument.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by paul w 

Let the churches define who gets married in their house. And let unions be something broad and universally defined. A domestic partnership, whatever.

This will never work; there will always be some churches willing to marry people that other churches are not, and those unwilling churches will never be able to accept that the union of those people can be defined as "marriage".

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

This will never work; there will always be some churches willing to marry people that other churches are not, and those unwilling churches will never be able to accept that the union of those people can be defined as "marriage".

So what? A church wedding is just a ceremony. It has no legal backing unless the appropriate paperwork has been processed. Who cares if a church "accepts" it.

The union is the legal (and more important) thing. The government decides who can be legally united.

Churches have nothing to do with this argument.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

So what? A church wedding is just a ceremony. It has no legal backing unless the appropriate paperwork has been processed. Who cares if a church "accepts" it.

The union is the legal (and more important) thing. The government decides who can be legally united.

Churches have nothing to do with this argument.

I completely agree, except the churches in question have pretty strong influence in government.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

So what? A church wedding is just a ceremony. It has no legal backing unless the appropriate paperwork has been processed. Who cares if a church "accepts" it.

The union is the legal (and more important) thing. The government decides who can be legally united.

Churches have nothing to do with this argument.

I agree with you and paulw. It would solve a lot of problems if the government should only be involved in the legal things like taxes and estates and such. Let churches perform marriage. Then the debate would be over legal rights of couples, not marriage, which has religious connotations.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

This will never work; there will always be some churches willing to marry people that other churches are not, and those unwilling churches will never be able to accept that the union of those people can be defined as "marriage".

So they don't have to call it 'marriage' - marriage would become something that could be defined any way by any group of people, no matter how small or opinionated.

[Chongo]

Until the 1500's, marriage was strictly a matter of the church, one of the seven sacraments, marriage and priesthood (holy orders)being the sacraments of vocation. The Protestant Reformation changed that.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Until the 1500's, marriage was strictly a matter of the church, one of the seven sacraments, marriage and priesthood (holy orders)being the sacraments of vocation. The Protestant Reformation changed that.

Stephanie Coontz has an interesting book about the history of marriage. She says that even as late as 19th century America, most Americans were not married in any official sense, except that they stated so publicly - in effect, most marriages were common law marriages even 150 years ago.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Stephanie Coontz has an interesting book about the history of marriage. She says that even as late as 19th century America, most Americans were not married in any official sense, except that they stated so publicly - in effect, most marriages were common law marriages even 150 years ago.

She has several books on marriage and family history, and if anyone here read them, they'd be shocked to learn about the history of marriage in different cultures, and how the Roman Catholic church, which was the dominant belief system in the christian world until the Reformation, wasn't even involved in marriage until the 1100s. Even when it did get involved, early marriages were often only for the rich and powerful, and were often arranged for political and economic reasons, such a daughter of one king marrying the son of another, in order to form political alliances against a common enemy. The concept of marrying for love, as we practice it today, is relatively new to the scene, even in American history. Up until the Industrial Revolution, and even past that in rural areas, marriages were instruments of convenience, as a farmer's daughter, or son, didn't have an easy means of meeting people from other areas, and didn't have the selection of possible mates that we enjoy today. They didn't just hop in their buggy, go to a town 40 miles away, enter a club or bar, and enjoy a wide variety of prospective mates. Of course, those who scream about the sanctity of marriage don't want to know that, or conveniently forget that things weren't always the way they are today.

The scope and purpose of marriage has changed repeatedly throughout history, and what's happening today is that certain groups feel threatened by changes happening again, so they blather on incessantly about how things were better in the old days, hoping that their incessant fear mongering will rewrite history, and they won't have to worry about changing their beliefs.

[paul w]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It is both weak and lazy to terminate a marriage that has produced children for nothing more than; "I think I fell out of love with you." When we elevate our own interests above all other things including our children we leave behind implications we failed to fully consider in the first place. It's screwing kids up. It's wrong.

I agree, but by the same token ALL couples that produce children should be held in the same way accountable and have the same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples. I realize this is largely the case in many ways but not complete as far as tax and inheritance is concerned.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Nonsense. What we've seen over the years is a gradual increase in the groups who are allowed to marry. Slaves got the right, then mixed race folks.

As conceded. The number of people who are allowed to married who were stopped simply because of the color of their skin (race being a protected constitutional classification) has increased. The thing that applied to all those in question where that they were men and woman who wished to join together in long-term unions which usually result in the creation of offspring.

We're seeing the last pieces of discrimination and exclusion removed from the basic right of people to marry who they want to.

