I don't believe that the institution of marriage "specifically implies" man
and woman. Also "marriage" itself can be a bit misleading since what we're
really discussing is commitment ceremonies. It's a formal claim, made to
the community, to support one another.
Traditionally marriage has more often connoted the binding of two people, or
even more often the binding of two families (or clans or houses or lines).
It's more often connoted the merger of resources (which is why property
exchanges are so fundamental in nearly all the world's commitment
ceremonies).
There are many aspects of marriage (or commitment) which have changed over
the years to varying degrees.
In many (of not most) cultures marriage was not a union of two people but a
union of several. In many cultures men (only rarely women) were encouraged
to have many wives. It was a status symbol: look at the wealth I have (or
bring) that I can support so many. Many cultures also had "shades" of
marriage many of which lacked sexual connotations (you can even extend this
to a nun's "marriage" to the lord). A powerful man might marry his wife's
mother to formally announce his commitment to support the older woman.
It's only fairly recently that coupling has made a direct impact. This
seems to be mostly because providing resources has become easier. The idea
of two people succeeding on their own is easier when living isn't so
hand-to-mouth. It also lends definite favor to the teachings of early
Christians (although I don't believe that bible specifically forbids
polygamy).
This traditional aspect of marriage is now frowned upon in most modern
cultures (but definitely not all).
For a long time, especially among the powerful these two person unions were
almost always for political gain. Daughters were "sold" to other families
via dowries and bridal fortunes. Arranged marriages are still the norm in
many places today. True they most often "man and woman" but again I don't
see as the point of marriage. The main point in these cases is prestige and
standing.
This traditional aspect of marriage is now frowned upon in most modern
cultures - at least publicly. The idea of a "good catch" in America, for
example, still most often deals with the ability to gather wealth (for men)
or physical beauty and family connections (for women).
An undeniable fact of marriage that leads to "man and woman" is the desire
to procreate and raise children. The political aspects of marriage often
required procreation as a contractual obligation of marriage: an heir
(preferably male) to cement the two lines. Again the commitment ceremonies
of many cultures allow people to marry to formalize a commitment to children
(a brother, for example, may often marry a dead brother's spouse to formally
provide for the children of the union).
These kinds of unions aren't as common as they once were, but they still
happen. However the point that marriage inexplicably results in children is
a yet another tradition that's changing as well. The pressure to procreate
in modern cultures is less than it ever has been. Also the idea that a
husband and wife must have their own children is being changed: adoption is
still problematic socially, but generally looked very kindly upon.
In most cultures marriages were (and still are) unabashedly patriarchic - we
don't say "man and woman" we say "man and wife". The woman's role,
traditionally, has changed to "property of a man" while the man's role has
not changed. In many cultures a widow, now "of now use" to anybody would be
expected to throw herself on her husband's funeral pyre.
In modern society that tradition has definitely changed. Most modern
cultures now see (or at least claim to see) the women as an equal partner in
the marriage. Modern society now expects a husband to treat his wife with
respect (sexually, physically and emotionally). This may also be the main
cause behind the current upward trend of divorce and separation: a
partnership can be broken more easily than a sacrament.
Lastly the very idea of governmental influence in marriage is a modern
concept. Most marriages were between "man and woman" firstly because most
people are heterosexual, that's plain and simple. But also up until very
recently there were no benefits to marriage beyond the formal recognition of
the commitment.
Also up until very recently the only way to get married was via a religious
ceremony (although some cultures ascribe the ability to wed to secular
leaders or councils).
Lastly up until recently publicly announcing homosexuality in most cultures
was tantamount to a death sentence. Since (as we've said) marriage is above
all else a formal, public statement of commitment, this make homosexual
marriages, until very recently, triply hard to justify.
However those traditions are changing as well. You can, in most (if not
all) modern cultures have a purely secular, non-religious marriage performed
by the state. You simply don't need religion to be "married" any longer.
In the end I'll sum up by saying that I feel marriage is a formalized,
public commitment to the sharing of resources and the joining of families.
It's an old institution that has seen many changes:
1) A movement away from polygamy to monagamy.
2) A movement away from procreation being an inexplicable outcome.
3) A movement away from unequal (normally male-dominated)
partnerships.
4) A movement away from politically or socially motivated unions.
5) A movement away from marriage as a formal statement of
responsibility.
6) A movement away from purely religious unions.
7) A movement towards granting social and ecnomic "perks" to married
people.
8) A movement towards the fluidity of marriage (divorce and separation
being more common).
9) A movement away from resource- or connection-based unions.
There is also a general (if often begrudging) acceptance of homosexuals as a
publicly acknowledged part of society.
Personally I see allowing same-sex marriages as much less disruptive to the
institution of marriage than most of the other changes the institution has
endured.
Jim Davis
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 2:24 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Civil Union (was RE: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage)
Allow me to state this argument, or my view of it, in point form.
If you are replying, and don't agree with the premise I put forward,
we can revise it until we all agree on what we are dealing with, before
taking the discussion of the implications further.
If we don't have a common understanding of WHAT we are discussing, we gonna
get nowhere.
The argument FOR changing the definition of marriage, or for putting a
definition forward if none exists is:
1) So that Gays can be afforded the same civil rights as 'married' couples.
This includes being able to note Married on application forms, afforded
rights of next of kin, inheritance rights,hospital visitation rights etc.
etc. etc.
It has also been said that
2) The notion of 'Marriage' is a religious notion, and seperate and apart
from the civil benefits of a union according to the law.
The Seperation of Church and State was noted.
'Marriage' has deep religious and Traditional connotations that specifically
imply "the union of a Man and a woman". It has always been that way, and
this is an indisputable fact. If this were not fact, we would not be in this
discussion right now. There would be nothing to change.
This is the premise that I'm going with before going further with my point.
Because if we can't agree on the above, it doesn't make sense discussing the
matter much past this.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
