Should there be love and marriage for all people (over legal age)?

[Kayla]

Should love, whether same sex or opposite sex be recognised? Whether you want to call it marriage, union, bonding ceremony or anthing else, should a union between people of the same sex be recognised and the same legal standing given to same sex unions and opposite sex unions?
If the main argument for marriage to only be between a man and woman so they can bear offspring, does that mean people with no intention to have children should not be able to marry?
If marriage is a legal right for opposite sex couples, should there be restrictions? For example, if someone is in jail for rape/murder, should they be able to marry during the term of their imprisionment? Should they have to wait until they get out of jail to enjoy marriage as they have been put in jail for ruining someone elses life?
Should there be a waiting period (eg. have to be dating for a certain period, or living together for a certain period) to be able to marry?
I hope other people have questions (or answers) about love and marriage.
Obviously the responses could centre around the church, religion, ethics, personal beliefs, cultural beliefs and other things that people feel very strongly about, so please be considerate of other people's opinions and be nice when posting.

[MasterLich]

My, we're up early with serious matters on a Monday morning!

OK, my take on this: the marriage is an institution created by humans so from my ethical point of view they can do with it what they wish. In other words, I'm not against same-sex marriages. It's a bit sad that all this fuss is anyway about money and heritages.

Adoption is OK as long as there is some sort of criteria for adoption rights (the same as for others). Also, the possibility of one person having a custody of a child before entering a gay marriage makes it a bit impossible to prevent kids from living with same-sex couples, if those marriages are allowed.

For people in jail, the sentence itself is a punishment, not what happens outside the context of serving it. It was not clear from your question if you ment 2 inmates marrying or someone marrying with a person outside the jail; not sure if I'd have anything against it either way. But I probably would question the reasons why the 'good citizen' would want to marry an inmate.

Should there be a waiting period? Sure, many say. But does it really change the odds of a marriage being what you'd consider successful (e.g. long and prospering)? People want different things. I'd take just 4 months of honeymoon over 30 years of marriage any day, if I was still young. If I had kids, I would probably think otherwise.

But it's just my 2 cents, to the question on subject line, yes, there should be love for all people, and marriage sometimes for all as well.

[Prime Junta]

Historically, marriage was first and foremost a civil contract. All this romantic nonsense around it has appeared over the past century, tops. If we took marriage back to this old definition, I think most of the debate would evaporate. Just define the legal rights and obligations that it involves, and make it possible for any two (or more?) adults enter into it. Call it a "civil solidarity contract" (a bit like the French PACS).

If somebody wants to have a religious ceremony on top of that, that's cool too, and it would allow different religious communities to set different standards on who's eligible for it and who isn't.

I certainly think it's wrong if a homosexual couple can't get the legal status that a heterosexual couple can. If a couple has lived together for thirty years and one of them dies, it's just plain wrong if the survivor is treated legally as a stranger when it comes to inheritance or with regards to children the two have reared together.

[Corwin]

Given who/what I am, obviously I have STRONG opinions on this issue!! Marriage is originally a religious, not a civil institution. The Bible, for example, clearly states that!! Non-religious people probably couldn't care less, so nothing I say would matter. Even non-Christian/Jewish/Muslim religions have fairly strong views on this topic, while for those mentioned, the very thought of same-sex marriages would be an abomination!!

[Prime Junta]

Given who/what I am, obviously I have STRONG opinions on this issue!! Marriage is originally a religious, not a civil institution. The Bible, for example, clearly states that!! Non-religious people probably couldn't care less, so nothing I say would matter. Even non-Christian/Jewish/Muslim religions have fairly strong views on this topic, while for those mentioned, the very thought of same-sex marriages would be an abomination!!

So, are you saying that, say, the pagan Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, or Assyrians didn't have the institution of marriage? If so, you're mistaken.

[woges]

St. Paul turned marriage from a contract to a sacrament I believe. The troubadours (bards to most of you ^^) pretty much invented romance as we know it.

[Kayla]

Given who/what I am, obviously I have STRONG opinions on this issue!! Marriage is originally a religious, not a civil institution. The Bible, for example, clearly states that!! Non-religious people probably couldn't care less, so nothing I say would matter. Even non-Christian/Jewish/Muslim religions have fairly strong views on this topic, while for those mentioned, the very thought of same-sex marriages would be an abomination!!

I understand being such an important part of the church your would have very strong opinions. The pagans has very similar ceremonies to marriage ceremonies, just with different name, as did other civilisations (as pointed out by Prime Junta).

The bible does state marriage is a religious institution, but a lot in the bible has changed over time, and while the 10 Commandment remain the most important ways to live a good life, some of the other instructions in the bible have been "modernised". Women are allowed to "talk in church" (although the original meaning of this was misinterpreted), you are allowed to have sideburns, you are allowed to plant multiple crops in the one field, you are not allowed to sell your children into slavery, people don't just eat fish on Friday. Even though this is the new testiment, the Church does budge on it's fundamental principles, even a male should not lay with another male. When Catholic priests (and other religious leaders) have been charged/found guilty/suspected of paedophilia, the Church has covered up, transferred the offender to a new area and tried not to deal with the issue. If the fundamental principle that being homosexual is wrong is adhered to surely these priests would be kicked out of the church and not defended by church funded lawyers when the cases go to court.

The bible has messages of love and intolerance, and while a lot of intolerance has been overcome in the modern age, the homophobic attitude towards people who are not employees of the church seems a little sad.

I was very religious years ago, but now I see the bible as a story written by a group of men and someone sat down and said "this one goes in, this one stays out" and created a book to try and give people a little bit of hope, and a feeling they are not alone, and to promote community spirit. I do not see the bible as the definitive word on society or something that should intervene with laws to create and enforce equality (allegorical not literal to cut a long story short).

Corwin, I hope this does not offend you, I have nothing but respect for you and I hope this thread is a conversation and not an attack and does not make you uncomfortable. The same goes for people both sides of the conversation. These are just my views and are not meant to insult anyone.

[Prime Junta]

St. Paul turned marriage from a contract to a sacrament I believe. The troubadours (bards to most of you ^^) pretty much invented romance as we know it.

That they did, and for them, romance was (almost) invariably *outside* marriage.

[woges]

That they did, and for them, romance was (almost) invariably *outside* marriage.

Yes but thats probably for social reasons. Hard to get a bunk up when all the girls have been married off from the age of 12.

edit:

Or not as the case maybe ^^.

[Prime Junta]

Yes but thats probably for social reasons. Hard to get a bunk up when all the girls have been married off from the age of 12.

Indeed. Which, basically, strengthens my point that romance in marriage is a recent invention, and formerly marriage was first and foremost a civil contract. Still is, in many places.

Did you know that the bride doesn't even have to be present when the contract is signed in an Islamic marriage?

[fatBastard()]

Considering all the arranged marriages that take place all around the world I think the "love contract" is actually a minority.

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for marriage by love. I don't care if you're black, white, yellow, brown or purple, nor do I care if you're straight or gay - when it comes to the civil standing and/or rights then there should be no difference between same sex vs. opposite sex marriages.

However, there is a line of logic, somewhere, that needs to be drawn in my opinion. In my country the public health care system finances large parts, if not all, of the treatment for childlessness. While this may be argued to be an offer that should be available to all citizens I just can't see the logic of offering said treatment for same sex couples - I mean, it is not as if they are having trouble procreating due to low sperm count or other common issues in that department - it is simply a physical impossibility.

I'm not saying that said treatment should be denied same sex couples, but I simply can't justify that is should be funded by the public/government.

Okayyy, getting a bit off topic now. At any rate, having expressed my views on religion in the thread about Global Warming I'll stay clear of that for now.

[magerette]

Kayla wrote:
... now I see the bible as a story written by a group of men and someone sat down and said "this one goes in, this one stays out" and created a book to try and give people a little bit of hope, and a feeling they are not alone, and to promote community spirit. I do not see the bible as the definitive word on society or something that should intervene with laws to create and enforce equality (allegorical not literal to cut a long story short).

You've expressed my own feelings very well with those observations.

As for same sex marriages, I say let everyone enjoy the thrills of divorce court. :)

Seriously, marriage is a contract involving property and inheritance first, social acceptance by one's peers second--or else everyone would just live together. Recognizing the union legally protects people, especially children, from the hardships of a non-connected life(lack of spousal/family insurance, loss of income, inheritance, etc.) I draw the line, though, at limiting the definition to only a contract. Prime Junta's factoid about Islamic women is blood-chilling to me.

For a marriage to be a true union there has to be some strong emotional content. I think everyone, regardless of sexual alignment, has a need to experience intimacy and trust, and to have those feelings as well as their contractual obligations to the other party validated in some socially significant manner. Marriage seems the most sensible vehicle for this.

[Lucky Day]

There's very little to quibble over here.

Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman and is the only grounds in which people can legitimately have sex.

Anything else is immoral and illegitimate: "shacking up", one night stands, homosexuality, group marriages, plural marriages, you name it. You can take great pains to justify it but such things aren't right.

[Jaz]

There's nothing I could add to the discussion because I share Prime Junta's view. And I consider myself religious.

[Squeek]

The way I see it this issue is going to keep looming larger as more folks everywhere accept the idea that all people are created equally. If that's true, it means there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of those "other people." It means there's equity for mixed unions.

[Prime Junta]

I draw the line, though, at limiting the definition to only a contract. Prime Junta's factoid about Islamic women is blood-chilling to me.

For a marriage to be a true union there has to be some strong emotional content. I think everyone, regardless of sexual alignment, has a need to experience intimacy and trust, and to have those feelings as well as their contractual obligations to the other party validated in some socially significant manner. Marriage seems the most sensible vehicle for this.

There's a subtle distinction you may have missed: my point is that the state should stay out of the business of defining what marriage should mean subjectively and emotionally, and stick to defining what it means contractually. There's no good test for "strong emotional content," or even "intimacy and trust," so there's no point in looking for one either.

I would be totally fine with calling it something else, if it makes people feel better -- call civil marriage "pact of civil solidarity," and leave "spiritual marriage" out of the legal/public sphere. That way, the Strictboro Baptist church could choose to only marry Anglo-Saxon heterosexuals between the ages of 18 and 33 1/2, while the Pinko Universal Oneness Rainbow Church could conduct group weddings for all ages, sexes, colors, and species (not including lemmings, because they're anathema).

