Reading Love and Lifesense

Sep 24, 2009 07:57 # 46523

andromacha *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 2

Well my only problem is on the word "marriage" and the meaning that is associated to it. Marriage is between two partners of different sex, according to me. But I don't exclude that there can be union of people who share the same sex, and this doesn't even bother me as long as you don't call it a marriage, because in fact it is just a matter of terms. Probably having the Vatican right outside my door (metaphorically, because thank God I am about 700 kilometers away from Rome) biases me just like most Italians.

I totally understand where you all are coming from, and I do share in part your views. I believe that we are all equal and have the same rights... so yes, why shouldn't we allow people of the same sex to get married? Well because marriage as an institution is still between a man and a woman. But that is marriage the institution, something I still believe in. Honestly there is one thing I don't understand exactly about what gays and lesbians want:
1) do they want to be able to get married just to say that they are in fact married?
2) do they want to get married in order to achieve the same rights that straight married people have?
Both instances are equally important, but I was interested in understanding the priority. If the priority is the 2nd one, then I think that they should be able to sign the famous piece of paper that will not be a marriage certificate (that would be going against what the term marriage is), but a something that will determine their rights... What should these rights be? Well, according to me the right to visit your dear one at the hospital just like as if you were a relative (which btw. here in Italy has always been possible, however wives or husbands were also allowed to stay for the whole night in particularly dangerous circumstances); then the right to get the retirement check of the dear one when he/she dies; sharing the same money is already a possibility because you simply need to open a bank account with two signatures; heck according to me they can have all the same rights of married people minus that of adopting a child. So give them these rights but don't call it a marriage please... call it a contract; marriage is a contract afterall.
If the priority is the 1st tho... well then it seems that all they want is just to be able to say that they are married... why? I don't know... I don't know because I am married but I don't feel the necessity to shout aloud to the world that yes, in fact, I am married.

@Ginster... you can call me narrow-minded just as much as you like, but at least as far as the possibility of adoption of a child by two parents of the same sex I know I am more than right. You won't find any judge who allows this, because psychologically is just bad for the child. A child who is up for adoption, unless he's a newborn, will likely be a kid with problems... problems in relating to the adults, a kid that might have been abused, an abandoned kid who doesn't even know why he was abandoned... a problematic child needs a family that doesn't cause even more problems in his head. And this is precisely the reason why you won't find any judge who allows a couple of gays or lesbians to adopt a child like I said before.

Finally, I do think that we all have the same rights and we are equal... however laws need to be made in order to regulat our behaviors... otherwise I can just get a gun and shoot all the people in the street. Laws on marriage were made centuries ago when there wasn't this mass coming out and so there wasn't the need of a law that would defend the rights of these individuals. Just like there wasn't the need of a law that would defend the right of unmarried couples, because back then you wouldn't just go and live with a guy without being married. It is now more than evident that straight people don't like to see their rights that are consacrated by a marriage being depreciated by allowing gay people to be married. I am sorry, but this is the reality. Modern society in general still believes that straight is the norm, and gay is not normal. I don't believe this, because I myself know that even in Greece the most important philosophers practiced "love" with guys, and then were married and banged women in order to reproduce. I am not even saying that I am better than others and I should have rights that others shouldn't have because they're not married. My problem is only this: marriage is the consacration of love between a man and a woman, whether you want to see this under the religious or the civil standpoint. I still believe that marriage should be for life... certainly I didn't marry Neil thinking that oh well tomorrow I can always divorce. That is not how you should approach marriage. Then I know that things can go wrong and so forth and so on. But the central point for me is that if you allow everybody to get married then you depreciate the value of the word. At that point, how about we allow people to get married with their dog or their cat?

Summing up:
1) yes to gay "marriage" as long as you find another way to describe this civil contract between two people of the same sex, because I don't like the word marriage to be used in that instance. Call it a gay union, and pass a law on it - fine by me.
2) no to gay adoption of a child
3) yes to every other right that is given to a straight couple who gets married.

I don't think I am so narrow-minded afterall.

Italy no longer accepts illegal immigrants. Mr. B sink their boats!!!!!!!

Sep 24, 2009 15:00 # 46525

Bunk *** throws in his two cents...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

94% | 4

I like how we're seeing a lot of different perspectives at play in the assessment of marriage.

