mar·riage

[Rich Parsons]

Yes, People actually pick and choose what they want to quote and enforce from this book that is called the Bible. Yet, by so doing, they themselves have cast the first stone.

I just really like those that are holier than thou, for they have chosen a path, and refuse to open theri eyes and see what is around them.

Just my opinion

 

[michaeledward]

And on Monday morning, the world will come to an end.

Just wondering if this is going to affect any body who posted in this thread?

Mike

 

[Cobra]

I didn't read the other posts but I would like to say is that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. There is nothing around it. civil union is different. There is nothing wrong with civil union.

The government anyways shouldn't be interfering with marriage. What does a secular government know about marriage?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Found this on another forum...thought it interesting.

Marriage has shown an amazing variety over the centuries, and still does so today. Amongst the variations for which we have words in English are polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, endogamy, exogamy, common law marriage, and of course monogamy. There are also 'arranged marriages' and 'political marriages' (an idea which seemed to have peaked in the middle ages.)

Concubinage, the practice of forming a somewhat enduring union with some other woman than the wife, or such union between two unmarried persons, has prevailed to some extent among most peoples, even among some that had attained a high degree of civilization, as the Greeks and Romans.

Gay marriage was practiced in the early Christian church, but fell out of favor during the dark ages. Yale history professor John Boswell found ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century). See http://tinyurl.com/222m6 for an article about historical gay marriages, and http://tinyurl.com/39dra for a review of Boswell's research.

Even in the present day, many Mormons enter into 'plural marriages', despite this being against U.S. law. This occurs mostly in Utah and the surrounding states, but it's not that uncommon.

Among the Nair people, who inhabit India's Malabar Coast, a woman may marry several men of equal or superior rank. In areas of Tibet, a woman may marry the eldest brother of a family and then also take his brothers as mates.

The United Nations recognizes marriage between more than two people.

Posted by: coyote on March 25, 2004 03:56 PM

 

[michaeledward]

I didn't read the other posts but I would like to say is that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. There is nothing around it. civil union is different. There is nothing wrong with civil union.

The government anyways shouldn't be interfering with marriage. What does a secular government know about marriage?

Is the government a seperate entity from the citizenry? Isn't our government established 'by the people and for the people'. Can't the people decide what marriage is?

If the government can not know about marriage ... who can?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I didn't read the other posts but I would like to say is that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. There is nothing around it. civil union is different. There is nothing wrong with civil union.

The government anyways shouldn't be interfering with marriage. What does a secular government know about marriage?

Well, John Ashcroft and Dubya seem to think that this ISN'T a secular government.

Didn't Caligula marry his horse?

Regards,


Steve

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Hmm....The May 16th Something Positive seems to have an interesting look at the issue....

http://www.somethingpositive.net/index.html

:rofl:

 

[CanuckMA]

I don't mean Christianity as been around since the dawn of time...it's just that The Israelites were "Christians" before Christ, only with rules too strict. And then they split into two Group...The original Branch became Jews and the other Branch became Christians, which the Jews wanted exterminated. I don't mean that Christianity has been around in the B.C. era...Sorry about that.

It's time yo got that second brain cell implanted.

Jews never wanted Xtians exterminated, rather the other way around. Jews never were 'Xtians'. The rules are not too strict, you guys just are too lazy to follow them.

 

[CanuckMA]

Is there any current rumblings about this gay marriage issue in Canadian gov.? If so, are the terms,arguments any different?

Paul M

The Federal Gov has sent the text of the proposed legislation to the Supreme Court to make sure that it could not be challenged. The new law proposes a civil definition and full rights to religious institutions to refuse to perform same sex unions if they so desire.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Reminder

When engaged in the discussion of a hot/sensitive or otherwise emotionally charged topic, please refer to the following thread for allowable guidelines.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14456

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Thank you,
The Management

 

[Phoenix44]

Didn't Caligula marry his horse?

No, Caligula did not marry his horse. He made his horse a high priest.

 

[rmcrobertson]

OK, thread's dying. Time that I wrote what I think, in order to piss everybody off...

At bottom, Marx was right. Marriage--the Holy Family--is all about the raationalization of economic and ideological production--to make sure that, "human subjects," are produced in a fashion consistent with the needs of capitalism.

This is partly why we see all these fantasies about, "traditional," marriage, which never really existed: I refer you to the histories, "The Structures of Everyday Life." It's an attempt to shore up something that's far more recent than the "traditionalists," are willing to let on.

But marx was also ignernt. Marriage is also an institution, "designed" (there was no intelligent design on the parts of human beings here, any more than there was in biological evolution--though, in retrospective reconstruction, it appears so) to keep women in their, "proper," place.

These defenses of a tradition that never was--they're all about male hysteria, and the wish to keep women in the kitchen...except for the issue that contemporary economic productgion needs women in the workforce, which is the real reason the family's under assault.

Once again, it's a helluva lot easier to blame leftists and relativists than it is to examine the material relations of production in the present day.

Hey, here's a joke from Prairie Home Companion:

"Why are single women skinnier than marrried women?"

"Well, a single woman comes home, checks the fridge, sighs and goes off to bed. A married woman comes home, checks out what's in the bed, makes a beeline for the refrigerator."