And, yes, I find that particular Islamic practice rather chilling too. But then, some people would find a tortured corpse nailed to a gibbet a somewhat chilling object of worship as well, no?

[Prime Junta]

Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman and is the only grounds in which people can legitimately have sex.

Sez who? And why should I care?

[JemyM]

"Suit yourself, stay out of others business."

Some people believe they have the right to guide other people's lives. I suggest they shut up or move to Iran. When it comes to "marriage", the whole idea outdated and the laws about it may as well be abolished. If people live together they should have some protection, on top of that, what ceremonies people hold is their own business. Church should have no authority and the only authority state should have over church is to lock people up if they break the law.

[Prime Junta]

When it comes to "marriage", the whole idea outdated and the laws about it may as well be abolished. If people live together they should have some protection, on top of that, what ceremonies people hold is their own business.

I disagree. People live together for any number of reasons. If a bunch of students share a flat to split the rent, it should not imply that they inherit each other or automatically share parenthood should one of them have a baby. Marriage has pretty deep legal implications, most of which are there for a good reason. I feel very strongly that it's the kind of contract that needs to be entered into explicitly and consciously, whatever the reasons.

That said, I can't see any reason why a contract of civil solidarity should be limited to two people.

[JemyM]

I believe There's very little to quibble over here.
According to my opinion Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman and is the only grounds in which people can legitimately have sex.
Also I feel that Anything else is immoral and illegitimate: "shacking up", one night stands, homosexuality, group marriages, plural marriages, you name it. You can take great pains to justify it for me but such things aren't right in my opinion.

Remember that your opinions are yours alone. Also remember that absolutism and extremism go hand in hand, it's good to be openminded and accept that not everyone lives and thinks the same. This is especially important when you live in a civilization where freedom is essential to your culture.

[JemyM]

I disagree. People live together for any number of reasons. If a bunch of students share a flat to split the rent, it should not imply that they inherit each other or automatically share parenthood should one of them have a baby. Marriage has pretty deep legal implications, most of which are there for a good reason. I feel very strongly that it's the kind of contract that needs to be entered into explicitly and consciously, whatever the reasons.
That said, I can't see any reason why a contract of civil solidarity should be limited to two people.

Actually this have been discussed here already, including thoose who live temporarily together (three students living together was used as example). It was kind of a dynamic law depending who's involved and naturally students do not inherit eachothers belongings but there were other advantages that would benefit them. The party that introduced the idea dissolved but the idea lives on.

[mytgroo]

Why should the state determine a religious institution? I don't think that the state should have any right but to acknowledge a civil contract between two people to do various things, raise children, share medical expenses and similar things. The justice of the peace thing and the ships captain bit are ludicrous.

I think the actual religious aspect of marriage should be made separate from the state, and should be done through churches and other houses of worship. The requirements for religious recognition would be based on the rules of the particular church a couple belonged to. Being married should be a licensed process but should be in addition to civil union.

The state is not a religious institution unless it is a theocracy.

[magerette]

There's a subtle distinction you may have missed: my point is that the state should stay out of the business of defining what marriage should mean subjectively and emotionally, and stick to defining what it means contractually. There's no good test for "strong emotional content," or even "intimacy and trust," so there's no point in looking for one either.

No argument there, from me anyway. I don't know that I missed the nuance you alude to, I was just putting the other piece of the equation--relationship--into the puzzle. The reasons why persons of the same sex are asking for equal treatment in a legally recognized union are manifold, but I think the emotional ones are if not paramount, equally driving. It's a validation, of themselves as who/what they are, and of the legitimacy of their relationship to the other person.

The state can only deal with the legality, at least that's my feeling. But even a civil contract can be an emotional validation, and many seek it for that reason.

(not including lemmings, because they're anathema). More of a prerequisite, I'd say. ;)

And, yes, I find that particular Islamic practice rather chilling too. But then, some people would find a tortured corpse nailed to a gibbet a somewhat chilling object of worship as well, no?

Have you read Memnoch the Devil by Ann Rice? She propounds a very similar question. Like all lapsed Catholic girls, she can really whang down on the guilt factor. :)

[Korplem]

(Speaking from an American point of view)
As far as I see it, this is very similar to the black rights movement. People used to KNOW that black people shouldn't have rights equal to whites despite what the founding fathers wrote (all men are created equal). Now, we are at the verge of when people realize that marriage isn't just for men and women exclusively. Paradigms shift over time, and we can only hope that they shift with the use of reason. Why shouldn't two men or two women be able to share their lives and wealth together? There is no purpose to limit it. Nobody should dictate what an individual does with their life, so long as it doesn't harm others.

Hopefully this makes sense. :p

[Pladio]

It does, except for the fact that a limit should be set.

Can I marry a duck If I chose to? If I loved it with all my heart and share every moment of my life with it? Why shouldn't I? There is no purpose to limit it. Nobody should dictate what an individual does with their life, so long it doesn't harm others (If I can add something, or oneself).

Yes, the norm is that a human being shouldn't marry a duck. Why ? Because it isn't natural. The same, I believe that homosexuality isn't natural. I don't believe people who are gay should be shunned by the community, but I also don't believe they should get married, at least not in the traditional sense.
A civil contract is fine, but a marriage is not.

What I mean is that, I took that as an extreme example, but norms do change and I would have no trouble with someone living with a duck as long as they don't marry I don't care what they do behind closed doors. (and as long as they don't harm the animals)

Disclaimer : No ducks were hurt or harmed in any during the writing of this text.

[curiously undead]

simple
the duck doesn't have a choice
so as much as people can love their pets
or love their pets
the notion of marrying an animal
is nothing more than a ridiculous topic
often used as an example or excuse
for that person's displeasure with
same sex marriages.

[Pladio]

So you mean to say love between an animal and a human doesn't exist ?
I've seen it. Even yesterday I saw it on National Geographic. A man raised wolves and even decided to live with them all day. He gave up his work and family for them. They treated him as one of their own. Yes it's in a protected park, but they still treated him as one of their own. They played with him and listened to him, not to the words he said but to the way he howled and growled and his actions.
Yes, and like I said it's ridiculous now, but it doesn't mean it will always be.
Someone else said about everyone knowing that blacks were inferior to others and shouldn't even have the right to speak. Norms change, people change that's the way the world goes.

[Squeek]

Yes, and like I said it's ridiculous now, but it doesn't mean it will always be.I know I'm looking forward to the day when humans and animals can express their love for each other without fear of rejection and scorn. ;)

[magerette]

As a hamster, that's completely appropriate. ;)

Anyone for a chorus of Muskrat Love (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPstB-1TXGU)?

[Dhruin]

As someone who has been in a ~15 year, loving, faithful - but unmarried - relationship, I feel pretty comfortable dismissing any religion that dismisses me without second thought.

So, from a civil perspective I can see no reason the state should discriminate and the religious perspective is a matter for the adherents but is irrelevant to me.

[curiously undead]

@Pladio-if you referrening to my comment you didn't read it very well. i think love for animals can be a great thing. i have the utmost respect for all life. but when you are talking about non-sentient beings they can't make a "choice" to be married. most people even though they love their pets still think of them as their property not a being that has the right to exist. monkeys might be a grey area or even dolphins excetera. if they could somehow prove the link was based on choice and not need i suppose its possible. but next someone will bring up aliens. i think any sane person would have to set the limit at homo sapiens for the time being, and that is in no way predujice or devaluing other life. i haven't eaten mammals in over four years, but thats a whole 'nother story;)

[Korplem]

Hey, there is a precedent (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3191923,00.html)!

[curiously undead]

i'm aware of that but she must be good in bed otherwise the dolphin will wise up and file for divorce since they are the only other species that has sex for pleasure.

[JemyM]

I cannot believe someone just compared consenting human adults with ducks. It reminds me of the tenth commandment that equals women to cattle. I really think humans have more value than that.

[Prime Junta]

No argument there, from me anyway. I don't know that I missed the nuance you alude to, I was just putting the other piece of the equation--relationship--into the puzzle. The reasons why persons of the same sex are asking for equal treatment in a legally recognized union are manifold, but I think the emotional ones are if not paramount, equally driving. It's a validation, of themselves as who/what they are, and of the legitimacy of their relationship to the other person.

The state can only deal with the legality, at least that's my feeling. But even a civil contract can be an emotional validation, and many seek it for that reason.

Absolutely. I believe most of the acrimony around the issue would go away if the bit about emotional validation and meaning was simply left out of the discussion, to be decided by the individuals concerned.

Have you read Memnoch the Devil by Ann Rice? She propounds a very similar question. Like all lapsed Catholic girls, she can really whang down on the guilt factor. :)

No, I haven't; I've only read one or two of her short stories.

[Prime Junta]

It does, except for the fact that a limit should be set.

Can I marry a duck If I chose to? If I loved it with all my heart and share every moment of my life with it? Why shouldn't I? There is no purpose to limit it. Nobody should dictate what an individual does with their life, so long it doesn't harm others (If I can add something, or oneself).

Yes, the norm is that a human being shouldn't marry a duck. Why ? Because it isn't natural. The same, I believe that homosexuality isn't natural. I don't believe people who are gay should be shunned by the community, but I also don't believe they should get married, at least not in the traditional sense.
A civil contract is fine, but a marriage is not.

No, Pladio. If we look at marriage from the legal/contractual point of view, we define it is a binding contract freely and knowingly entered into by all parties concerned. A duck is not a rational being, and therefore not capable of forming contracts. Therefore, you can't marry a duck (or, to be precise, a duck can't marry you).

Second, "because it isn't natural" isn't a reason; it's a cop-out (cf. "Goddidit.")

[Prime Junta]

i'm aware of that but she must be good in bed otherwise the dolphin will wise up and file for divorce since they are the only other species that has sex for pleasure.

There are plenty of species that have sex for pleasure. Bonobos are probably the most famous example.

[HiddenX]

Should there be love and marriage for all people

This is a two part question, because love and marriage are two different things.