One thing that must be noted about Zen's post is that he isn't exactly defending gay marriage per se. In fact he harshly criticises ALL forms of marriage, gay or not. So really he's doing two things: criticising marriage as an institution, and countering arguments like "gays shouldn't be married because they can't have children."

I think his criticisms are quite successful. I don't think it can be proven that any arrangement of parentage is categorically and universally better for the raising of children (man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, one man, one woman, etc.). For that reason, I disagree with you andromacha, saying that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. Why not? If they are psychologically, emotionally, and monetarily prepared to raise children, why shouldn't they be allowed?

That said, I also like your romantic defense of marriage. Although you haven't stated it per se, it seems that you believe in marriage as an affirmation of life long love and commitment. Zen seems to dismiss that idea, and he has good reasons to, but I like it. I think there's an emotional appeal to spending a lifetime with a partner, of growing old with the memories of an exclusively shared life. (PS. Zen, sex on the side, gay or not, IS cheating, and those men you slept with are dishonest cowardly assholes - I hope you realize that :P)

The question is, why does it have to be an institution? What is the logical basis for the government to provide benefits to married people? What makes them special? Essentially, the government is paying for two people to want to share a life together. But why? That kind of incentive can and does lead to abuse (marriages for money, messy financial and custody battles in the case of divorce, etc).

Here are some prospective reasons why marriage should be an institution:

1. Marriage is for having children (in which case it is nice of the government to provide benefits, since people who have kids face obvious economic challenges).

If this is the case, the institution already has serious flaws (as Zen pointed out, you don't have to be good parents, or even parents at all in order to be married) and requires major reform and should be open to non-conventional parental arrangements (unless these can be PROVEN to be inferior to one man, one woman).

2. Marriage is religiously sacred.

Like null said, separation of church and state! If anyone cares to debate that, this is going to get fun. :)

3. Marriage is an affirmation of the love beween a man and a woman.

Very sweet, but why should the government pay people to be in love? And why only heterosexuals?

Why? Because...

4. Marriage, in the form of lifelong pairings of one man and one woman, is a fundamental arrangement that is a cornerstone of the organization of our society. Thus, the maintenance of that institution is necessary to the maintenance of our society.

To me, this is by far the most compelling and interesting reason. After all, why else do government exist, if not to organize and maintain society? And if that arrangement is still fundamental, why shouldn't the government maintain it?

The answer is that that arrangement is showing its age, big time.

This builds on some of Zen's criticisms, interestingly, by flipping them on their head. He says marriage excludes gays for no good reason - I say, homophobia exists because homosexuality doesn't fit within the fundamental institution of marriage. Because that institution was fundamental to society, homophobia existed.

As the value/necessity of that institution fades, so does homophobia.

I do not intend to belittle religious beliefs, but one could, following the same logic, argue that marriage is said by Christianity to be sacred simply because marriage was a necessary and beneficial social institution. I personally think that if there are ways in which God wants us to live, us being married must be pretty low on the priority list.

Incidentally, I have some ideas on how to back up my claim that marriage was/is a fundamental institution, and a lot of reasons to consider it in the process of becoming obsolete. However, since I'm at work, I think I'll leave this post where it's at for now.

"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford

This post was edited by Bunk on Sep 24, 2009.

Sep 25, 2009 20:05 # 46534

zen *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

In fact he harshly criticises ALL forms of marriage, gay or not. So really he's doing two things: criticising marriage as an institution, and countering arguments like "gays shouldn't be married because they can't have children."

That's a pretty fair assessment of my view. Gay or straight, I'm saying it's unnecessary, and a passe, quaint fashion.
Marriage is life style. It's a choice that two people make, because they care for and love each other first.
Yes I am critical of the institution for reasons mentioned, and others. But most importantly I am making the point that because gays can't reproduce from the union, its no less a valid marriage--and also, let us not forget that I'm also sayingthat if a marriage doesn't produce kids it should be automatically annulled--if the procreation issue has any meaning or substance to it.

Although you haven't stated it per se, it seems that you believe in marriage as an affirmation of life long love and commitment. Zen seems to dismiss that idea, and he has good reasons to, but I like it.

It's unfair to say I'm dismissing that. I'm trying to limit my discussion to just one core issue: procreation. I believe that in it's grandest ideals it is life long love, or a life long committment. It's more a case that I'm a realist, or at least I have a more jaded view that love doesn't last that long. Sometimes it does, yes. But that seems not to be so much the case in my time.
Perhaps I have jaded myself, and my views taint the pool. I know my view is skewed from my own proclivities and predilictions. I can be viewed as oh, I dunno, the devil on your other shoulder whispering terrible things.

