|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 21, 2014 11:53:00 GMT -5
I absolutely do not present this to start another contentious thread, but this (explicitly pro-marriage-freedom) overview of the meaning and status of marriage is too lucid and well-researched not to offer. Spangenberg summarizes most of what I understand about the history of marriage in the West and includes some matters I either had forgotten (like coverture) or was unaware of (history of laws regarding polygamy). It's all, well, very reasonable. Oops--forgot the link. boingboing.net/2014/07/21/mawwiage.html(Note the joke in the link.) |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jul 21, 2014 13:36:56 GMT -5
There's a lot in this piece that I didn't know. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 21, 2014 13:43:25 GMT -5
If the rest is as inaccurate or oversimplified as the explanation of Paul's writing on the subject, the thing ain't worth much. Scholarly, though. Lots of word magic in there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Jul 21, 2014 13:59:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 21, 2014 14:28:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 21, 2014 14:36:05 GMT -5
That always strikes me as a curious argument.
Marriage should continue to be a spiritually and morally empty and meaningless secular exercise in property rights administration because it's always been that. At least it's no longer paternalistic, misogynistic and supporting the property claims of the oligarchy and preserving the power of the ruling class. In becoming less and less practically meaningful it must be improving.
Ah well, carry on.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 21, 2014 14:51:17 GMT -5
That always strikes me as a curious argument. Marriage should continue to be a spiritually and morally empty and meaningless secular exercise in property rights administration because it's always been that. At least it's no longer paternalistic, misogynistic and supporting the property claims of the oligarchy and preserving the power of the ruling class. In becoming less and less practically meaningful it must be improving. Ah well, carry on. These arguments work well in a society made entirely of intellectuals who have a shared set of materialist values. That's generously about .01% of the Earth's population. The other 99.99% of humanity must struggle on in darkness. |
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,845 
|
Post by Dub on Jul 21, 2014 15:09:02 GMT -5
Add my name to those who think Lisa (the author) displays a lack of scholarship and understanding.
I do think that marriage has historically been primarily about property (in all it's many forms) but Lisa misses and or misunderstands a lot of stuff. Also there no reason we are bound by the traditional purpose of marriage. We can, if we choose, elevate it to a higher purpose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 15:10:41 GMT -5
My ex wife was all about property and money.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 21, 2014 15:18:45 GMT -5
My ex wife was all about property and money. Apparently we all are. Or have been. Or should be. It's all a little unclear. |
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 21, 2014 16:12:12 GMT -5
Marriage should continue to be a spiritually and morally empty and meaningless secular exercise in property rights administration because it's always been that. Sorry, Peter--I must have mistakenly typed the link to the alternate-universe version of Boing Boing. The one I meant to post is to the unflattened version that lacks the scornful dismissal of other folks' sincere beliefs but that does offer some historical context for the current public discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 21, 2014 20:05:35 GMT -5
Marriage should continue to be a spiritually and morally empty and meaningless secular exercise in property rights administration because it's always been that. Sorry, Peter--I must have mistakenly typed the link to the alternate-universe version of Boing Boing. The one I meant to post is to the unflattened version that lacks the scornful dismissal of other folks' sincere beliefs but that does offer some historical context for the current public discussion. What exactly did I get wrong? Historically marriage is not a religious creation. Christianity didn't even get around to recognizing it as a sacrament until the 16th century. And I'm reasonably sure that there's someone who can provide a nefarious ulterior motive for them co-opting the secular tradition as a part of some grander power play. It would seem that there is nothing psychologial or sociological or relational about it at all. And she very thoroughly debunks the ideas that marriage has ever been about kids or anything else. It would appear that marriage in its fundamental core is singularly about property rights and most notably about male and ruling class property rights. And since those kinds of things no longer play a significant role in modern Western society, there really isn't an underlying purpose to the whole exercise. She even ends her piece with the assertion that that's exactly what it's about. Given that historical perspective, sure, why not? |
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jul 21, 2014 20:29:51 GMT -5
While the word "marriage" is not used, I see Biblical marriage instituted from the beginning.
"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones,
and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she
was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:23, 24
I think the state getting out of the business of sanctioning marriage is an argument with merit. On the other hand, I do think the state has a compelling interest in the marriage union since all societies are built on families. Stable families are a public interest. I could go either way on that one.
In African societies (ones where I have some familiarity), marriage is all about the children. Divorce was virtually unknown...the only reason for dissolving a marriage was the failure to produce children. Of course, much of that is changing under Western influence.
I'm all too familiar with the "bride price" thingie. Whatever virtue may have been in it at one time has long since evaporated. Yeah, I have stories.