1) Should there be love for all people ?
Yes - but everyone has work on that very hard, love yourself, love the people (and animals) around you (= be there, listen, help whereever you can, be nice, have fun) and then you have a good basis for a partnership with a single person.

2a) Should there be marriage for all people ?
There should be a legal way for all people to stay together for life within the framework of existing legislation with all rights and duties of a marriage.

2b) It would be nice if this legal contract could be sealed in all the different churches in the world.



PS:
according to Erich Fromm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm) every human has 5 basic needs:

1. Relatedness - relationships with others, care, respect, knowledge;
2. Transcendence - creativity, develop a loving and interesting life;
3. Rootedness - feeling of belonging;
4. Sense of Identity - see ourselves as a unique person and part of a social group.
5. A frame of orientation- the need to understand the world and our place in it.

A good start to read is his book The Art of Loving (1956).

[Myrthos]

Marriage is open to any combination of sexes in my country (as long as there are only 2). The same goes for adoption.
Marriage is a legal contract. People who want to get married in church got to have two ceremonies. A legal marriage and the one in church. A religious marriage gives you no legal rights at all.
You are required by law to take care of each other once you are married, and a default situation dealing with ownership of goods is described as well (from which you can deviate with a document before you get married).
That is basically it. It's easy to get married and easy to get divorced (although a bit expensive).
Unmarried people that are living together would need a lot of paperwork to get to the same legal position as married people do, so getting married to make things easier is a common thing to do.
Love has nothing to do with marriage as love is not a legal issue.

[Kayla]

Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman and is the only grounds in which people can legitimately have sex.

Anything else is immoral and illegitimate: "shacking up", one night stands, homosexuality, group marriages, plural marriages, you name it. You can take great pains to justify it but such things aren't right.

I guess the reason I haven't had a ceremony is that I want to do it "properly" and it would probably cost about $10K, which is don't have. We are saving for the house and then when we are settled in we will save for a ceremony. I figure it makes more sense to get a house and start paying it off before spending money on a ceremony and a piece of paper. I want to do the ceremony, but I don't think it will change my feelings about my partner or our relationship. I will not love him more, feel more secure, feel happier or feel more complete for having a piece of paper that states we have made a committment to each other. We have stood by each other though a lot. My father died, my nanna died, my dog died, he started his own business and we pumped as much money as we could into it but it still failed. We have spent a long time together and I cannot see how we are less than Brittany Spears who has a quickie Vegas wedding and then has it annulled, or any of the thousands of young people who decide they are in love, get married and separate within a year. I may be a harpie and immoral, but I think it is good to live with your partner before getting married to ensure you are compatible as lifemates not just in love and blinded to each others faults and ideosyncracies. I know some of the things I do my other half finds bizarre, and some of the things he does I cannot comprehend how anyone from our solar system could rationalise. We do love each other, but committment is stronger than love.

Myrthos, the Netherlands sounds excellent. Everything I ever hear about the laws and attitudes are open but based on facts and not sentiment or fear. A very forward thinking country that I think a lot of governments could learn a lot from.

[Pladio]

Alright, so people don't like my duck example. Then let me give another example.
Why not be able to marry more than one person ? Same arguments, just that you love more than one person and all them love you too. They are consenting human beings (and adults). Why not ? Because it isn't natural either, it isn't for the children and it isn't a stable relationship then. BUT if they truly love each other and want to get married ? Then I'm still against it and don't think it should be allowed.

Like I said, the duck was an extreme example and if you want you can just change all my posts to polygamy instead. Less of an extreme example and even accepted in some societies already.

[Kayla]

I suppose if someone wants multiple wives or husbands I don't object on a moral basis, however, it would make legal matters very messy, deceased estates, child support if the marriages end, and how would you work out the settlement if a person has two wives and divorces one? Would she be entitled to a third of the assets? What if the other wife was the main income earner? I think rather than being an ethical issue it would just be too messy. Who in their right mind would want two women asking if what they are wearing makes them look fat or telling them if they don't know what they have done wrong they are not going to bed told?
I don't agree with animals being married to humans. I love my cats but if some sicko wanted to marry them (or worse) I would be very concerned. Animals cannot give consent (except to other animals) and I don't think it is right. Also, the majority of animals are smaller than humans and could be seriously injured by interspecies breeding, although I do remember reading a report in a newspaper of a man having sex with a horse (the man was the receiver) and he perforated his bowl and had other internal injuries. No sympathy. Horses are to look pretty, not to mate with.

[Pladio]

But they all love each other, the man and the two wives. They should be allowed to marry as long as they don't hurt anyone, that is what most people here are saying.
A lot of paperwork doesn't stop people from loving each other.
About having to say if someone looks nice in this or that, I don't care as long as I would love them. Love would engulf all those pesky little problems.

[Prime Junta]

Alright, so people don't like my duck example. Then let me give another example.

It's not a matter of liking; it's that it's a fallacious example.

Why not be able to marry more than one person ? Same arguments, just that you love more than one person and all them love you too. They are consenting human beings (and adults). Why not ?

Again, you're conflating the legal concept of marriage with the personal concept of love. My argument is that the state should stay out of the business of love and stick to the business of legislation. That's why I proposed discarding the term "marriage" for a more neutral term. Let's call it "civil partnership."

So, why not be able to form a civil partnership between more than two people? No reason that I can think of.

Because it isn't natural either, it isn't for the children and it isn't a stable relationship then. BUT if they truly love each other and want to get married ? Then I'm still against it and don't think it should be allowed.

That's fine, but unless you can come up with a better argument than "but... it's... not... NATURAL," you're not going to convince me (or most other people capable of rational, abstract thought).

Like I said, the duck was an extreme example and if you want you can just change all my posts to polygamy instead. Less of an extreme example and even accepted in some societies already.

Exactly. So why not allow civil partnerships between more than two consenting adults? How is parallel polygamy fundamentally different from serial polygamy (which is accepted everywhere divorce is accepted?)

[Prime Junta]

But they all love each other, the man and the two wives. They should be allowed to marry as long as they don't hurt anyone, that is what most people here are saying.
A lot of paperwork doesn't stop people from loving each other.
About having to say if someone looks nice in this or that, I don't care as long as I would love them. Love would engulf all those pesky little problems.

Again, why bring love into it? Love is not a legal requirement for marriage even now, and if it were, it would be extremely hard to test for it.

I'm sure the contract could get quite complicated if more than two people were involved, but that's a practical matter more than a matter of principle. I'm all for allowing civil partnerships between more than two consenting adults.

[txa1265]

Wow ... talk about LTTP ... some excellent stuff here that I agree with and disagree with!

My wife and I just passed our 15th anniversary, married with both a minister and priest there to cover both of our backgrounds. Our boys have been baptized in a Protestant church but we are now members in the local Catholic church and they go to CCD (church school) there and my wife and I have taught classes.

So based on that you might have an idea of my opinion - but you would be wrong.

I agree almost entirely with Prime Junta on this one. Some thoughts:
- I think that the term 'marriage' gets all screwed up between the romantic, religious and contractual matters and that makes things more difficult to separate.
- I believe that any people who are in love should feel accepted as a loving union - but the reality is that people are excluded and ostracized for many reasons, polygamy and homosexuality are only two.
- I believe in the sanctity of religious marriage and feel that divorce and particularly annulment are affronts to that. But I think it is to be expected because of the confusion of terms.
- I believe that the state should only be concerned with contractual obligations, leaving religious contracts to churches. State contracts should have much better term definitions, allowing for termination of contract and so on.
- Because of the usual amount of fraud, I think that the contracts need some forms of limitation - I think that two people is reasonable. Again, if three people are in love, that is a romantic affair. And if a church wants to recognize a marriage of three it is a religious affair.

I really think that separation and definition of terms is the best way to make this all work. Otherwise it becomes a subjective and emotional mess, and there is enough of that in human relations already.

[Pladio]

You want other arguments?
Think of the children...
Well, I can understand parents loving each of their children the same way, but I can't see how wife #1 will love a child from wife #2 the same way as she loves one of her own children, nor do I see how they can be treated the same way by all guardians involved. There will be jealousy, envy and maybe even hate amongst the children. There will be even more trouble if someone decides to divorce, not only legally, but emotionally.

What, my father doesn't like me but he loves my half-brothers ? He divorced my mother because he hates me ?!?
Kids these days have enough trouble without needing to think that their half-siblings are more important than them.
Also, how long do you think someone who believes he can marry as many people as he wants can last with just two wives ? Why not get thirty and see how those kids will grow up.
But we're not only talking about men marrying a lot of women here, why can't women marry more than one man ?
They should be able to, right?
Oh, so my mother likes me and my two brother, but she prefers my stepfather's sons.

Oh and wait, why stop there ?

X (woman), Y (man).

Y1 wants to marry X1 and X2, they all love each other and there's no one saying it's not right or bad. So they marry. BUT X2 loves not only Y1, but Y2 and Y3 too. So they marry too. Y2 likes X2 too. Then there's Y3 who also likes X3 and X4. ... See where I'm going with this ?
You're saying why not ? I'm saying because limits should be set, otherwise norms will keep on changing until we spin out of control.

Kids of homosexual couples have trouble too, young men and women are questioning themselves and their parents. What happens when homosexual parents divorce? There mostly isn't even a biological parent, what are they supposed to do ?

[Ubereil]

That's fine, but unless you can come up with a better argument than "but... it's... not... NATURAL," you're not going to convince me (or most other people capable of rational, abstract thought).

...and the reason it's a really bad argument is that naturality is subjective and not objective. I believe (though I don't acually know) that there are tribes in Africa (or at least have been) who walks around naked all day (and night) with no problems at all, but if I were to walk around naked downtown I'd feel really uncomfortable, and I suspect a lot of the pepole I'd meet would as well. I get a bit uncomfortable when I see two men make out, but I get uncomfortable when a man/woman who's not my parents make out as well. If it happened all the time though I'd probablly get used to it, and that's the case with most things. Unless it's way out of lines with what you're used to (think WW II) you'll get used to it.

On the other hand, given this, that it feels natural doesn't mean it's right. Just take slavery, most pepole thought that was pretty natural (I think).

