Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Marriage - What do you want out of it?

Culture marriage

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#41 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,353 posts

Posted 17 February 2004 - 09:34 AM

Cardie, on Feb 17 2004, 09:23 AM, said:

If everybody follows my idea of making legal union for all orientations a domestic partnership defined by contract law, then no slippery slope worries.  I don't think there are any states that allow you to take out a car loan or be issued a credit card when you're 14.  ;)

Cardie
Agreed.

But there is a noticeable resistance to this idea.  You floated this (and I concurred) quite a few posts back - in the other thread the same idea has come up.  And yet - the issue remains right where it is now - that everybody should have the same governmental sanction of their marriage.  It leaves me as perplexed as I was when I asked the question - I still don't get what the attachment is to government sanction.  

To me - the fact that this discussion continues as it does for so long - and across two threads tells me that in fact there is some emotional attachment to the government sanctioning a union (of whatever sort). WHY?  What do people hope to get from this?

At some point - I'm hoping that someone will say that they believe that the government is in some sort of parental role for them - and that they need the permission of the government in order to really "feel" married.  Because that's what it begins to look like.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#42 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 17 February 2004 - 09:43 AM

Handmaiden07, on Feb 17 2004, 08:32 AM, said:

To me - the fact that this discussion continues as it does for so long - and across two threads tells me that in fact there is some emotional attachment to the government sanctioning a union (of whatever sort). WHY?  What do people hope to get from this?

At some point - I'm hoping that someone will say that they believe that the government is in some sort of parental role for them - and that they need the permission of the government in order to really "feel" married.  Because that's what it begins to look like.
I think that's what it is, and I think people don't want to say so. Who wants to admit that he needs goverment sanction to prove how much he loves his partner?

I see a need for exactly what Cardie's talking about, particularly when it comes to end of life issues. But I still can't figure out why, in order to have this, we need to legally redefine marriage. Again, it all comes back to this for me: what does the word "marriage" do that "civil union" or "legal domestic contract" or any other term will not?
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#43 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,353 posts

Posted 17 February 2004 - 10:51 AM

I'm going to articulate this what I think it is - and see what others think.

I think that people feel in some intrinsic-value sense, that marriage (and family) is the building block of society, and that being married in a government-sanctioned marriage makes them responsible members of society, recognized as contributing citizens.  In that sense, being denied "marriage" and "family" status by the government makes people feel like they are not fully participants in their own society.

Or something like that... :wacko:

Anybody?  Agree? Disagree?

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#44 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 17 February 2004 - 11:12 AM

Quote

AM wrote:What I want from that set of legal rights is pretty standard:

For my spouse to have power of attorney should I ever be disabled - so that the one who knows me best decides what I would most want for myself should I be too gone to be able to make that decision.

For my spouse to be granted custody of my children automatically if I die so that the person they know of as their other parent is still thier guardian.

For my spouse to inheret my posessions.

For my spouse and I to be able to make joint purchases or investments.

For my spouse to be considered "next of kin" and never seperated from me by hospital staff (if you've read stories of gay men who were blocked by heartless disgusted nurses (citing they weren't "next of kin" since there was no marriage contract) from attending the very DEATH of a husband they'd been with for years as he died..... it would make the very stones weep)

Of course for all of these rights to be granted to my spouse as well and for us to have to be responsible to eachother in all of these matters.

This list goes on - the legal rights of a couple are pretty well commonly understood.  This is bascially the "bundled" bunch of legal agreements that are all contained within a conventional civil union.  And, yes, these are all things I would want from a civil union for myself and my mate.  These are the things I would fight for the rights of any committed adult relationship to have.

These things are not the RELATIONSHIP to me - they are ensurances that no agency can easily disrupt that relationship on a practical level so that we are safe to explore and live that relationship day by day in our own home.

This is what 'legally' being joined should protect and assure.

Also many employeers require that little piece of paper to extend insurance or other things to a partner.

And Drew one can not marry a dog, a car, an abstract non - sorry last I checked none are consenting adults.