I get the property-economic angle. It's the reason always cited for polygamy in Masai culture. It's the time honored way to be able to raise & tend a larger herd of cattle. And that's true...but it is not at all the whole story. If you could see how they love and value children it might be eye-opening. It has been for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jul 21, 2014 21:24:09 GMT -5
I read the article, and there's some interesting stuff in there. I'm not seeing anything, though, that supports the idea of gay marriage. If that was the author's intent, it didn't reach me. This coming from someone who does support same-gender unions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 23:52:50 GMT -5
I enjoy how she discusses the religious underpinnings of marriage, then completely fails to mention how the world's second most dominant religion views marriage.
I also read it and am reminded that not all writers can write.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 22, 2014 0:14:03 GMT -5
Maybe I'll have to go back and re-read, but my impression first time around was that the point of the piece is not to defend gay marriage but to address a range of anti-gay-marriage arguments, showing their deficiencies and ahistorical bases. Specifically, she writes, As a medievalist, my attention was particularly caught by arguments against DOMA on Twitter and elsewhere that asserted that Christianity and history unilaterally agreed that marriage means one woman and one man and coitus. This simply isn't historically accurate even within the context of Christianity and European history. . . . The modern notion of marriage is connected with the historical, traditional model that those opposed to marriage equality like to cite, but it's not nearly as clean a connection as parties on either side of the same-sex marriage divide would like to claim. It is in fact, varied, changeable, and chaotic. I would say that her target is what might be called the One True Marriage collection group of anti-marriage-equality arguments. Nowhere do I see a denigration of heterosexual marriage or a reduction of marriage to a merely-utilitarian or bureaucratic arrangement. When she writes "I want a spouse," I hear something more than the desire for a tidy legal status. But she clearly does not see herself as being treated as a full citizen if her domestic relationship is denied that status. |
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 22, 2014 0:15:41 GMT -5
I also read it and am reminded that not all writers can write. Huh? |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 22, 2014 0:23:32 GMT -5
I could just as well dogpile on the rabbit. I didn't grasp what argument she thought she was settling, I certainly didn't understaand her historical argument, largely because I don't think she has a grasp of history or the argument.
As she explains her case: "As a medievalist, my attention was particularly caught by arguments against DOMA on Twitter and elsewhere that asserted that Christianity and history unilaterally agreed that marriage means one woman and one man and coitus. This simply isn't historically accurate even within the context of Christianity and European history."
History is the record of the past, as we can decipher it. Well, you have to dig through an awful lot of historical records to find a historical cases of men marrying men or women marrying women. I don't think you can find any examples of men marrying men or women marrying women, not in any sense of legal marriage approved of by state or church. So, if someone is asserting that historically marriage is an arrangement that consists of a man and woman and coitus in most cases, and a man and several women and coitus in some cases, I don't understand how you can argue with them. Not unless you can find statistically meaningful historical examples to the contrary. History isn't about what should have been but about what was, and in the history of Western Civilization and Eastern Civilization, marriage has been between men and women, not men and men or women and women (and while certain kings and fat cats got lucky, or unlucky, and grabbed several wives, it is very reasonable to maintain that the historical record does show that, overwhelmingly, marriage has been a one man, one woman deal.
I am not arguing that we need to be bound by history or tradition, but it seems odd to raise an argument for same sex marriage on a historical basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 22, 2014 0:40:40 GMT -5
Maybe she took too big a swing. But, I still don't know what argument she thinks she is settling.
If we throw out her broader assertions, and limit it to the "is marriage about property or is marriage a sacrament of the church, any church", well, clearly, it is both. And I don't know who she is arguing with or why.
Maybe a religion took a pre-existing thing called marriage and imbued it with spiritual stuff. So? That's what religions do, they put spirit stuff in stuff, and in their view that changes it, or redefines it, or explains it, or does something to it. And once the water is turned to wine, you sure aren't going to turn it back to water by arguing with them and telling them that before wine there was water or that chemically, water and wine are very similar.
I don't see the point of wading into historical waters for support when what you are arguing for never was. Same sex marriage is something new and there is little sense in pretending otherwise. Call it new. And say it is about time. But, don't argue church history with church folks, it is too slippery and invested with emotion. When you are winning, be gracious and let the loser have something or they get just too sour to be around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 22, 2014 0:56:35 GMT -5
Um, am I the only one who reads the piece as addressing a group of arguments against gay marriage that she sees as historically uninformed? I could have sworn that I understood the burden of her essay by the end of paragraph four.
And Paul, to your final sentence, I offer Brother Dave's answer: "I believe in love and charity and goodness and kindness, and I believe that when a man's down, kick him! That way, if he survives, he'll have a chance to rise above it."
|
|