On the issue of cheating husbands, well, anyone who cheats is as you describe: a coward. That has to apply to both, regardless of the sex of the other person involved. Cheating is cheating, ok. But it's still not the same. We'll call it worse. So if we assume, for this argument, that if I hadn't been there they wouldn't have cheated...with me. That desire is still there. It's only gotten worse because he's not been able to scratch it. I'll admit I'm an assh*le, or whatever, for helping these guys cheat. Subsequently one might be able to understand my distain for the institution of marriage.

Imagine, instead of these guys cheating. They tell the wives they would like to have a guy in the bedroom. She will freek. If she told her before they got married that he likes guys, in some small way, they'd never have gotten married. In fact if you want to be with a female, don't ever tell her that you've been with another guy. Maybe if it wasn't looked at as such an important thing to "prove" one's sexuality, there would be less marriages that would lead to divorce over the lying. Heck, if people were honest from the beginning, 99% of all marriages wouldn't have taken place, but that's just an opinion.
The moral of the story is this: if you want to do away with cheating, do away with marriage...or at least have a built-in time limit. There would be more happy marriages that way.

This builds on some of Zen's criticisms, interestingly, by flipping them on their head. He says marriage excludes gays for no good reason - I say, homophobia exists because homosexuality doesn't fit within the fundamental institution of marriage. Because that institution was fundamental to society, homophobia existed.

I don't agree with that, because I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I mean, I don't believe homophobia is a new thing, and I think it developed separate from the issue of marriage.
As I've said before, marriage was, has for a long time been, about property rights. It's only in our recent, "modern," Westernized world that "love" and attraction is the base for who gets married. In our modern society, where husbands no longer "own" the wife, and the wife has a legal standing, the issue of love, attraction, choice is extremely important. The ideal of "being fruitful and multiplying" has been exchanged for happiness and contentment.
Marriage and homosexuality haven't always been mutually exclusive. I love the examples of the ancient Greeks. As earlier post have stated, the men would "bang their wives," but then would go out later and have fun with the guys. This was not cheating. This was the natural order. It's only been a recent thing, since the Judeo-Christian invasion that these kinds of activites have been shunned; for the explicit reason that "spilling your seed" in that fashion is idolatry, therefore a waste because it doesn't produce offspring.

Incidentally, I have some ideas on how to back up my claim that marriage was/is a fundamental institution, and a lot of reasons to consider it in the process of becoming obsolete.

I don't think that anyone would disagree that marriage is a fundamental institution the world over--I'll concede that point easily. What I am saying is that marriage is different the world over. The fact that there are so many different marriage ceremonies only proves that it is important. Two of the same gender is simply one more, different form of marriage.

As the value/necessity of that institution fades, so does homophobia.

I agree with that statement, but ultimately know its more than that. Part of the homophobic agenda is that we choose to be this way, that it's a life "style", that we can just pretend to be "normal" and we'll be that way. I think it takes a shift in paradigm of the governing thought/mindset/philosophy behind said institution.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

Sep 25, 2009 21:16 # 46539

null shakes his head...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 2

Gay or straight, I'm saying it's unnecessary, and a passe, quaint fashion.

I wouldn't say that. And I've been married once for love and it didn't work out, so I'm a burnt child to some degree, I guess. :-)

However, even though I'm not too keen on getting married again, and my girlfriend says she never wants to marry at all, there's one case where I'd insist on it. And that's when she's pregnant.
Not because I think it's romantic or intensifies our relationship. I don't need to be married for that. But there are a few compelling practical reasons:

  1. It's easier to raise a child when you're married, in terms of dealing with authorities and stuff as simple as attending a parent-teacher conference. Less red tape, so to speak.

  2. If something bad happens to me, at least my insurance will make sure that my wife and children are financially secure. An unmarried, unregistered girlfriend would get next to nothing.

  3. If something bad happens to any of us, we'll be allowed to visit each other at the hospital when nobody else is allowed to, and make decisions that the other one may not be able to make at that moment.

So to me, a marriage is a safety net for my family and the easiest way to raise a child.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

This post was edited by null on Sep 25, 2009.

