ju'iblex

actually, it was just expected of them to take a same-sex partner until they were of marriage age. Nothing about real thing, otherwise they wouldn't have taken wives then, i personally think it was a good way of making sure some young thing doesn't nick off with the young women and ruin the whole virginal wife concept.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Well, the Spartans didn't give a shit about love--if you didn't have a wife by a certain age, you were put in a dark room with a bunch of single women. First one you grabbed was your wife. Makes about as much sense as love, if you asked them.

Ricomise

I have maintained for some time now that this is just one reason (of several) that the "legal" institution of marriage should be abolished.

If people wish to pledge their lives to one another, in a religious or secular ceremony, in front of friends and well-wishers, they should certainly go ahead and do so. However, it seems to me that having to get permission from the government to do so is demeaning to everyone involved. Why do I need the stamp of the Clerk of the Circuit Court so I can be recognized as someone's husband?

If the government were not involved in the business to begin with, there would be no problem with people entering in to "gay" marriages. (I understand that abolition of marriage may raise other concerns, but that's even further off the topic than I've already gone.)

As an aside, people's attitudes towards gays can change. I remember having many discussions with my father about his "dislike" for the gay "lifestyle," while I was in college, and eventually, over dinner one night, my dad said words that astounded me: "You know, I think Eric may be right about this."

So maybe there is hope.

Groovy Cosmic Monkey

Come on scigirl, don't you realise that gay people are all part of an evil conspiracy to overthrow heterosexuals and convert everyone to their debauched, depraved lifestyle?

Cynical-Chick

Marriage has its benefits, Rico.


~Right to visit your loved one in the hospital
~Right to decide when to pull the plug
~Co-parenting rights
-Right to make medical, or any other kind, of decision for a child
~Power of attorney

abe smith

It seems to be the case that in numbers of human social groups the business of controlling (gerund) women, and controlling access to women, and controlling WHO is to be allowed to impregnate women has been very important --- to the MALES.
Do not forget the ancient truth "Pater incertus est." = "The (identity of the ) father is (always) uncertain/unknown." That certainly was the case up until recent decades, when DNA testing to determine paternity became possible and legally-accepted.
MALES (fathers, brothers, husbands & sons) in virtually-all times & places, and way-before the real facts of human reproduction were figured out, have always exerted control over what females were allowed to do. (cf. suttee, purdah, the Mosaic laws, and all that other stuff!) BECAUSE males did not want to *pay for* the survival and outfitting and inheritance of some STRANGER's bastard.
The very real problem of females's premarital virginity and continued fidelity/"purity" in marriage may indeed have been the major socializing force in human social development, starting back among the pre-human anthropoids. If this is news to anyone, you'd better read some stuff & check it out.
(And compare the exception of the Inuit culture's behaviour, of wife-lending to the male visitor; a practise justified by the brutal rigors of survival in their brutal geography. It was better to let the male visitor copulate w/ your wife, than that he shd kill the husband in order to have access to her.)
I'll stop this long parenthesis here; since I seem to have lost whatever my perceived purpose was in inserting it.

Ricomise

Cynical-Chick,

I do understand that legal marriage brings some rights (and responsibilities) under the current system. I am of the opinion, however, that those rights and responsibilities that are good for society can be handled by legal mechanisms apart from the legal marriage concept. I won't go into the specifics here as I think it would be off the topic of this thread.

abe smith,

I completely agree with your socio-historical analysis of the male-female relationship. I think, however, that such concerns are currently able to be addressed by better systems than the idea of legal marriage. The very things you point out are reasons I believe that legal marriage is an antiquated idea.

scigirl

Well, DUH. But they are competing with The Evil Atheist Conspiracy, so we'll see who wins.

scigirl

Selsaral

My favorite thing about this whole issue is the assertion that homosexuals 'choose' to be gay. I can't think of a more downright stupid belief, or one that is more easily debunked.

Personally, I have experimented with this thoroughly. I have tried with great effort to be gay. No matter how hard I try, I just can't stop liking breasts and start liking penis'. It just doesn't happen. In fact, I can't even shake the 'yuk' factor. After quite a bit of time dedicated to 'choosing' to be gay, the thought of kissing a man still makes me want to throw up.

Anyone can perform this experiment. You can do it for other things too, like what foods you like (no amount of effort can make root beer taste like anything but dog barf to me), etc.

Isn't this pure common sense?

RevDahlia

I personally couldn't care less whether someone chooses to be gay or not. If it is a choice (I don't think it is -- speaking hypothetically here) then it is a fine choice that hurts nobody.