PS:
according to Erich Fromm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm) every human has 5 basic needs:

1. Relatedness - relationships with others, care, respect, knowledge;
2. Transcendence - creativity, develop a loving and interesting life;
3. Rootedness - feeling of belonging;
4. Sense of Identity - see ourselves as a unique person and part of a social group.
5. A frame of orientation- the need to understand the world and our place in it.

A good start to read is his book The Art of Loving (1956).

What about food, water and air? Without those we'd DIE (not that eating, drinking water and breathing saves us in the long run, but life certanly would be a lot shorter without them).

And on my view on marriage, my life filosofy is "do what you want, as long as you don't hurt other pepole".

Übereil

[Pladio]

I think Fromm was talking about psychological needs there.

[fatBastard()]

I was going to say something profound about how, in theory, polygamous relationships are no different than monogamous relationships but that , in practicality, it is mostly only practiced in cultures where the gender in plural is considered more as the property of the gender in singular (sp?) rather than the love interest and that it kind of fails the test when it turns out the all but a very very few polygamous partnerships is one man and 2 or more women ... but I can't seem to concentrate since the immensely unpleasant imagery of a screaming, pale 150 lbs naked male getting molested by a huge stallion keeps protruding in my thoughts :puke:

Thanks a lot Kayla ;)

[txa1265]

Kids of homosexual couples have trouble too, young men and women are questioning themselves and their parents. What happens when homosexual parents divorce? There mostly isn't even a biological parent, what are they supposed to do ?

I think that children are an excellent and very important reason to think about all of this. The stuff you cite is all true, but there are plenty of problems in hetero marriages as well - divorce happens in the lives of ~50% of kids now, there is substance abuse, mental and physical abuse and so on.

And let us not forget about the fact that kids brought up in 'traditionalist' households have to struggle ... if a kid wants to sing and dance and his father expects him to play football ... there are layers of implicit abuse.

[Pladio]

I can tell you it is not so in my family. Not at all. First off my father loves my mother and vice versa. My parents love me and my siblings equally and tries to care for each of us as much as he can. My sister works in banking, but she studied Political Science and European Law. My brother went to Shangai to learn Chinese for a year (Mandarin) and now he's studying International Business Management at HKU in English. And I'm going to Nottingham to study Electronic Engineering. Traditionalist as in a marriage with a husband and a wife is in my eyes the best of what we now know and have. (Like democracy as we know it today is the best form of government, even though it is flawed as well)

Yes divorce happens now a lot more often than it used to, but mostly because of these hyper-liberal ideas that everything is alright.

People marry nowadays just because they fall in love (but it's not the same kind of love) and they divorce once that 'love on first sight' is gone. Or they think everything is going to be perfect and divorce after their first fight about the baby's clothes or the wallpaper. Traditionalist ideas say that you're supposed to stay with your partner in sickness and in health, which means even after fights about the wallpaper. Except in cases of abuse or other really bad things.
Traditionalism isn't always a bad thing, you know.

[Prime Junta]

You want other arguments?
Think of the children...
Well, I can understand parents loving each of their children the same way, but I can't see how wife #1 will love a child from wife #2 the same way as she loves one of her own children, nor do I see how they can be treated the same way by all guardians involved. There will be jealousy, envy and maybe even hate amongst the children. There will be even more trouble if someone decides to divorce, not only legally, but emotionally.

How would parallel polygamy be any different in this respect from serial polygamy? That is, how is this different from a situation where two divorced people (with children) remarry and then have children of their own?

What, my father doesn't like me but he loves my half-brothers ? He divorced my mother because he hates me ?!?
Kids these days have enough trouble without needing to think that their half-siblings are more important than them.

So, do you think divorce, or remarriage after divorce, should be outlawed? If not, how is this different from a three-adult household?

Also, how long do you think someone who believes he can marry as many people as he wants can last with just two wives ? Why not get thirty and see how those kids will grow up.

You do know that polygamy is permitted in a number of societies, right?

Did you also know that in almost all of these societies, polygamy is actually very rare, and the societies in which it isn't rare, the reason is that women lack basic civil liberties and are considered property?

Even if parallel polygamy was legal and accepted, it would still be very rare, assuming a society where one sex is not treated as chattel. It's hard enough to find *one* person you're willing to share your life with; it's even harder to find three willing to share a life, finding more than that gets exponentially more difficult.

But we're not only talking about men marrying a lot of women here, why can't women marry more than one man ?
They should be able to, right?

Correction, you're only talking about men marrying a lot of women. I've been talking about people forming civil partnerships with each other irrespective of gender or sexual preference. In fact, I want to leave sex entirely out of the discussion -- sex is not the state's business.

So yes, absolutely, if civil partnerships were permitted between more than two people, absolutely the rights should be exactly the same for either sex. That's the whole point, really.

Oh, so my mother likes me and my two brother, but she prefers my stepfather's sons.

Sounds like a recipe for a soap opera.

Oh and wait, why stop there ?

X (woman), Y (man).

Y1 wants to marry X1 and X2, they all love each other and there's no one saying it's not right or bad. So they marry. BUT X2 loves not only Y1, but Y2 and Y3 too. So they marry too. Y2 likes X2 too. Then there's Y3 who also likes X3 and X4. ... See where I'm going with this ?

Not really. A civil partnership contract would have to be one that includes all parties involved. So if Y1, X1, and X2 have already formed one, X2 would not be able to form another such contract with Y2 and Y3 without the consent of Y1 and X1. If everybody agrees, I don't see any problem with that either.

You're saying why not ? I'm saying because limits should be set, otherwise norms will keep on changing until we spin out of control.

That's know as the "slippery slope" fallacy. Look it up.

Kids of homosexual couples have trouble too,

No more than kids of heterosexual couples. This has been extensively researched; you might want to look that up too.

young men and women are questioning themselves and their parents.

My, you don't say?

What happens when homosexual parents divorce? There mostly isn't even a biological parent, what are they supposed to do ?

If the laws were the same for everybody, a homosexual divorce would be no different from a heterosexual one.

[Prime Junta]

Traditionalist ideas say that you're supposed to stay with your partner in sickness and in health, which means even after fights about the wallpaper. Except in cases of abuse or other really bad things.
Traditionalism isn't always a bad thing, you know.

Oh, I agree entirely. I'm happily married myself; I don't cheat on my wife, and I do my damnedest to stay happily married to her. I know I'm much happier married to her than I ever was when I was single, and the idea of polyamory makes me acutely uncomfortable.

I got to where I am by doing some extremely dumb things as a teenager, then having lots of sex with lots of women as a young adult, and then committing to a lifelong monogamous relationship with one woman. I believe that all of these things were *necessary* -- I would not have been able to commit to a monogamous lifelong relationship without the extremely dumb things and the casual relationships. (It was fun too, hee hee. OK, other than the alcohol poisoning.)

However, and here's the crux of the matter, these are my personal preferences, and my personal life choices. It would be absurd to enforce this sequence of choices on everyone -- just as absurd as it is to enforce any sequence of lifestyle choices on any person.

[fatBastard()]

AHA! So that's where I failed. I started out doing the same dumb things but then I seem to have skipped the part about having lots of sex with lots of women and moved straight to wanting the lifelong monogamous relationship ... only without the lots of sex with lots of women they don't seem to know where I live. :wall:

[Pladio]

How would parallel polygamy be any different in this respect from serial polygamy? That is, how is this different from a situation where two divorced people (with children) remarry and then have children of their own?So, do you think divorce, or remarriage after divorce, should be outlawed? If not, how is this different from a three-adult household?


I don't think it would be any different, but I do believe divorce shouldn't be as easy to have as it is now in modern society. Divorce shouldn't be outlawed, but harder to get, it shouldn't be just something that can happen like that, there should be valid reasons for it, not : "I'm not in love with you anymore, so lets give our kids a bad life as long as I'm happy with myself". Polygamy and homosexual marriages (in the traditional sense, which means I agree with you about them having a civil contract) should be outlawed I believe. Marriage is about staying together, like I said, in sickness and in health, if you don't believe you can stay together then don't marry. Get some kind of contract stating you are living together, but if you want to have kids and raise them well, be sure or almost sure you're gonna stay together otherwise you'll not only ruin your life but theirs as well.

You do know that polygamy is permitted in a number of societies, right?

Yup, I do, I states it as such earlier.

Did you also know that in almost all of these societies, polygamy is actually very rare, and the societies in which it isn't rare, the reason is that women lack basic civil liberties and are considered property?

Seems quite logical, but in the societies where it does happen (even though it is rarely), do women also have the right to be polygamous ?

So yes, absolutely, if civil partnerships were permitted between more than two people, absolutely the rights should be exactly the same for either sex. That's the whole point, really.

Sorry the whole point about the women being able to was supposed to relate to the paragraph with X and Y...

Correction, you're only talking about men marrying a lot of women. I've been talking about people forming civil partnerships with each other irrespective of gender or sexual preference. In fact, I want to leave sex entirely out of the discussion -- sex is not the state's business.

Well, the US is a bit behind on civil liberties I believe (even removing some of them), but I think that in France and in Belgium as well, people are allowed to live together and form civil contracts of conditions and what would happen with property and so on, regardless of sex and/or sexual preference.

And I didn't understand what you meant by : "Correction, you're only talking about men marrying a lot of women."

Not really. A civil partnership contract would have to be one that includes all parties involved. So if Y1, X1, and X2 have already formed one, X2 would not be able to form another such contract with Y2 and Y3 without the consent of Y1 and X1. If everybody agrees, I don't see any problem with that either.

You don't see a problem with the children ?

That's know as the "slippery slope" fallacy. Look it up.

I hope you don't mind Wiki.
But it says not all slippery slopes are fallacies : "The slippery slope can be valid or fallacious."

Some people use it others argue against it. I, on this matter argue for it.
Yes, you're right, I can't be sure it will run down the slope, but I'm not willing to risk it.
"As an example of how an appealing slippery slope argument can be unsound, suppose that whenever a tree falls down, it has a 95% chance of knocking over another tree. We might conclude that soon a great many trees would fall, but this is not the case. There is a 5% chance that no more trees will fall, a 4.75% chance that exactly one more tree will fall, and so on. There is a 92.3% chance that 50 or fewer additional trees will fall. On average, another 14 trees will fall. In the absence of some momentum factor that makes later trees more likely to fall than earlier ones, this "domino effect" approaches zero probability."
This is one of their examples for slippery slope as a fallacy. Yes, it's true, it won't keep slipping, or the trees won't keep falling down. But is it worth the risk ? I prefer building a scaffold around the tree to support it than taking the risk of letting it fall.