Sep 25, 2009 21:36 # 46541

ginsterbusch *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

So strictly speaking, a union by law (whether it'll be called marriage or something else) between two people should basically be something like what you mentioned, shouldnt it?

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

Sep 26, 2009 12:38 # 46545

Bunk *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

So to me, a marriage is a safety net for my family and the easiest way to raise a child.

That makes a lot of sense. In fact, I'd say the conclusion that this whole thread has brought me to is that marriage, as a legal contract with government benefits and whatnot, should be redefined exclusively for couples who are or intend to become parents.

Whether or not to allow gay couples to partake (through adoption or artificial insemination) is a tough call. I'd be inclined to say they should be allowed to adopt, simply because there are a lot of children out there who are orphaned or unwanted, and if a gay couple wants to offer them a safe and loving household we should let them.

Artificial insemination is a tougher call, because it gives the whole "that's not what nature intended" argument more fuel. However, I think that kind of criticism is dubious. Nature doesn't intend anything. Nature evolves and redefines its own rules - hence why we have cars, spaceships, nukes, etc. We don't evolve along the lines of most life forms, so we have to evolve consciously - mentally, culturally, technologically. If we don't evolve, we're dead.

And anyway: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8096453.stm.

"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford

Sep 26, 2009 15:20 # 46546

Bunk *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 2

Maybe if it wasn't looked at as such an important thing to "prove" one's sexuality, there would be less marriages that would lead to divorce over the lying. Heck, if people were honest from the beginning, 99% of all marriages wouldn't have taken place, but that's just an opinion.

That's a good point, and a good reason to re-think the nature and role of marriage in society. I certainly don't think any social institution such as marriage should be considered sacred by the law. If it causes problems without providing enough benefits in return, it should (and will, eventually) be changed. Resisting that is senseless.

I don't agree with that, because I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I mean, I don't believe homophobia is a new thing, and I think it developed separate from the issue of marriage.

You have a point. I guess I can't blame homophobia strictly on marriage, but as you said it does relate to how our society manages reproduction, and marriage is a key way in which our society does that.

As I've said before, marriage was, has for a long time been, about property rights.

True, but obviously it has snowballed into more than that. As you mentioned, it includes love, attraction, and commitment.

Here's my theory as to how marriage came to be (with credit to sociology Prof. John Baker at the University of Ottawa).

--- Warning: this is long. Very long. I go on forever, but I think it's pretty easy to read. If not, let me know and I'll force myself to be more concise. ---

I guess I'll be using the Western example, because that's the one I'm most familiar with. Other areas of the world certainly do, as you pointed out, have different ideas regarding marriage.

I'll start with this: grizzly bears don't have marriage.

When bears produce offspring, they mate and then the father kicks off. The cubs and mother live together until the mother goes into heat again (which only happens after a suitable raising period for the offspring) and gives the cubs the boot.

Given that perfectly functional way of living, bears have no need for any notion such as marriage, and the resulting/related ideas such as fidelity or infidelity, pre-marital sex, divorce, or (obviously) legal benefits or property rights.

(yes, I am going somewhere with this)

I can only speculate as to how mankind lived before civilization. Maybe we mated for life, but I doubt it. Sex likely happened whenever we felt like it, with whoever we could get. The resulting children needed help just like the bear cubs, and got it from their parent(s) in some way.

Once we started living in sedentary societies, and possessing property, this whole gig got problematic. If you live in a society dependent on agriculture, you need property to survive. So if I go knock up someone, I can't just get lost after. The mother will need more property in order to provide for the young, and since I'm halfway responsible it makes sense that I should be obligated to share and provide my property to the woman and child.

With this obligation, if I go around knocking up all kinds of different people, that either spreads my property pretty thin or I neglect my obligation, pissing off the women who are knocked up (this still happens). So it makes sense that I should be limited to one mate. That way I at least have to wait a while before I create more spawn.

Jealousy is a factor here, too. If we're permanently settled, we're all stuck in one place and interact a lot more than usual. Jealousy doesn't just result in a skirmish, it becomes a major social problem. And if I, the male, am stuck in this property obligation, then the female is stuck too. If she sleeps around while I provide her and our offspring property, that pisses me right off. So now we see sensible reasons to have fidelity as a rule.