Back to HM  Sorry but you are never going to get me to say that I see the government as some sort of 'parental unit' - the very thought is abhorrent to me. And I find that you wanting to hear some one say that they percieve it that way fills me with...what I'm not quite sure...pain, anger, hurt, dispair...a huge blend of unpleasant emotions.

The government is not our parent, it is not big brother, and I loathe the thought  of seeking it's 'approval'
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#45 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,353 posts

Posted 17 February 2004 - 11:31 AM

Quote

Back to HM Sorry but you are never going to get me to say that I see the government as some sort of 'parental unit' - the very thought is abhorrent to me. And I find that you wanting to hear some one say that they percieve it that way fills me with...what I'm not quite sure...pain, anger, hurt, dispair...a huge blend of unpleasant emotions.

Me too. I'm just at a loss to understand why governmental involvement is such a sticking point.  So far, I've come up with two ideas - the "parental" idea, and the "validation of citizenship" idea.  Something to explain why issues like "gay marriage" and the extension to the idea of other configurations of unions being recognized as marriage have such resonance, and why the idea of civil contracts have so little.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#46 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 17 February 2004 - 01:03 PM

Handmaiden07, on Feb 17 2004, 08:29 AM, said:

Me too. I'm just at a loss to understand why governmental involvement is such a sticking point.  So far, I've come up with two ideas - the "parental" idea, and the "validation of citizenship" idea.  Something to explain why issues like "gay marriage" and the extension to the idea of other configurations of unions being recognized as marriage have such resonance, and why the idea of civil contracts have so little.

HM07
Well, let me throw this one out there.  

Perhpas it is all about gaining the same rewards as the majority, because that is what ALL minorities seek.  To enjoy the same rewards of citizenship in the same manner.  

Could it be a "Separate but equal" issue?

I mean I personally DO NOT get the difference between 'marriage' and 'civil union' as long as the legal ramifications are the same.  BUT, since you asked, it does hit me as a separate but equal issue.  That kind of thing leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths.  

Perhaps (as QT and I have discovered on other topics) when you are in an oppressed or 'denied' minority you want the rewards of citizenship to the be same as the rewards others enjoy.  Why?  Because it shows equality by enjoying the SAME rewards as everyone else.  Separate but equal is inherently not equal.  

Just thought I'd add that possibility...

~ Cait

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#47 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,353 posts

Posted 17 February 2004 - 01:34 PM

That's a valid point, Cait - and it makes sense if the proposal is to have civil unions for some and marriages for others.  But the proposal is to have civil unions for all, and leave the marriage business to religious institutions - since it isn't up to the government to dictate to religious bodies what is and isn't a marriage (or, for that matter - what the rules of marriage are. For instance - some religions don't permit divorce).  In that case - there is no separate but equal issue...

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#48 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 17 February 2004 - 02:44 PM

Handmaiden07, on Feb 17 2004, 08:49 AM, said:

I'm going to articulate this what I think it is - and see what others think.

I think that people feel in some intrinsic-value sense, that marriage (and family) is the building block of society, and that being married in a government-sanctioned marriage makes them responsible members of society, recognized as contributing citizens.  In that sense, being denied "marriage" and "family" status by the government makes people feel like they are not fully participants in their own society.
I think you have a good point there. That would explain why so many people in San Francisco are rushing to get married right now, before the State steps in and halts the process - they want to be recognized as full citizens, with the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.

Edited by Kevin Street, 17 February 2004 - 03:47 PM.


#49 ArmourMe

ArmourMe
  • Islander
  • 500 posts

Posted 17 February 2004 - 07:43 PM

For myself I don't give a fig for any concept of government "approval".  :barf:  :barf:  :barf:   Our government could not be further from my idea of a parent!  I'm an anarchist, after all!

However since I'm living here abiding by our laws and conventions.....

As I said in my post, I would want civil union AS PROTECTION that no one could mess with my peaceful life with my mate.  I want the legal protections that are taken so for granted in legal state sanction.  

And those legal protections are largely what gay people are fighting for, too.

#50 ArmourMe

ArmourMe
  • Islander
  • 500 posts

Posted 17 February 2004 - 07:59 PM

Caitriona, on Feb 17 2004, 06:01 PM, said:

Perhaps (as QT and I have discovered on other topics) when you are in an oppressed or 'denied' minority you want the rewards of citizenship to the be same as the rewards others enjoy.  Why?  Because it shows equality by enjoying the SAME rewards as everyone else.  Separate but equal is inherently not equal. 

