Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (460)	8/2/2006 7:12:35 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

That most basic fact that you find compelling doesn't seem so to me. The male/female union is biological. It's survival of the species. It is the practical way to ensure your continuing line. The formalization of the union in history was more for the attaining of economic strength, the merging of powerful families. Women were chattal. Same sex unions were actually formalized in Greece and I believe Rome also sanctioned them. While they didn't call them marriages, I would wonder if their idea of same sex love wasn't far closer to our ideas of love in marriage now than their idea of marriage would have been, since that was still very practical. Marriage has never had a constant face. It transforms with the needs or demands of a society. In a way (ironically I guess for you), the final achievement of equality for women, the idea of marriage as a partnership based on love and shared commitment not just on economics or carrying on the family name, have moved us closer to the need to expand the definition. I don;t know if it will happen, but I think that using your "always has been" could easily be eviscerated by someone with historical knowledge and more indepth exploration of the evolution of marriage. As for the nose in the tent, well, I suppose we will have to examine them all. I'm not much of a set in stone person-- or rather, I could be, and work hard not to be. I appreciate your taking the time to express how you come to your opinions. They aren't leaving me totally cold by any means. I think your ideas resonate with many.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (460)	8/4/2006 10:45:06 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

There are so many things I question about your post, I don't know exactly where to start. I will just pick a couple, because of lack of time. Im not sure why you think mixed race marriage has been acceptable. Mixed race marriages, even if not always legally banned, received great social opprobrium, sometimes ostracism, sometimes worse. Mixed race couples still get raised eyebrows among older people, though I think the younger generation accepts them more easily. Just as they accept gay couples. NONE did. EVER. I will be honest and tell you I can't tell you a reason why this is so I think the reason is paired with what I was saying earlier. Marriage in all its early forms was a way of structuring and gathering wealth and land and of course, continuing the human race. As our definition of marriage began to emphasize romantic love over procreation, and women became equals rather than property, the reasons to exclude others from the definition lost weight. If the properties change, then the boundaries may also change. I think this is where we are in time. The polygamy, etc., issues are side issues at this time. If public debate is called for, great. Lumping them together now- particularly when you include incest or pedophilia- muddies it too much and is unfair to gays in that their predicament gets overlaid with some even more serious moral objections and fears. As for sexless marriages, sex is far more of a motivator now than before when marriages were arranged for practical purposes. Again, I think that's one of the changes that has brought us to this point. We marry for love. In a way, the changes you fear- all those convenience arrangements-- were far more prevalent in other times. Friends, huge age differences, granddaughters living with grandfathers; your objection (and one that would need to be dealt with) is that now you are concerned public money would support these. Yes, I do think there is harm. Anytime people are treated as less than equal, it is harmful. And gays are still treated as deviates and a problem.