Please note that I'm not being sexist here. I'm not saying that a man's natural role is to be a provider. I'm saying that that role evolved logically, and in the early stages men and women probably still performed a lot of the same duties, and I certainly don't think there was any notion of one sex being inherently better than the other. But I digress.

Since fidelity and legal property obligations make sense in this context, rules enforcing them came about. As andromacha said, why else does our government exist if not to make rules about this sort of thing? And we can see why marriage came to have religious undertones. I will go so far as to propose that if something makes sense/has great value, but nobody fully understands why (the logical argument I'm laying out may not have been comprehended or known fully), it becomes considered sacred or divine. Hence why Christianity enshrines this useful way of organizing things.

And it explains why sex outside of marriage is a sin. And why I said marriage helps make homosexuality a problem - for marriage to fully work, without having all kinds of messy jealousy, you need fidelity. The Greeks were rare progressives in this sense I guess, but it didn't last. If gay marriage had also come about as an accepted alternative (unfortunately meaning no kids for you) that would have been nice, but it didn't (probably for reasons you've mentioned - it came to be seen as unnatural).

---

In Western society, marriage evolved as society evolved. In the 20th century, we have seen a real crisis for the institution, possibly marking the beginning of the end of marriage. Here's a couple reasons why:

1. Literacy & standardized education including sex ed., and cheap birth control. Having sex all over the place can cause jealousy, but it only causes OMFG problems if children result. If people use birth control, that removes one logical reason for fidelity.

2. Gender equality. The unfortunate spectre of sexism came to be prevalent in Western society, leading to all kinds of notions such as "a woman's place is in the home" and "a woman can't do the job of a man" (and vise versa, but the man's role was given much more value). This was intensified during urbanization: the man left the home to go perform labour, as opposed to living and working in the same place (like on a farm), which furthered the division between the gender roles.

This created a kind of a self-fulfilling social prophecy: women were denied the education that men got, and thus weren't as smart; as well, the types of jobs that involve physical labour are more suitable to men. Thus the idea came about that men are stronger, smarter, thus better, and women are natural homemakers, good for little else.

The 20th century is changing all this stuff. Standardized and universal education is allowing women to compete with men intellectually. As well, technological and social changes are transforming our jobs such that physical strength isn't a huge factor in most of them. This means that the earning power of an independent woman is nearing equality with that of a man, negating somewhat the need for a provider/homemaker relationship.

Obviously homes still need to be kept up, particularly if there are children involved, but even that is getting a lot easier due to technology such as canned food, vacuum cleaners, microwaves, etc. And since a woman's earning power can be equal to that of a man, it no longer has to be the woman that is the homemaker.

With this earning power equality it makes less and less sense for the government or companies to provide a whole lot of benefits where children aren't involved. Remove them, justifiably, at which point the only reason for an intentionally childless couple to get married would be for love.

Having said that, it still makes sense for the government to recognize marriages, so that a few niceties can be offered - the legal right to time off from work in the case of a spouse's injury or death, the right to inheritance, a free name change if desired, that sort of thing.

But if that is the way it evolves, there remains no logical obstacle for allowing gay marriage. And if living an unmarried life is what people want, that shouldn't be punished or discouraged in any way.

"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford

This post was edited by Bunk on Sep 26, 2009.

Sep 25, 2009 15:24 # 46529

zen *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

You won't find any judge who allows this, because psychologically is just bad for the child. A child who is up for adoption, unless he's a newborn, will likely be a kid with problems... problems in relating to the adults, a kid that might have been abused, an abandoned kid who doesn't even know why he was abandoned... a problematic child needs a family that doesn't cause even more problems in his head. And this is precisely the reason why you won't find any judge who allows a couple of gays or lesbians to adopt a child like I said before.

So this view is that only hetro couples can provide a loving, stable relationship?
Honestly, I wouldn't put too much stock in what "the judges" do. Fact of the matter is that the judges usually side with females, as far as kids go. They won't give adoptions to a gay couple, but they will give custody to a drug-addict mother, regardless how stable the father is living. Don't kid yourself, the courts are biased. The courts will grant custody to an abusive mother because somehow she magically, automaically is supposed to know what's best for the child, even if she's proven she doesn't. That's called "jurisprudence," it's an old-standing tradition in family law...there's not any noble thoughts involved, like you seem to think there is.
You really do believe this rhetoric you're spouting....here's a news flash for you: hetro couples have produces mass-murders, rapists, arsonists, bombists, other problemed individuals. Somehow gays will do WORSE than this? You have got to be joking.
Hetro couples also produce more gays, but that's another discussion.
Finding a decent home is NOT the reason why judges don't grant adoptions to gay couples. The reason for that is called DISCRIMINATION.