Just thought I'd add that possibility...

~ Cait
Yes - if the government renamed all "legal marriage processes" as "civil union" for ALL gender couples, there would be a sense of equality about legal meaning for both gay and straight couples.

Leave the word marriage to the different religions - the government shouldn't be handing out religious pronouncements any way :p

#51 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 18 February 2004 - 11:32 AM

Cultural biases of the modern age abound!

Why not ask why such a negative reaction to the idea of 14 year olds marrying?  After all, for the majority of human history folks 14 and younger married and raised families.  Treating teenagers like children is a fairly recent development.  And one that I am not sure has benefitted our society.
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#52 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 February 2004 - 12:31 PM

^ I have no response except to say thanks for the excellent example of what I have been trying to convey.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#53 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,353 posts

Posted 18 February 2004 - 01:33 PM

Consubstantial, on Feb 18 2004, 11:30 AM, said:

Cultural biases of the modern age abound!

Why not ask why such a negative reaction to the idea of 14 year olds marrying?  After all, for the majority of human history folks 14 and younger married and raised families.  Treating teenagers like children is a fairly recent development.  And one that I am not sure has benefitted our society.
I'm sorry, Connie... can you be more specific? What are the cultural biases you reference?

I could ask the question - but it's not an issue that's up right now.  Gay "marriage" is.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#54 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 18 February 2004 - 02:23 PM

Handmaiden07, on Feb 18 2004, 06:31 PM, said:

Consubstantial, on Feb 18 2004, 11:30 AM, said:

Cultural biases of the modern age abound!

Why not ask why such a negative reaction to the idea of 14 year olds marrying?  After all, for the majority of human history folks 14 and younger married and raised families.  Treating teenagers like children is a fairly recent development.  And one that I am not sure has benefitted our society.
I'm sorry, Connie... can you be more specific? What are the cultural biases you reference?

I could ask the question - but it's not an issue that's up right now.  Gay "marriage" is.

HM07
I was responding to the comments in this thread regarding age and marriage.

The cultural biases to which I referred are those involving age and marriage.  
The statements by several folks in this thread indicate distaste, even revulsion, at the idea of teenagers marrying.  Yet, this distaste and revulsion is actually a quite current cultural phenomenon.  These folks were not born thinking that teenagers marrying was wrong.  They learned it.  However, that bias has only been a part of our culture for a very short time in historical terms.  

Government regulations, marriage laws, all of these impediments to civil union have helped to create and foster this bias.  When governments enact legislation regarding marriage age, they essentially rob individuals of their previous right to marry at whatever age they want.
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#55 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 18 February 2004 - 04:05 PM

Shalamar, on Feb 17 2004, 08:10 AM, said:

This is what 'legally' being joined should protect and assure.

Also many employeers require that little piece of paper to extend insurance or other things to a partner.

And Drew one can not marry a dog, a car, an abstract non - sorry last I checked none are consenting adults.

Back to HM  Sorry but you are never going to get me to say that I see the government as some sort of 'parental unit' - the very thought is abhorrent to me. And I find that you wanting to hear some one say that they percieve it that way fills me with...what I'm not quite sure...pain, anger, hurt, dispair...a huge blend of unpleasant emotions.

The government is not our parent, it is not big brother, and I loathe the thought  of seeking it's 'approval'
^That is spot on Shalamar.  I only got married because it was the only way I could get covered by hubby's benefits, period.  If we had been a same sex couple I could have filed for domestic partnership and got the benefits.   :wacko:

I was happy to not be married and I have not yet changed my name.  Hubby was so burned in his first marriage there was no way he wanted to do it again.  But we put together a good prenuptial agreement.

As I said in the other thread we did a Celtic Handfasting, and was married by my Jewish friend who had gotten her minister's license (she had not done a handfasting before so she was quite excited).  We had to sign paperwork that went to the county so that the marriage was official so I could get the benefits.