No more than kids of heterosexual couples. This has been extensively researched; you might want to look that up too.

I don't know where to look this up, so if you have a source for that, I'd be glad ot check it out.


My, you don't say?

I don't know what you mean by that.

Sounds like a recipe for a soap opera.

That's because it's all it is supposed to be, a soap opera, nothing more.

If the laws were the same for everybody, a homosexual divorce would be no different from a heterosexual one.

It's not, seeing as many courts favor the woman except if the woman is an abuser or if the woman accepts shared custody. Courts also favor biological parents, so if one of the two mothers of a child got the child by insemination, then she would be favored over the other mother. If there are two fathers, both moving to different countries but only one can take the child, what happens then ?
In a normal marriage, the mother would take the child, but here we stand blocked at an impasse which can't be broken.

[Ubereil]

Marriage is about staying together, like I said, in sickness and in health, if you don't believe you can stay together then don't marry.

I agree. However: if this is the case, then why do you rule out homosexual marriage?

Übereil

[Prime Junta]

I don't think it would be any different, but I do believe divorce shouldn't be as easy to have as it is now in modern society. Divorce shouldn't be outlawed, but harder to get, it shouldn't be just something that can happen like that, there should be valid reasons for it, not : "I'm not in love with you anymore, so lets give our kids a bad life as long as I'm happy with myself".

Two questions:

(1) Would you be ready to apply the same standard to a multiple-person civil solidarity contract? That is, not outlawed, but harder to get? If not, why not?

(2) Do you believe that life for children is necessarily worse following a divorce than inside an unhappy, loveless couple? If so, why?

Polygamy and homosexual marriages (in the traditional sense, which means I agree with you about them having a civil contract) should be outlawed I believe. Marriage is about staying together, like I said, in sickness and in health, if you don't believe you can stay together then don't marry. Get some kind of contract stating you are living together, but if you want to have kids and raise them well, be sure or almost sure you're gonna stay together otherwise you'll not only ruin your life but theirs as well.

(1) Do you believe that divorce necessarily ruins your life and the lives of your children? If so, I believe I could produce evidence to debunk this belief -- that is, pretty well-adjusted adults whose parents divorced.

Seems quite logical, but in the societies where it does happen (even though it is rarely), do women also have the right to be polygamous ?

In general, no, because most such societies treat women as chattel. As stated, I object to that. (There are some polyandrous societies, though, where women are permitted several husbands but not vice versa. I'm not in favor of that either.)

And I didn't understand what you meant by : "Correction, you're only talking about men marrying a lot of women."

You said that we're talking about men marrying a lot of women. As far as I can tell, you're the only one on this thread doing this.

You don't see a problem with the children ?

Certainly I see a problem with the children. I just don't see that the problem is necessarily any greater than with serial polygamy (i.e., divorce and remarriage).

I hope you don't mind Wiki.
But it says not all slippery slopes are fallacies : "The slippery slope can be valid or fallacious."

Quite, but unless you can present some evidence showing that "trees are likely to fall," the slippery slope *is* a fallacy. You haven't; you've simply asserted this to be the case.

I don't know where to look this up, so if you have a source for that, I'd be glad ot check it out.

Big topic, but Wikipedia is a good place to start: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting ].

I don't know what you mean by that.

I meant that questioning yourself and your parents is all part of growing up. Almost everybody does it.

It's not, seeing as many courts favor the woman except if the woman is an abuser or if the woman accepts shared custody. Courts also favor biological parents, so if one of the two mothers of a child got the child by insemination, then she would be favored over the other mother. If there are two fathers, both moving to different countries but only one can take the child, what happens then ?
In a normal marriage, the mother would take the child, but here we stand blocked at an impasse which can't be broken.

In my book, this treatment is in and of itself unfair. If the parents are unable to agree on custody arrangements, the courts should do their level best to determine which one can be the better parent, and give custody to them. Biological parenthood or gender should not enter into it at all.

[txa1265]

(1) Do you believe that divorce necessarily ruins your life and the lives of your children? If so, I believe I could produce evidence to debunk this belief -- that is, pretty well-adjusted adults whose parents divorced.
Of course, any data not from a balanced study with statistically significant findings is just hearsay, since I could cite screwed up people *and* well adjusted people, and screwed up people from parents that should have been divorced that didn't and on and on and on ...

But even so I think that such study data would be severely confounded with multiple societal factors ...

[magerette]

Very hard to take the emotional context out of marriage, isn't it? Once it indeed was a purely contractual arrangement to ensure the legitimacy of the heir and the proper disposition of property, but now?
As stated earlier in the thread, Eleanor of Aquitaine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_of_Aquitaine) and those minstrels of Courtly Love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love) began the revolutionary process of permitting people to conceive of emotional laisons that transcended a contract, and look where we've ended up--people marrying dolphins. :)



This is not to say I disagree at all with the concept of a purely civil union. The practical side of relationship needs to be recognized and people's rights and obligations need to be adjudicated by someone besides Jerry Springer.

@Prime J: If you can stand another reference from the ubiquitous wikipedia, here's some info on Memnoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memnoch_the_Devil)

[Pladio]

I agree. However: if this is the case, then why do you rule out homosexual marriage?

Übereil

Because I believe that it hurts the children, must be my most important reason.
I do believe they have the right to live together and even make civil contracts binding them together as long as they don't have children, but that is mostly what marriage is for.
First to show your love for one another, but also to have children know they have parents behind them, both a mother and a father to teach them.


(1) Would you be ready to apply the same standard to a multiple-person civil solidarity contract? That is, not outlawed, but harder to get? If not, why not?

What do you mean by multiple-person civil solidarity contract ?

(2) Do you believe that life for children is necessarily worse following a divorce than inside an unhappy, loveless couple? If so, why?

No, I don't, but I believe people shouldn't get married on the flick of the moment, but build a relationship before marrying. If you mind extreme examples tell me, but look at all those celebrities out there, then count all the divorces. I think Mrs. Spears is about 25 yrs old and married thrice already. Being together for two months doesn't mean you'll want to be together for the rest of your lives. In modern society this is what is happening; people meeting people, going on a date or two, then marrying, sometimes even have a kid and then divorce.
I believe that is bad, but if people really are unhappy and have tried to work things out after years of marriage and they see their children suffering from it, then this would be the part where the divorce would be accepted.

Now all you have to do is contact a lawyer who draws up copies of a paper, changes the names and asks people to sign them. He then gets money for it.

(1) Do you believe that divorce necessarily ruins your life and the lives of your children? If so, I believe I could produce evidence to debunk this belief -- that is, pretty well-adjusted adults whose parents divorced.

Not always, but I know for sure it doesn't make people happier and certainly not the children. And of course you can find examples of people who got adjusted to it, that's how the human brain works, it tries adjusting itself to different situations. It still doesn't mean it is a good thing. Well-adjusted also means they had a bad time during the divorce, this alone is enough for me to spare children of that.
I even know someone whose father committed suicide and he's well adjusted and he's studying for his Bachelor now. It doesn't mean what happened didn't affect him. It did, but his brain is trying to adjust to the situation.

You said that we're talking about men marrying a lot of women. As far as I can tell, you're the only one on this thread doing this.

Oh, I said "we" as I was talking about it, yes. I actually meant 'on' or 'men' in French and Dutch respectively, but I don't know the correct translation for that in English. It means 'we', but in general. It's translated as one on babelfish in the sense that: One might say...
Sorry for the confusion, I should have used 'One' but I didn't know (or rather forgot) I could use it like that in English.

Certainly I see a problem with the children. I just don't see that the problem is necessarily any greater than with serial polygamy (i.e., divorce and remarriage).

It is because it is a constant factor as in normal marriages a divorce shouldn't happen and that effect would be null. I'm for monogamy, not serial polygamy, as you may have noticed by me being against divorce.


Quite, but unless you can present some evidence showing that "trees are likely to fall," the slippery slope *is* a fallacy. You haven't; you've simply asserted this to be the case.

The example with trees is an example of the "slippery slope" being a fallacy. (Maybe you should reread it or take a look at the whole article on Wiki, as I think you might have misunderstood it.)
What I'm saying is that I prefer not to let event A : "The first tree to fall down", cause B : "have a 95% chance of letting another tree fall down" at all.
I prefer to stop event A before it even happens.

Big topic, but Wikipedia is a good place to start: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting ].


Okay, you mostly changed my mind about gay parenting.
Just give them civil contracts then to stay together and bind them forever (in sickness and in health :P )
There's only the problem of custody battles between same-sex couples. Who should the court favor if two fathers want to be with their child ?
(In opposite-sex marriage as I said, the court often rules in favor of the mother.)

I meant that questioning yourself and your parents is all part of growing up. Almost everybody does it.

I meant, questioning them in a bad and negative way. In who's my real father (if growing up with two mothers or vice versa) ? Or: Mom, are you my mom or is mom2 my mom ?

In my book, this treatment is in and of itself unfair. If the parents are unable to agree on custody arrangements, the courts should do their level best to determine which one can be the better parent, and give custody to them. Biological parenthood or gender should not enter into it at all.

Even though I agree with you, that's not how it's happening.

Long post, don't post too fast, I want some rest :P

[Squeek]

I think the concept of marriage is a big deal. Marriage is important, because it can impact your life like no other decision you'll ever make. So it stands to reason that we should all expect our societies to treat it with respect and our governments to give careful consideration to laws pertaining to it.

There should be plenty of flexibility, tolerance and fairness in laws pertaining to marriage. That's in step with modern thinking, and it's just plain common sense.

But is that good enough? What if some guidelines clearly work better than others? Doesn't society have an obligation to promote happiness and well being? If some unions really are better than others, then shouldn't the best ones be encouraged?

That approach will never pass a litmus test. But when you think about all the billions of people who have experimented with marriage over the years, it's hard to ignore the common perception that some marriages are wonderful while some others aren't.

[Prime Junta]

What do you mean by multiple-person civil solidarity contract ?