One man/one woman; keeps going back to that. If they can't conceive, they can't be parents: that is your only real argument against gay marriage.
After all your rhetoric, that's still the jist of it...if you can't reproduce, you're can't have the same rights as the other people in love who want to marry for whatever the reason.

1) do they want to be able to get married just to say that they are in fact married?
2) do they want to get married in order to achieve the same rights that straight married people have?

Gays want to be married for both of those reasons. It's the same as anyone else who thinks that marriage is somehow important in life.
Does it matter to you that hetro females want to get married for the above-stated reason 1? Does it matter that hetro females get married because their "biological clock" is ticking? Does that make the marriage any less valid?

I do think that we all have the same rights and we are equal... however laws need to be made in order to regulat our behaviors... otherwise I can just get a gun and shoot all the people in the street.

Wow, that's a stretch...equating gay marriage with lawlessness.

I myself know that even in Greece the most important philosophers practiced "love" with guys, and then were married and banged women in order to reproduce.

Yes, and those women were treated as chattel, with the men being civilized in the mens' company.

I am not even saying that I am better than others and I should have rights that others shouldn't have because they're not married. My problem is only this: marriage is the consacration of love between a man and a woman, whether you want to see this under the religious or the civil standpoint. I

Yes, because men and women can have kids....the rest of you can go pound sand. It can only be love if it's between different sexes, I hear you say loud and clear.

Laws on marriage were made centuries ago when there wasn't this mass coming out and so there wasn't the need of a law that would defend the rights of these individuals.

You really should learn something about history before making a statement like that.
Marriage laws are based entirely on property rights. It's only been recently that the female has been allowed a legal standing. I'm sure you've hear of a "dowery". According to Wikipedia (one of my favorite sites for references), it says:

Originally, the purpose of a dowry was to help a husband to feed and protect his family, and to give the wife and children some support if he were to die.[citation needed] Even in the oldest available records, such as the Code of Hammurabi, the dowry is described as an already-existing custom. Regulations surrounding the custom include: the wife being entitled to her dowry at her husband's death as part of her dower, her dowry being inheritable only by her own children, not by her husband's children by other women, and a woman not being entitled to a (subsequent) inheritance if her father had provided her dowry in marriage.[citation needed] If a woman died without sons, her husband had to refund the dowry but could deduct the value of the bride price; the dowry would normally have been the larger of the sums.
One of the basic functions of a dowry has been to serve as a form of protection for the wife against the possibility of ill treatment by her husband and his family.[citation needed] In other words, the dowry provides an incentive to the husband not to harm his wife.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowery

And also "bride Price:

Bride price, also known as bride wealth, is an amount of money or property or wealth paid by the groom or his family to the parents of a woman upon the marriage of their daughter to the groom. (Compare dowry, which is paid to the groom, or used by the bride to help establish the new household, and dower, which is property settled on the bride herself by the groom at the time of marriage.) In the anthropological literature, bride price has often been explained in market terms, as payment made in exchange for the bride's family's loss of her labor and fertility within her kin group. Compare this affinal practice with brideservice, which does not rely on a compensatory exchange idiom for ethnological interpretation.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price

Let us also not forget arranged marriages:

Arranged marriage (also called prearranged marriage) is a marriage arranged by someone other than the couple getting wedded, curtailing or avoiding the process of courtship. Such marriages had deep roots in royal and aristocratic families around the world, including Europe. Today, arranged marriage is still practiced in South Asia, and the Middle East to some extent. Other groups that practice this custom include the Unification Movement. It should not be confused with the phenomenon of forced marriage. Arranged marriages are usually seen in Indian and African cultures, and are usually decided by the parents or an older family member.
The match could be selected by parents, a matchmaking agent, matrimonial site, or a trusted third party. In many communities, priests or religious leaders as well as relatives or family friends play a major role in matchmaking.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage

This is another reason why marriage, as in institution, sucks. It was always about property rights, and the woman becoming the property of her husband, and his family, by extension. The woman was simply a vassel for her husband's pleasure.
Contrary to your belief, men have always been as attracted to other men, same as it is now. It was simply that years ago a man could have a "mistress" (which would've included a man, were he inclined that way), and that wouldn't have been a cause for a divorce.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

Sep 25, 2009 16:26 # 46530

andromacha *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 2

2 things:

So this view is that only hetro couples can provide a loving, stable relationship?