 

[Touch Of Death]

OK, thread's dying. Time that I wrote what I think, in order to piss everybody off...

At bottom, Marx was right. Marriage--the Holy Family--is all about the raationalization of economic and ideological production--to make sure that, "human subjects," are produced in a fashion consistent with the needs of capitalism.

This is partly why we see all these fantasies about, "traditional," marriage, which never really existed: I refer you to the histories, "The Structures of Everyday Life." It's an attempt to shore up something that's far more recent than the "traditionalists," are willing to let on.

But marx was also ignernt. Marriage is also an institution, "designed" (there was no intelligent design on the parts of human beings here, any more than there was in biological evolution--though, in retrospective reconstruction, it appears so) to keep women in their, "proper," place.

These defenses of a tradition that never was--they're all about male hysteria, and the wish to keep women in the kitchen...except for the issue that contemporary economic productgion needs women in the workforce, which is the real reason the family's under assault.

Once again, it's a helluva lot easier to blame leftists and relativists than it is to examine the material relations of production in the present day.

Hey, here's a joke from Prairie Home Companion:

"Why are single women skinnier than marrried women?"

"Well, a single woman comes home, checks the fridge, sighs and goes off to bed. A married woman comes home, checks out what's in the bed, makes a beeline for the refrigerator."

Robert, you have failed to mention child rearing in this rant. Why is that? Isn't that what marrage is all about? The word Husband means banded to the hussy(woman of the house), and the house is where the children are reared and the house and name is what they inheret(which is sometimes nothing). My point is that , of all a man's children, the wealth goes to the son of the woman he married; therefore, its always been about the proper transferance of wealth. With that in mind, the institution of marriage was breached a long time ago.

 

[Cruentus]

rmcrobertson,

I don't fully agree with the marxist idea, just because marriage in the broad sense, as a monogomous relationship between a man and woman (who rear children) has existed before capitalistic structures, and in communities/tribes where capitalism is not the structure. Now, granted, I have no doubts that the "american family" idea was used to propigate capitalism here in the U.S., but the "marriage" in it's broadest sense has existed for quite sometime.

See Westermarks "History of Human marriage" And Howards "History of Matrimonial institutions." Howard Backs up Westermark and Starcke, and says that their theories confirm earlier assessments by Spencer and Darwin.

PAUL

 

[rmcrobertson]

I see. Anything I don't understand is a rant.

Further, I was correct: marriage is a productive "machine," designed to produce children and "create," capital. Great.

These arguments that, "FILL IN NAME OF INSTITUTION HERE," always existed in either a) its present form, or b) the form I say it existed," always rest upon historical fantasy, irrespective of the considerable diversity of human experience.

Yes, some marriages have been monogamous in our current sense. Some societies have advocated such arrangements.

And some have not. Various societies have promulgated polygamy, polyandry, serial marriage, marrying your sister, etc. etc. etc., including--yes indeedy!--homosexual marriage.

The invention of a consistent history of marriage exactly like that producing the present nuclear family rests upon avoiding any consideration of a helluva lot of people and a lot of societies, or writing them all off as perverse. It's erroneous in the same ways and for the same reasons that the discussions of martial arts tradititions are erroneous..

And anyway, I thought the whole point of being an American was that we weren't helpless slaves to the traditional past.

 

[heretic888]

My personal opinion is that Marx was right. But only partially.

Marriage, in whatever culture, is obviously a social institution. At the same time, however, it is also more than that.

I believe Marx's major flaw (in pretty much all his theories) is that he was victim of gross reductionism: namely, he attempted to reduce ALL religion, all beliefs, all marriage, and so forth to nothing but attempts to establish material modes of production.

No doubt those may be true, but that is by no means all religion or marriage is.

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah. A common misunderstanding.

It isn't Marx who's doing the reducing, but the economic system he's analyzing: that's what's up in the famous statement about capitalism's turning, "everything solid into air." That's what's up in his discussion of what the wage hour means: a reduction of the multiple values of the human being to ONE value and ONE only--so much money per hour.

Don't blame the critic for what they're criticizing. These claims that marriage is only ONE thing, and has always only been ONE thing are, from my point of view, a reduction of human beings and their multiple relationships to ONE structure, and ONE alone, a structure that helps crank out little units of religious value (marriage reflects the Will of God), biological production (marriage is to make babies), and social purpose (marriage is the ground of social principles).

In other words, these claims about Christian values are really assertions of capitalist value. Crank out them wworkers, them consumers, that ideology making the whole thing OK and in fact invisible.

 

[Cruentus]

Robert,

I see what your saying. In that case I would agree that Marriage has been used for many different purposes throughout history, and one of those is to assert Capitalistic values.

 

[heretic888]

Perhaps.

But the point remains is that's not all marriage is. Nor is it all religion and whatnot is, either. And that was what Marx was claiming.

Its also further confounded by the fact that the institution of both marriage and religion predate any widespread capitalism by several centuries.

I'm afraid what Marx did is what a lot of thinkers do --- they got a piece of the puzzle and thought it was the whole thing. A tree is not the forest.

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

If you'll read my post, you'll find no assertion that Marx is the only way to see things. I'd also point out that Marx is not responsible for the monotony of capitalism.