What you call "marriage with more than two people." I'm trying my best to avoid using the term "marriage" here because of the religious baggage it carries; I want to make it clear that I'm only interested in the legal ramifications (in this context).



No, I don't, but I believe people shouldn't get married on the flick of the moment, but build a relationship before marrying.

In this context, I'm not interested in what you think people *should* or *shouldn't* do either. I'm interested in what you think people should be *allowed* to do.

Now all you have to do is contact a lawyer who draws up copies of a paper, changes the names and asks people to sign them. He then gets money for it.

You know, I know people who have gone through divorces. I've gone through a very painful break-up myself, once. I find that description of divorce very offensive -- you clearly have no *clue* how hard it can be.

Not always, but I know for sure it doesn't make people happier and certainly not the children. And of course you can find examples of people who got adjusted to it, that's how the human brain works, it tries adjusting itself to different situations. It still doesn't mean it is a good thing. Well-adjusted also means they had a bad time during the divorce, this alone is enough for me to spare children of that.

Again: do you genuinely feel that, in general, a child is better off growing up in a home where the parents don't love each other but stay together anyway?

'Cuz I know people who have done just that, and many of them are badly broken because of it.

It is because it is a constant factor as in normal marriages a divorce shouldn't happen and that effect would be null. I'm for monogamy, not serial polygamy, as you may have noticed by me being against divorce.

About 50% of marriages today end in divorce. How does that make a "normal" marriage one that ends in death?

What you're doing here, Pladio, is taking your personal preferences and acting like they were the universal social norm. That would be as wrong as my taking my life experience and insisting that fifteen-year-olds experience alcohol poisoning at least once, and you have to have a minimum of 20 sexual partners before being allowed to marry. How would you like that?


The example with trees is an example of the "slippery slope" being a fallacy. (Maybe you should reread it or take a look at the whole article on Wiki, as I think you might have misunderstood it.)
What I'm saying is that I prefer not to let event A : "The first tree to fall down", cause B : "have a 95% chance of letting another tree fall down" at all.
I prefer to stop event A before it even happens.

No, Pladio, you're clearly the one who didn't understand it. But never mind.

Okay, you mostly changed my mind about gay parenting.
Just give them civil contracts then to stay together and bind them forever (in sickness and in health :P )

You can't do that. This is the Internet. You're supposed to stick by your original position no matter what (or bring up Hitler, your choice).

There's only the problem of custody battles between same-sex couples. Who should the court favor if two fathers want to be with their child ?
(In opposite-sex marriage as I said, the court often rules in favor of the mother.)

Which, IMO, is wrong. The courts should not favor either parent by default; they should do their best to find out which one is likely to do the job better, and award custody to them -- gay or straight.

I meant, questioning them in a bad and negative way. In who's my real father (if growing up with two mothers or vice versa) ? Or: Mom, are you my mom or is mom2 my mom ?

Did you know that according to the current best estimate, 20% of children were not actually sired by their supposed biological father?

[Prime Junta]

Of course, any data not from a balanced study with statistically significant findings is just hearsay, since I could cite screwed up people *and* well adjusted people, and screwed up people from parents that should have been divorced that didn't and on and on and on ...

That depends on the claim you're examining. If the claim is that divorce should be illegal (or extremely difficult to get) because it always produces screwed-up kids, coming up with even one non-screwed-up kid from divorced parents is enough to prove the claim wrong.

If your proposition is that kids with divorced parents are more likely to be screwed-up than kids with married parents, then you'd need to do the study you're after.

(It would be tough to control for other factors, though, since factors leading to divorce are likely to also lead to screwed-up kids, in which case the causal relationship isn't between divorce and screwed-up kids but between loveless or unhappy parents and screwed-up kids. I suppose you could do a statistical study between two states that legalized divorce at slightly different times, and see if juvenile delinquency spikes, say, 10-15 years after it was legalized but with the same timing and slope in both cases. As an aside, some people did this kind of study about legalized abortion, and found a very strong negative correlation between it and crime rate -- crime rates fell drastically about 18 years after abortion was legalized. The reason is pretty obvious, too -- the profile for the likely abortee is very similar to the profile for a likely criminal.)

[Pladio]

What you call "marriage with more than two people." I'm trying my best to avoid using the term "marriage" here because of the religious baggage it carries; I want to make it clear that I'm only interested in the legal ramifications (in this context).

(1) Would you be ready to apply the same standard to a multiple-person civil solidarity contract? That is, not outlawed, but harder to get? If not, why not?

No, I wouldn't, because as I said earlier. I believe it would put the constant pressure of a divorce on the children.


In this context, I'm not interested in what you think people *should* or *shouldn't* do either. I'm interested in what you think people should be *allowed* to do.

That wasn't your question. If you need I'll quote your question.


You know, I know people who have gone through divorces. I've gone through a very painful break-up myself, once. I find that description of divorce very offensive -- you clearly have no *clue* how hard it can be.

I was referring to a divorce where both adults accept the divorce. Not about a 'messy' divorce.


Again: do you genuinely feel that, in general, a child is better off growing up in a home where the parents don't love each other but stay together anyway?

'Cuz I know people who have done just that, and many of them are badly broken because of it.

Please, I already answered that question.

(2) Do you believe that life for children is necessarily worse following a divorce than inside an unhappy, loveless couple? If so, why?

No, I don't, ....


About 50% of marriages today end in divorce. How does that make a "normal" marriage one that ends in death?

What you're doing here, Pladio, is taking your personal preferences and acting like they were the universal social norm. That would be as wrong as my taking my life experience and insisting that fifteen-year-olds experience alcohol poisoning at least once, and you have to have a minimum of 20 sexual partners before being allowed to marry. How would you like that?


No, not really. Even with 50% divorces, it means there are 50% who aren't divorcing. This means the constant pressure of a polygamous family hurts kids all the time instead of just 50% of the time.

I also don't believe 50% of the people are divorcing. Otherwise I'd see a lot more of divorces with the people I know too. I don't think it reaches 10% where I live so 50% is hard to believe. 25%-30% perhaps, but 50% ? I only heard about 50% in some studies about Paris, but that's all.

And of course I take after my surroundings, that's how life shapes a person...


No, Pladio, you're clearly the one who didn't understand it. But never mind.


If I didn't understand, I'd appreciate it if you would explain it to me.


You can't do that. This is the Internet. You're supposed to stick by your original position no matter what (or bring up Hitler, your choice).

I hope this is a joke.


Which, IMO, is wrong. The courts should not favor either parent by default; they should do their best to find out which one is likely to do the job better, and award custody to them -- gay or straight.


Quoting myself here, you're repeating yourself.
Even though I agree with you, that's not how it's happening.


Did you know that according to the current best estimate, 20% of children were not actually sired by their supposed biological father?

That's why it's an estimate and not a study. It also doesn't mean anything in what we are discussing.

[txa1265]

I hope this is a joke.
It is a standard internet 'joke' that is all too often true ... after a few hundred posts someone demonstrates to everyone else's satisfaction that 1+1=2, yet there is one person who will argue it is not to their dying breath, soon after calling the other person a fascist authoritarian or just jumping straight to 'Hitler'. Generally it is more in political threads (e.g. Bush = Hitler stuff)

[Pladio]

I hope so otherwise I'm not ready to continue discussing this anymore.

[Corwin]

Perhaps it would be easier if we defined our terms better. Marriage is a specific term that to ME has both legal and spiritual (religious) meaning. BOTH are important!! Living together in some sort of social contract, is different and I have no problem with de facto relationships, etc, so long as they are not called a Marriage. I even support legal rights for people in those relationships. Some churches refuse to marry such people, I don't provided it's a man and a woman (which is also the law here). I oppose the concept of same sex Marriages, (again the term), but while I do not personally approve of same sex relationships, I don't despise those people in one, or cut them off, or refuse to deal with them. They are people after all and deserve the same respect and treatment from me that I give everyone.

[Prime Junta]

I hope this is a joke.

Yes, it was a joke.

Actually, I think this would be a good point to finish the discussion. It's been a good one. Thing is, I'm not even particularly interested in multiple-person civil solidarity pacts (aka polygamy), because in a society where the sexes are roughly equal, this is an issue that affects a tiny minority of the population. In other words, it's not really terribly significant in practice, even if it makes for a good exercise in examining principles.

On the other hand, there are lots of homosexuals around. This means that "gay marriage" (or whatever you want to call it) is a very real practical issue for a very large number of real people. If I managed to go some way towards persuading you of this point, I'm happy.

[Prime Junta]

Perhaps it would be easier if we defined our terms better. Marriage is a specific term that to ME has both legal and spiritual (religious) meaning. BOTH are important!! Living together in some sort of social contract, is different and I have no problem with de facto relationships, etc, so long as they are not called a Marriage. I even support legal rights for people in those relationships. Some churches refuse to marry such people, I don't provided it's a man and a woman (which is also the law here). I oppose the concept of same sex Marriages, (again the term), but while I do not personally approve of same sex relationships, I don't despise those people in one, or cut them off, or refuse to deal with them. They are people after all and deserve the same respect and treatment from me that I give everyone.

I'm very glad to hear that, Corwin. I think this is a good demonstration of how social conservatives and social liberals are capable of finding common ground, if they're willing to try.

[JemyM]

Always working to improve both safety and freedom at the same time is the goal of the western civilization and the reason we are so much ahead. Remember that by american standards, religion is meant to be personal, not pushed upon you by law. You do not want your life to be controlled by someone elses interpretion of the bible so neither should you try to push your interpretion into common law. Also remember that a real conservative by american standards is a liberal, not an authoritarian. America is, after all, a free country, not a christian nation.

Even the Southern Baptist Convention writes: "The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind." in their principles.

There are interpretions of the bible which states that homosexuality is ok, and there are other religions that have nothing to say regarding who can marry and who cannot. Such religious standpoints must be accepted under any country that supports religious freedom.