I never said that. I never stated that only hetero couples can proved a loving, stable relationship. I never excluded the fact that two guys or two girls can fall in love and be togher forever in a loving relationship. But that would simply not be an environment in which a kid should grow. Why? Because it would create this kid several psychological damages; he would continuously make comparisons between his situation and the situation of his friends who have a father and a mother, and not two parents of the same sex. This is not called discrimination; it's just that men and women are different, and they contribute to raising a child in different ways that are unique. I am in fact also saying that even raising a child as a single mother or single father is not great, but it is more accepted. In this instance in fact singles and gay/lesbian couples are the same: they won't be able to adopt a child. Now, I don't know if things are like that in America, but here if you are single your forms for adoption will be automatically rejected.

Yes, because men and women can have kids....the rest of you can go pound sand. It can only be love if it's between different sexes, I hear you say loud and clear.

Again, I never said something like this. Never said that love can be only between two people of different sex. And I stated it even in the previous post, and I just said it even above here. I am not discussing the fact that two people who aren't straight cannot produce a stable, loving relationship. All I try to think about is the welfare of the kids. Kids would be in an awful situation if they were put in a household where there is no love, or where the father is abusing them or any other number of bad things. But kids would probably have even more problems if they were raised by two people of the same sex: they would be teased in school - and don't kid yourself, you know that they would, and kids are quite mean to each other - they would see their friends with parents of different sexes, and they would automatically feel that they are different, because they don't have what normal kids have. I am not even considering the point of having a loving family or not having it. Your parents can love you to death, but if you are in constant discomfort because you see yourself not fitting the modern society, well there is nothing they can do about it. And what do you think that they would do to approach the situation? Sit down the 8 year-old kid and explain him that daddy and daddy love each other? Come on...
Again this is not discrimination, it is only common sense. Put a child that was abused or abandoned in a family made of two gays and/or two lesbians, and then we'll see how that child will react.

Another thing I considered is the following: if we were all made to have kids, then both females and males would be able to generate a child. But Mother Nature made us different, made us perfectly matched so that only the union of a man and a woman can generate a child; and this is precisely the reason why I cannot accept anything different than this.

I respect gays and their feelings, but really there are certain things that I cannot accept, and which need to be regulated by laws. This is not discrimination. I mean, heck accept it: there are things that man and woman can do together that will not be able to be reproduced by man and man or woman and woman; and it would be not right nor natural to change such things by for example letting them adopt a child.

Italy no longer accepts illegal immigrants. Mr. B sink their boats!!!!!!!

This post was edited by andromacha on Sep 25, 2009.

Sep 25, 2009 18:05 # 46532

ginsterbusch *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

I respect gays and their feelings, but really there are certain things that I cannot accept, and which need to be regulated by laws. This is not discrimination. I mean, heck accept it: there are things that man and woman can do together that will not be able to be reproduced by man and man or woman and woman; and it would be not right nor natural to change such things by for example letting them adopt a child.

Well, accept it: What you are saying actually IS discrimination. First you tell a fact: Males are not able to reproduce with each other. Next on, there's the part that doesnt fit:

not right nor natural to change such things by for example letting them adopt a child.

Are you kind of ... blind? No, just prejudiced I guess.
Why is it not right for them to adopt a child? This is a thesis but without a reason. And why is it NOT natural? I do not understand your reasoning as these are no reasons, just statements without justification.

Give me a (scientific or at least logical) explanation - else, you're just .. well .. not a racist, but you have something in common with them. Being prejudiced and not wanting to listen to reason.

If I really were prejudiced about Italy and its people, I'd say your reasoning is born out of the long catholic tradition of convicting and extinctioning those who do not believe or are in their cause. Also Italy is the fatherland of the facism. So you're probably just standing to your traditional principles.

But I am not, just because some of my best friends are of Italian descent, who have already proven to me that not only you can overcome your traditional education but are also completely free of this and, as a bonus, stay open-minded for anything that might come to you.

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

This post was edited by ginsterbusch on Sep 25, 2009.


Favorites (edit)

Small text Large text

Netalive Amp (Skin for Winamp)