But there is a respect that comes when someone says they are married, it changes you in the eyes of your peers.  Perhaps this is way Drew and others are so against that word being used.  Problem is even in common terminology the words "civil union" and "marriage" are used so interchangeably that I am not sure what is what.  Are the ceremonies taking place in San Francisco  for "civil unions?"

Shalamar, I also agree with you about seeing the government as a parental unit...it sees itself as that too much already if you ask me!
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#56 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 18 February 2004 - 06:01 PM

Consubstantial, on Feb 18 2004, 03:21 PM, said:

Consubstantial, on Feb 18 2004, 11:30 AM, said:



Why not ask why such a negative reaction to the idea of 14 year olds marrying? After all, for the majority of human history folks 14 and younger married and raised families. Treating teenagers like children is a fairly recent development. And one that I am not sure has benefitted our society.
Yes, people used to marry very young.  Indeed, it was not all that long ago.  Our minimum marriage ages are proof of that.  In most, if not all states, you can still be married as a minor, with your parent's consent.  In some states, that age is rather young even now.  

However, this is not the 15th or even the early 20th Century, and just because kids had what you'd consider to be more rights back then, did not mean that they were any better off.  Most kids who married that young did so with the express consent, and very frequently, at the express prompting of their parents.  Arranged marriage was quite common, and frequently, even if younger teens did have a say in their mates, they certainly did not have the experience to make really good decisions.  If you married early, you had the children and tried to deal with the personality issues as best you could.

Today, there is relatively simple divorce, not to mention a vastly more complex lifestyle in general.  We also assume that individuals should be given a reasonable ability to make their decisions before they are forced on them.  You simply aren't going to be doing the best thing for yourself if you get married younger.  Ensuring that marriage waits until later prevents you from making a mistake, and your parents from using their influence to push you into your own mistake.  

Another example of this is child labor laws.  Teens can and will work long hours to help support their families or to make money for themselves.  This is bad enough when it comes at the expense of schoolwork, but when these same teens are faced with horrible working conditions, but haven't developed the social skills to protest effectively or even the experience to know whether or not to protest at all, it's downright criminal.  And we *know* what happens in that case because there were very, very good examples of what could go wrong with the widespread sweatshop labor that existed at the time.  

Indeed, we shouldn't even consider decreasing the ages for civil marriage.  If anything, we should be increasing them, along with other rights.  Heck, if we didn't draft 18 year olds, I'd very much want the voting age to be pushed back up to 21 and beyond as well.  

In the late 19th Century, a 15,16,17 year old teen was actually quite adult, compared to what exists at that age today, but then, the duties back then were simpler and the environment much less forgiving.  You made the right decisions or the results could be immediate and brutal.  Today, you can slowly fall into a black hole without even realizing it, if you don't have the experience to deal with it or see it coming.  We need minors to remain minors long enogh to get that experience.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#57 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 18 February 2004 - 06:43 PM

I disagree.  By keeping minors minors for so long, we may actually discourage them from learning independence and how to make the right decisions.  Life doesn't allow for do overs.  We are raising a nation of perpetual children.  

I also disagree with your assertion that duties were simpler.  Buying one's clothes at a store is far simpler than making them, for example.
As to the environs being less forgiving in the past, I challenge that claim as well.  Killed by a fuedal tyrant or killed by a gang banger, dead is dead.  

Also, insuring that people wait until they are older does not prevent them from making a mistake.  The divorce rate is sufficient evidence to disprove that claim.

People learn to make good decision by making decisions.  Sometimes they make bad decisions.  But I tend to agree with the statement that people learn more from their mistakes than they do from their successes.  People don't learn to make decisions by being prevented from making them or by being protected from the consequences of those decisions.  Protecting individuals from the consequences of their decisions can have the negative effect of leading them to believe that they can escape the consequences of poor decisions.
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#58 ArmourMe

ArmourMe
  • Islander
  • 500 posts

Posted 19 February 2004 - 01:18 AM

Con - while I agree wholeheartedly with your ideas, and am infact raising my children guided by these ideas, we cannot ignore context.

Because our culture cripples adolesents' emotional maturity, they need to be protected from predators.