[Kayla]

Rather than quoting all the people that posted while I was at work and then replying I'll just quickly say what I think.
I think children can be raised happy and balanced as easily in a same sex or opposite sex relationship, and sometimes it is better to divorce than to stay in the relationship for kids. I would be a very different, a lot happier and a lot less messed up if my mum had left my dad with us instead of thinking it was the right thing to do to stay with him, which she only did for us kids, and I know that so I don't want it to sound like I disrespect her for it. My mum is one of the most amazing women I have ever seen or heard of. While this is just my personal experience, it is not always as clear cut until "til death do you part", although that is how it ended for my parents. Sometimes it can start as I don't love you anymore and turn into a very, very bad life (I won't go into details). Again, this is only my personal experience, but divorce is sometimes the best option.
As I said before, I don't have a problem with a relationship with multiple people involved (providing they all agree and it's not just an affair) but I personally think it would be too messy and wouldn't want multiple men in my life.
And just because a couple is same sex does not mean they do not have a biological link to their child- a lot of people use a person outside the relationship to donate sperm or carry the child to term.
Not all same sex couples want to have children, and I think if you decide to adopt or use a donor it shows more committment to having a child rather than a back seat experience in the car and a "holy crap" a little later. To go through IVF or adoption is hard, and if you are a step-parent you do love the child llike it is your own. The existing children from previous relationships become your family and you protect them and care for them as your own.
In my opinion it does not matter where the child comes from or who the parents are, if the child is cared for and raised with love, care, compassion and discipline it will turn out ok. I know pets are very different from children, but I have two cats, they are not biologically related to me, but I love them, I care for them, I worry about them and I give them love, companionship and warmth, and they give a lot back to me. I love my pets like family. My dog died on New Yers Eve 12 years ago. I still think about her regularly and get choked up. I know this does not really show anything, but it does demonstrate that just because you are not biologically linked to another entity that you will not care for it and try and give it a good life.

Prime Junta, I agree entirely with what you are saying, I just haven't been able to express my thoughts with your clarity.

[Pladio]

Yes, it was a joke.

Actually, I think this would be a good point to finish the discussion. It's been a good one. Thing is, I'm not even particularly interested in multiple-person civil solidarity pacts (aka polygamy), because in a society where the sexes are roughly equal, this is an issue that affects a tiny minority of the population. In other words, it's not really terribly significant in practice, even if it makes for a good exercise in examining principles.

On the other hand, there are lots of homosexuals around. This means that "gay marriage" (or whatever you want to call it) is a very real practical issue for a very large number of real people. If I managed to go some way towards persuading you of this point, I'm happy.

I think you're right.

Just one note: It's a bit coincidental (which makes me think in a world like in the Truman Show, but that's not the point, so...) , but I just read on the news yesterday evening that there were about 50000 marriages in Belgium in 2003 and about 25000-30000 divorces. Which does mean you were about right with your 50%, it must mean that my friends and people I know think marriage is more important than just a contract which you break so easily.
There is one problem with that statistic... It could also just mean less and less people are marrying ever since they introduced contracts to live together and things like that.
It also means relationships are seen today as something temporary and less important than they used to be.

I also agree with Corwin that for me marriage can't only be seen as a civil contract, it is something more... If you want to call it spiritual, religious or destiny, I believe it is something more. The floccinaucinihilipilification of marriage by modern society doesn't mean I should follow the trend.

Click here... An answer to some people's question in advance :) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floccinaucinihilipilification)

[Myrthos]

I was writing something as well, but after reading Kayla's post I'll just go stand beside her and say: "What she said".

[txa1265]

Marriage (and divorce) statistics vary by country. In Australia divorce is holding steady while marriage drops, making the percentage look higher. In New Zealand divorce is up while marriage is down, which must make people there panicky! In the US the divorce rate is down while the marriage rate is also down, but the numbers are somewhat flat.

One article a while ago pointed out that since the numbers are arbitrary - i.e. the divorce people are not the same as the marriage people - it is hard to draw real inferences or trends.

On the surface I agree, but think that long term trends of these things can still be modeled usefully.

[Pladio]

On the surface I agree, but think that long term trends of these things can still be modeled usefully.

I think that may be possible, but I haven't seen any statistics or any data on long-term trends.

[Corwin]

Mike, I think the interesting stats would be for the number of second and third marriages as opposed to first timers. How do they match up with the divorce figures?

[txa1265]

Mike, I think the interesting stats would be for the number of second and third marriages as opposed to first timers. How do they match up with the divorce figures?

I have no data, nor did I see any non-404 stuff in my quick check earlier, but my 'gut feel' is that it is like cheating and relapse drinking / smoking - once you have accepted that marriage is not permanent and still choose to enter again, you will be quick to pull the trigger again.

[Corwin]

I think you may be correct, but that could skew the numbers for divorce. If the majority are associated with second and third marriages then the 50% figure is somewhat adrift compared to first time marriages. Perhaps someone else can find the figures!!

[Prime Junta]

Here are some figures:

[ http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=363986 ]


41 percent of first marriages end in divorce.
60 percent of second marriages end in divorce.
73 percent of third marriages end in divorce.
[ http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200003/030_too_large.cfm ]

[JemyM]

Marriage is an artificial bond (not natural) and the tradition is quite outdated. Old values does not really hold up in the modern everchanging culture. To many, marriage a faery tale, a fragile dream. They get married for the wrong reasons. When reality shatter their illusions they divorce.

The only way to keep a marriage is to marry for the right reasons and that's love that endured the first years and developed into a long lasting friendship. Marriage based on sex, babies, fresh new love, faerytales and illusions about the perfect mate will probably not last.

With the amount of people who marry for the wrong reasons, state laws should not take marriage seriously.

[Kayla]

How many of those change their mind about the marriage and just want out as opposed to those that drift and don't relate anymore, opposed to infidelity, abuse or fundamental life goal differences (eg. one person desperately wants to have kids and the other doesn't). The divorce rate may be high but I would prefer to live in a society where I have an out if the relationship turns bad and is not able to be fixed than to suffer in silence and just tolerate my lot in life. I stay with my partner because he makes me happy and we work well together, if that changed we would talk, if that failed we'd do councilling, if that failed we would need to look at other options. I do not take divorce lightly at all, but sometimes it is better to leave while you still have a change of rebuilding your life and move on, whether you are married or de facto.

[magerette]

Prime Junta wrote:

41 percent of first marriages end in divorce.
60 percent of second marriages end in divorce.
73 percent of third marriages end in divorce.

So the verdict is--don't get married! Stay happily 'unofficially related' ;) (Yes, I know--no statistics on those who just stop living together--still, it's a sobering group of figures and indicates saying so doesn't necessarily make it so...)

Those are some scary statistics. It's really strange--my first marriage(young and foolish) lasted 4 years--2nd(older and more stubborn)--8 years, 3rd(current )--16 years going on eternity--so I would have assumed the figures to be the exact opposite.

I guess practice doesn't help with this one.

[Kayla]

I guess the problem with the statistics is a lot of people who divorce don't marry again because they don't want to get hurt again or they feel free and want to spend time as a single person to recapture who they re and spend their life doing what they want, and not what their life was with their partner. People are even less likely to do it again after going through divorce twice, and the people who open themselve up to love and marriage three times would be a rare species indeed. To not become bitter, afraid of rejection or pain, and to go into a new relationship, develop the relationship and agree the marry again would be something few people would have the courage to do.

It's like if you get hammered and projectile vomit and wake up with the mother of all hang overs the next morning when you go out drinking for the first time. You would be less likely to go on a bender again. If the second time you went drinking the same thing happened I could understand never touching alcohol again.

[Prime Junta]

Marriage is an artificial bond (not natural) and the tradition is quite outdated.

LOL! Here's someone else coming up with the "it's... not... NATURAL!" argument. Seriously, JemyM -- I'm sure you can do better.

(As an aside, having been in a quite a few different types of relationships, I can assure you that marriage works very well for me -- and feels quite "natural" as well. Of course, this doesn't mean that it will necessarily work for *everyone* -- but dissing it as "artificial" and "outdated" is just as silly as declaring it the one, universal, unshakeable ideal of human companionship.)

Old values does not really hold up in the modern everchanging culture. To many, marriage a faery tale, a fragile dream. They get married for the wrong reasons. When reality shatter their illusions they divorce.

Which, of course, does not mean that marriage in itself is a bad idea. It just means that getting married to the wrong person for the wrong reasons is a bad idea, which is pretty solidly in Captain Obvious territory.

The only way to keep a marriage is to marry for the right reasons and that's love that endured the first years and developed into a long lasting friendship.

JemyM, you sure seem to know a lot about the "only" way to personal fulfilment.

Seriously (again): you're being exactly as narrow-minded as someone who says that the only way to have a happy marriage is to abstain from sex until then, and let your parents pick your spouse. People are different; some things work for some people, other things work for other people. Some people are pretty much congenitally incapable of staying faithful, which means that a monogamous marriage won't work for them at all; others are congenitally loyal, have a hard time letting people close to them, and have a deep need for trust and belonging, which means that they'd be unhappy in anything other than a monogamous marriage. How hard is this for you to accept?

Marriage based on sex, babies, fresh new love, faerytales and illusions about the perfect mate will probably not last.

With the amount of people who marry for the wrong reasons, state laws should not take marriage seriously.

From the state's point of view, marriage is a contract that can be entered into or dissolved at will. Why should that mean that state laws should not take such contracts "seriously?"

I'm developing a serious dislike for you, Jemy. You have a very nasty way of wanting to impose your personal lifestyle choices and values on everyone else. That's despicable.

[Prime Junta]

It's like if you get hammered and projectile vomit and wake up with the mother of all hang overs the next morning when you go out drinking for the first time. You would be less likely to go on a bender again. If the second time you went drinking the same thing happened I could understand never touching alcohol again.

If that were true, there would be no alcoholics. Sadly, it isn't and there are.

[Kayla]

Same as there are people who marry multiple times, and people who have a bad experience and decide that's enough.

Come to think of it, I don't think getting drunk is the best analogy for this situation.

Prime Junta please make another post, you are logical and I agree with what you have said throughout the thread. I am also certain you make more sense than me (no need to do a poll.... I concede) so I'll just sit here, clean my whiskers and nod occasionally when reading your responses. You are now the spokesperson for chickencat (unless you are anti-chicken or anti-cat, and then I will strip you of the power I have just bestowed upon you). You may now act as my brain and my voice from...... now.