We use discrimination to regulate marriage in numerous ways, and always have. We discriminate against brothers and sisters when deciding who should marry. We discriminate against people who are already married. We discriminate against many different arrangements, and I doubt that will stop being the case. People can marry who they want, and these days people who don't want to marry can choose to enter into legal contracts with their sexual or non-sexual partners. Seems like the best of both worlds.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

And that's just what it is; your case, and you trot out the same old, and tired, argument about the necessity of procreation every time this subject comes up, without taking into regard that there have always been, and will always be, variables that have to be accounted for. It's just an easy excuse to cover your irrational beliefs about the unjustified slippery slope argument.

Your opinion is noted, as is your consistent misrepresentation of my argument.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It is both weak and lazy to terminate a marriage that has produced children for nothing more than; "I think I fell out of love with you." When we elevate our own interests above all other things including our children we leave behind implications we failed to fully consider in the first place. It's screwing kids up. It's wrong.

Who the f*ck mentioned children? What if there are no children? What if they are adults? The same retarded "marriage is forever" attitude is usually applied to these people as well. If you've ever known anyone who has been married several times then you also know the stupid and judgmental things people often say about them behind their backs. It seems to many to be a sign of some sort of weakness which is a position wholly worthy of ridicule.

As for the marriages with children your generalization isn't always true. Sometimes a marriage cannot be saved, even though you and many others may not accept that. Sometimes the relationship is so dysfunctional that divorce is the better option for the children, even if you and many others may not accept that. It also depends upon the circumstances of the divorce.

This belief that two people who marry must remain so for the entirety of their lives creates a silly and unrealistic expectation that should never, ever be assumed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Who the f*ck mentioned children?

With approximately 32% of children under 18 living with only one parent and one million children involved in a new divorce annually, I thought it begged the question. When you calm down you may realize you've made my point by failing to include them in your statement.

What if there are no children? What if they are adults?

I mentioned terminating marriages that have produced children. If you're not a parent, carry on. Marry whomever you like, whenever you like. Que sara sara. When you encounter a monetary problem, hang that one up and do it again with someone else and enjoy the same failure rate statistically. You're perfectly free to be a moron (even repeatedly if you wish) in this country.

The same retarded "marriage is forever" attitude is usually applied to these people as well. If you've ever known anyone who has been married several times then you also know the stupid things...

... they failed to learn from the first time around.

As for the marriages with children your generalization isn't always true. Sometimes a marriage cannot be saved, even though you and many others may not accept that.

You're right. They made a series of flawed decisions in the first place. In many cases marriages are doomed to failure from the outset.

Sometimes the relationship is so dysfunctional that divorce is the better option for the children, even if you and many others may not accept that. It also depends upon the circumstances of the divorce.

Sometimes this is correct. I didn't make a blanket statement, I was addressing your blanket statement.

This belief that two people who marry must remain so for the entirety of their lives creates a silly and unrealistic expectation that should never, ever be assumed.

"Divorce is NOT "wrong" and it should not be considered "wrong"."

You make assertions such as the notion of life-long commitments being "retarded" then try to thrust this opinionated BS into some argument? I don't get it. This may be the "reality" you've accepted, but your assertion has led to at least as much retardation as the naivete of making good choices in the first place and elevating at least something as important as child development above your own temporal desires.

Divorce is often wrong and should be considered wrong when it is. People failing to confront their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Marriage and divorce are no exception.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Did I ever say that the sanctity of marriage is based on a low divorce rate ?

You know, NOT being divorced does not automatically translate into a good marriage.
Same as you can be a great gay couple w/o being married, right ?

-t

Honestly I don't even understand what your point is or what about my post got your panties in a bunch so I can't really answer that.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Honestly I don't even understand what your point is or what about my post got your panties in a bunch so I can't really answer that.

Nevermind then.

Just keep talking about my "panties in a bunch", if there's nothing else you can contribute.

-t

[pooka]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Divorce is often wrong and should be considered wrong when it is. People failing to confront their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

Bah. Subjective statement if there ever was one. Marriage is an artificial institution without any true meaning or value and I personally wipe my ass with everything it is supposed to represent. As for the child argument, again, big woop. In some parts of the world, children have to worry about real problems. Being eaten alive by indigenous predators or being hacked to pieces by a rival tribe. Billy having to slum it when he visits his mom's house after the divorce is right up there though....

"JEESH! Mom's house sucks! I mean, dood, her connection is 1.5Mb DSL. Lag-city. Totally GAY!"