Gotta work on both fronts - raise capable fully emotionally mature children who haven't been warehoused away from the real world and at the same time protect the children who are forced by the system to remain children until a silly age.

#59 ArmourMe

ArmourMe
  • Islander
  • 500 posts

Posted 19 February 2004 - 01:44 AM

Posting the above reminded me to answer Drew :)

Drew, I'm totally active on behalf of survivors of sexual abuse in childhood - its my life work, actually.  I'm a body worker and my practice (when I have one) is dedicated to helping people heal from abuse.  Among those people are those with the temperment to fight legal battles and change laws.  I do what I can do brilliantly and trust the universe to take that energy and make what needs to be made of it.

I speak publically about what happened to me in childhood, I've got a book in the works on the subject, I educate everyone I come into contact with on the structures in our culture that allow sexual abuse and exploitation to occur.

Telling people that sexual feelings are purient and need to be attoned for is one such attitude within our culture.  Shame and closeting people NEVER SAVED A SINGLE SOUL from being sexually exploited.  Not a single child.  Not a single minor in an unequal power relationship.  Not a single adult.

Discrimination NEVER MAKES A SINGLE HUMAN SOUL MORE FREE.

The people who raped and tortured me for 20 years had the idea that power can be taken from others by shaming and forcing secrets upon them.  Simply a very exaggerated version of what our culture seeks to do when it tells people that sexuality, especially minority sexuality, shouldn't exist in some way.

There's a reason that a 14yo can be sexually exploited by an adult seeking to marry a child - our whole culture accepts the idea that sex is a closeted subject, a shameful one rather than a holy one.  And anything in the closet can be used to exploit a powerless person through shame.

To me, the argument against child marriage/sexual abuse and the argument against discrimination against gays IS THE SAME ARGUMENT.  No one should have thier power denied to them by having knowlege withheld or rights limited.  When you do that, you set people up for abuse.

#60 Gaiate

Gaiate

    Spirit Blade

  • Islander
  • 1,003 posts

Posted 19 February 2004 - 01:55 AM

I can't quite believe I'm doing this, but on this one I agree with Uncle Sid.  It's blatantly obvious which side of the gay marriage debate I fall on, but I see this age issue as something completely different.

Consubstatial said:

Quote

I disagree.  By keeping minors minors for so long, we may actually discourage them from learning independence and how to make the right decisions.  Life doesn't allow for do overs.  We are raising a nation of perpetual children.

Or not.  Psychological studies for the past fifty plus years have consistently shown that humans don't reach full emotional and cognitive maturity until at least eighteen, and sometimes later.

Giving young people more time to understand and learn about the world and themselves isn't discouraging independence.  It's preparing them to make the best decisions they can.

Quote

As to the environs being less forgiving in the past, I challenge that claim as well.  Killed by a fuedal tyrant or killed by a gang banger, dead is dead. 

You're simplifying the argument to the extreme.  You can't honestly believe that children today have it just as hard as children five hundred years ago.  We have advanced medicine, education, lives of relative safety.  The two situations are barely even comparable.

Quote

Also, insuring that people wait until they are older does not prevent them from making a mistake.  The divorce rate is sufficient evidence to disprove that claim.

No, but forcing them to make the decisions earlier forces them to make at best partially informed decisions with underdeveloped mental capacities.

I would also submit that the fact that it was virtually impossible for people to divorce hundreds of years ago is more a statement on the societal climate of the time, than today.

Quote

People learn to make good decision by making decisions.  Sometimes they make bad decisions.  But I tend to agree with the statement that people learn more from their mistakes than they do from their successes.  People don't learn to make decisions by being prevented from making them or by being protected from the consequences of those decisions.  Protecting individuals from the consequences of their decisions can have the negative effect of leading them to believe that they can escape the consequences of poor decisions.

While I agree that people learn more from their mistakes than their successes, they can also learn from the experience of those who came before.  That would kinda be the point of society.  "Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it."

I'm not saying that people should necessarily be protected from the consequences of their decisions, just that they be given the necessary time to learn all they can before they have to make them.

--Te
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis--vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." -- V, making an first impression

"Dude . . . that was cool." -- My first impression of V



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Culture, marriage

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users