[Prime Junta]

Same as there are people who marry multiple times, and people who have a bad experience and decide that's enough.

Same thing with domestic abuse. It's amazingly hard for many people to get out of an abusive relationship, and people who manage it often end up in a new one with the same problems.

Prime Junta please make another post, you are logical and I agree with what you have said throughout the thread. I am also certain you make more sense than me (no need to do a poll.... I concede) so I'll just sit here, clean my whiskers and nod occasionally when reading your responses. You are now the spokesperson for chickencat (unless you are anti-chicken or anti-cat, and then I will strip you of the power I have just bestowed upon you). You may now act as my brain and my voice from...... now.

Can I put that in my .sig? :p

I don't have any chickens, but here's the cat:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/181/434132644_c70a5e9104.jpg

[Kayla]

Yes. You can immortalise me. :highfive:
I knew I would say something worthwhile one day.

Your cat is absolutely gorgeous, and looks very dignified. What's his/her name? My girl likes to sit on top of the front door. It must be a "surveying my kingdom" thing. Good thing I don't try it. I'd probably break the door and/or scare the crap out of my other half or the unfortunate Avon/phone company/door to door salesperson that came near the door. I also know I would not look as majestic as your cat. I won' t try it... my mind is made up now.

...after reading Kayla's post I'll just go stand beside her and say: "What she said".
If only people said I was right more regularly. *Gives Myrthos some sunblock and puts a muzzle on the chicken part of chicken cat so there is no chance of an "incident".* Can you said "Kayla, I agree with you 100%" into a tape recorder for me?

[Prime Junta]

Her name is Missy. She does like high places. (I guess a part of it is that we also have a dog, and if she wants to be left alone, going up on something is the way to go. They're great friends though.)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/181/371731667_ed5cd0a7d8.jpg

[txa1265]

Same thing with domestic abuse. It's amazingly hard for many people to get out of an abusive relationship, and people who manage it often end up in a new one with the same problems.
True - and that is why so many of these numbers don't correlate. And why I used addictive behaviors as an analogy (admittedly not a strong one) - so long as people don't get at the root cause of why there is a problem they can never fix it.

And JemyM, I disagree with your assessment that marriage is an outmoded fad like the pet rock and hula hoop. The artifice is the 'contract', religious or civil, not the ability of two people to enter into a lifelong relationship. It is largely the rise of the world society based around instant gratification and easy disposal that causes these issues - sure there is some based around the empowerment of women not to take so much crap, but I think that is actually relatively minor. If people accepted that life required hard work, sacrifice and patience then it wouldn't be such an issue.

[Pladio]

I have a small and scary analogy for you (you might not agree with it, but here it goes...). Except maybe for the people on this forum, a lot of people buy new things and a month later they see something else they want, so they stop playing the old game and buy new one. After that it goes on like that until they find a game they like playing a lot and play it for a whole 6 months, but even then they can find something new and 'better' so they throw their old game on the shelf and buy the new one, etcetera. Maybe a bad analogy too, but that is what has become of marriage in very basic terms.

[Kayla]

It is largely the rise of the world society based around instant gratification and easy disposal that causes these issues - sure there is some based around the empowerment of women not to take so much crap, but I think that is actually relatively minor. If people accepted that life required hard work, sacrifice and patience then it wouldn't be such an issue.

I have to disagree with you. It wasn't until the mid 1980's in Australia a man could be charged with raping his wife. Domestic violence was seen as a woman stepped out of line and her husband had to put her back in her place. When women in the Australian Public Service married they were forced to resign. In 1916 the Tax Office annual report declared its delight that ‘the employment of females on the less important work of the department has been a success’. 1928 women were fighting for 8 hour work days, like the men.

Women are not objects, are not possessions, there is still discrimination (I appreciate racism, sex discrimination and other forms of discrimination are still major issues, but I think that is for another thread), unequal pay and many other things women have to fight for. Women are not to be so easily dismissed and are not content to live their lives in their man's shadow, at his beck and call, to comply and jump to his every whim and need.

Women (and men) in abusive relationships sometimes are able to recognise they do not need to accept it anymore, infidelity does not need to be accepted anymore (obviously depending on the individual relationship and circumstances), a woman should not be forced to have sex against her will, husband or not. This isn't just empowerment, it is about the right to live your life without fear, prejudice or being seen as an unimportant and disposable. Dowry burnings, "female circumcision", killing female children because they are seen as less than male children, domestic abuse (physical and mental) continue and if someone is brave enough to fight their way out of a cycle like that and start again with nothing and no one to help them, I think it very insulting to categorise this as not taking as much crap.

There are some people (eg. Britney Spears) who do get a quickie wedding and then have it annulled. However, this would not be possible if the chuch did not offer quickie weddings. Lodge an application, wait 6 months and you will receive your licence. It should not be as easy as driving through McDonalds and getting a burger.

Generally though I think people do take marriage/relationships seriously, particularly if they have assets like a house. I just think people are less willing to be violated, demeaned and made to feel worthless by someone that is suppose to care for them. People are less willing to just do with their lot. There are a lot more people going to marriage counselling and trying to work things out, sometimes things are broken and cannot be fixed, and in that case it is best to go and start fresh and pick up the pieces and create a new life for yourself where you can be content with your life and have a little bit of self esteem.

A lot of women (including women I know very well, and multiple women not just a couple) take a lot of abuse that I would not take. Their partners cut them off from their family and friends so there is no one to rely on except their partner, and then they get broken down with insults and mental abuse that makes them think they deserve no better than to be a servant, their opinion is worth nothing and they are worth nothing. It is really hard to see, and when it ends in divorce and you get a phone call or visit from someone you have not seen for a long time because they have been under the thumb for so long, it is difficult to make them see their true value, to get them to trust again and to get them to have "normal" human interactions. It is always easier to remember the negative things said to you than the positive things said to you. Mental abuse does not leave bruises, cuts or damage that can be captured in a photograph, and as it cannot be seen it cannot easily be proven or circumvented. If someone turns up at work or a family member shows up with bruises, you know something is going on. If someone is losing themselves and slipping into depression you sometimes really need to be watching to see something is wrong, and sometimes it is too late to get through without professional assistance from a caring, qualified doctor who will be patience and persistent with the rebuilding process.

My head is full of a lot of thoughts, and I think I may have read more into your comment than you intended, but I am very passionate about equality (not just sex equality, all forms of equality), even if I am not articulate.

Women are not content with being in the 1950's and 1960's anymore where the advice from womens magazines was basically the man is king and the woman is there to serve him. eg.

The Good Wife's Guide
From Housekeeping Monthly, 13 May, 1955.

Have dinner ready. Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious meal ready on time for his return. This is a way of letting him know that you have be thinking about him and are concerned about his needs. Most men are hungry when they get home and the prospect of a good meal is part of the warm welcome needed.

Prepare yourself. Take 15 minutes to rest so you'll be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your make-up, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh-looking. He has just been with a lot of work-weary people.

Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a lift and one of your duties is to provide it.

Clear away the clutter. Make one last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband arrives. Run a dustcloth over the tables.

During the cooler months of the year you should prepare and light a fire for him to unwind by. Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and it will give you a lift too. After all, catering to his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction.

Minimize all noise. At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of the washer, dryer or vacuum. Encourage the children to be quiet.

Be happy to see him.

Greet him with a warm smile and show sincerity in your desire to please him.

Listen to him. You may have a dozen important things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first - remember, his topics of conversation are more important than yours.

Don't greet him with complaints and problems.

Don't complain if he's late for dinner or even if he stays out all night. Count this as minor compared to what he might have gone through at work.

Make him comfortable. Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or lie him down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him.

Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes. Speak in a low, soothing and pleasant voice.

Don't ask him questions about his actions or question his judgment or integrity.

Remember, he is the master of the house and as such will always exercise his will with fairness and truthfulness. You have no right to question him.

A good wife always knows her place.

Prima Junta. Very cute 2nd photo. And there is a cycle of abuse. It is incredibly difficult to get out of an abusive relationship and even harder not to fall into the same trap again. It is incredibly hard to break the cycle and if you are abused as a child to not do the same to your own children. I believe we are all creations of our life experiences, and the longer the behaviour and the more impactful the behaviour, the harder it is to change.

[txa1265]

I actually largely agree with you Kayla, which is why I singled it out. But if I look at the overall landscape of change in society, anti-social behavior and other stuff related to the instant-gratification world and lack of social interaction have pervasive impacts in just about everything, including marriage and other relationships.

That is not to minimize the impact of gaining equality in relationships, but I think that the change in relationships based on women gaining more equality has been gradual and happening for several decades - I was raised in a household where the parents were partners in the true sense of the word, and they were married at the start of the 60's - and I found that the majority of my friends had parents that reflected some sort of continuum between 'traditional' and 'enlightened'.

I believe that the causes come from all over the place, but I see too many people who think that '50-50' means every day, every dollar, every piece of laundry ... it doesn't and never will. Putting life under that sort of microscope is a perfect recipe for failure. I also see too many women under the delusion that they can 'have it all' ... as if men ever did ... you *cannot* simultaneously be a full-time employee, full-time mom, and keep the same close circle of friends and extra activities all at once. Can't happen. That doesn't mean that I believe for a second that women belong 'barefoot and pregnant', but that reality requires you to be realistic.

[Kayla]

I think the main issue today with anti-social behviour is a lack of manners. Parents think teachers should be instilling values, morals and manners in their children, and yes they should, but the parents also have a role to play and sometimes this does not happen.

I regularly see no respect for elders, for authority figures and no restraint. We used to respect the police, they just get told to "f*** off" now. When I am driving at night I see kids as young as 11 (at a guess) walking the streets or in car parks like McDonalds that are open 24 hours. I can't help but think this is a result of the parents. How can you not know where your kids are at 2am in the morning? How can you let you child disrespect people in front of you and not pull them up? I had a kid sitting on the train with his mother and the kid kept kicking my leg. I said "would you please stop doing that. You're kicking me and it hurts. Thanks". I said it as politely as I could and the mother went into a very loud speach about how she had paid for her train ticket and her kid could do whatever she wanted (with many rude words and comments like "who the f*** do you think you are to limit my child's freedom of speech?" Hello, not freedom of speech, it's cal