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by pooka 

Bah. Subjective statement if there ever was one. Marriage is an artificial institution without any true meaning or value and I personally wipe my ass with everything it is supposed to represent. As for the child argument, again, big woop. In some parts of the world, children have to worry about real problems. Being eaten alive by indigenous predators or being hacked to pieces by a rival tribe. Billy having to slum it when he visits his mom's house after the divorce is right up there though....

"JEESH! Mom's house sucks! I mean, dood, her connection is 1.5Mb DSL. Lag-city. Totally GAY!"

I'm glad you personally wipe your ass, but I wish you were a little pickier on where you choose to shxx. Whether or not you have any respect for this human construct really doesn't matter. The children being birthed and brought up into it consistently perform better in almost any metric you can cite. You can say "pshaw", but that doesn't really illustrate the intellectual prowess to back your chest-pounding.

Your first argument seems to be; "well, who cares how kids are doing in the US, they're being eaten by predators elsewhere." Brilliant point. I'll let that speak for itself.

Your next argument is even better; "Billy having to slum it when he visits his mom's house after the divorce is right up there though"
You sound like someone who should try leaving his gated community and head down to the inner city some time. You seem woefully naive here.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Brilliant point. I'll let that speak for itself.

No need, my friend! I've got enough trailer park wisdom to fill Britannica's next volume and I don't mind sharing.

Look, you're the one dishing out the judgements here. "Morons", "naivete", "wrong", "mistakes", etc. No understanding, no love, no compassion. Most important of all... no freakin logic. Oh, other than the 'It Takes a Village' & 'Think of the Children' bullshit. Ronda shows up at your door with two black eyes and you give her the "you made a commitment" speech and the number of your pastor that has helped lots of people in similar situations through "tough times". Greaaaaat. Doesn't change the fact that her marriage is probably a waste of time and the stats back me up when I say that her children will probably grow up to annoy me either way.

Man, seriously, I have no point. Well, other than I don't think marriage is a big freaking deal. Divorce? Hell, everyone's doing it. There is no point in defending or attempting to protect this institution any longer. Game over. It's no longer sacred. Need proof? My marriage was presided over by Elvis Presley. This was recognized in all 50 states. My divorce? Pro se.

And for real, your lame attempt to place me in a gated community is beyond weak. I don't drive a volvo (M3 actually) and I don't hang out at Starbucks mocking you breeders with my junior associate friends. Lets just say it's safe to assume I've spent more time (locked up) with inner city youth than you and your like-minded pals.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by pooka 

Man, seriously, I have no point. Well, other than I don't think marriage is a big freaking deal. Divorce? Hell, everyone's doing it. There is no point in defending or attempting to protect this institution any longer. Game over. It's no longer sacred. Need proof? My marriage was presided over by Elvis Presley. This was recognized in all 50 states. My divorce? Pro se.

Marriage, no big deal? Yeah, I thought like that, once upon a time. Then I found a good one. As for divorce, mine was very traumatic, left me emotionally drained for a long time.

Hey, we're just not as tough as you, I guess.

[ebuddy]

Look, you're the one dishing out the judgements here. "Morons", "naivete", "wrong", "mistakes", etc.

I'll likely continue to point out moronic points and naivete when it rears its ugly head. As far as "wrong" and "mistakes" go, is there a problem with pointing them out? Do they not exist or something?

No understanding, no love, no compassion. Most important of all... no freakin logic.

Interestingly, you've not really indicated where I'm lacking any logic. I made a point you couldn't address so you ignored it.

Oh, other than the 'It Takes a Village' & 'Think of the Children' bullshit.

Somebody's got to. Yeah, these are all bullshit messages.

Ronda shows up at your door with two black eyes and...

... I kick her husband's ass?

... you give her the "you made a commitment" speech and the number of your pastor that has helped lots of people in similar situations through "tough times". Greaaaaat. Doesn't change the fact that her marriage is probably a waste of time and the stats back me up when I say that her children will probably grow up to annoy me either way.

This is your argument? Seriously? Some anecdotal example you've pulled from your ass combined with a straw man argument about how a person you don't know will react to news of someone being abused by their husband? Did I say there was never a justification for divorce? Should I not call you a moron? Why?

Man, seriously, I have no point.

The forum is in shock.

And for real, your lame attempt to place me in a gated community is beyond weak. I don't drive a volvo (M3 actually) and I don't hang out at Starbucks mocking you breeders with my junior associate friends. Lets just say it's safe to assume I've spent more time (locked up) with inner city youth than you and your like-minded pals.

You are nothing if not kind of funny pooka. We can compare "wounds" if you like, but I spent over 10 years living directly in the community. You see a lot more from outside the bars, but I've spent some time behind them too. It seems maybe you've forgotten where you came from.

Either way, you're wrong about me and I pretty much pegged you.