Traditional Marriage

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

Since we are trying to define marriage, why don't we start with a definition of 'traditional marriage'.

What is 'traditional marriage'? Does it vary from culture to culture? What are the implications of 'traditional marriage' on modern society? I keep hearing this phrase 'traditional marriage', and what it means to me might not be the same as others.

When I think of 'traditional marriage', I think of the typical 1950's relationship. One man, one woman, two kids. The man goes out and earns the living while the woman stays home and tends to the house and to the children. While it's a warm fuzzy image, it's no longer reality. With divorce rates jumping through the roof, average incomes stagnant, and increasing teen pregnancy rates it's easy to see the threats to 'traditional marriage'.

I can draw a direct link between the need for two working adults being required to make ends meet and the weakening of 'traditional marriage'. I can draw a link between the increasingly mobile society and a weakening of 'traditional marriage'. What I cannot seem to link to the weakening of 'traditional marriage' is an expansion of the legal definition of the institution.

We should be working towards a living wage where each family unit can have one primary worker that supports the family instead of requiring two. We should be working towards improving the quality of our relationships by spending time with one another instead of vegging out in front of the television. We should provide adequate legal support that encourages reconciliation over separation. We should do all of these things but we should not try to limit access to the benefits of marriage because traditional or not, it's a union of love based upon a foundation of trust. But that's just my opinion. *shrug* I've been wrong before.

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject: Re: Traditional Marriage

Those definitely are the things that have been eating away at "traditional marriage". I really think the people who are so against allowing gays to marry who try to claim it will destroy traditional marriage are simply holding up a strawman in their desperate attempt to blame something.

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

The "traditional" marriage doesn't really give me "warm feelings" of anything. It's misogynistic. Who is going to be the one stuck at home? Who will go out? The man? That's "traditional" isn't it? What if the woman doesn't want it that way and wants to work? I wouldn't really hold up the 1950s system as a paragon.

We will never return to it anyway; there's no way to prevent both people from having to work: money doesn't flow freely for things people need and want, and people actually want careers outside of housework.

Kizzume · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:24 pm Post subject:

tristanrobin · Joined: 29 Dec 2007 Posts: 142 Location: New Haven, CT USA

Well, originally, traditional marriage was simply a contract between two men exchanging goods for goods (a woman). A man could have as many of these marriage contracts as he could afford to support.

Since then, marriage, it's restrictions and traditions, have changed with almost every generation. At one time only people of certain social/economic rank could marry. There have been periods of history when people with certain physical or mental problems couldn't be married. Of course, race and religion has always been an issue for mixed marriages - and still is today in many societies. (Try getting an Orthodox rabbi or Catholic priest to marry an interfaith couple!) There is constantly a redefinition and refinement of marriage. Gays being allowed to marry is simply the latest in this refinement. It is a social institution which evolves regularly. That which does not evolve will stagnate and rot. As marriage in America is approaching 50% failure, I would say it was time for some serious evolution.

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject:

True--the mixed race marriage thing is a really good example of that.

I guess the big thing is seeing if there's a way that either makes everyone happy, or at least makes everyone moderately satisfied. The people who are against gay marriage because it's redefining marriage sort-of need a history lesson, but they're not going to take that lesson, so how do we get them to shut up while allowing people to have something to show for wanting to be together the rest of their lives?

It's a rough one.

tristanrobin · Joined: 29 Dec 2007 Posts: 142 Location: New Haven, CT USA

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 3:34 pm Post subject:

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject:

teacher · Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 26

marraige. It's pretty friggin sacred to a lot of Americans. Gays are never gonna win this one. Face it, you don't have the numbers. Just go for everything that the word "marraige" entitles, call it sumpin else, and you'll lose buku opposition immeadiatly.

So you got Joe and Marsha, Marsha, Marsha right wing Christian fundlementalist Nazi six pack livin next door to Bruce and Spencer who want to get "married".

Folks, they are never gonna go for it. You can talk to them about spousal medical benifits and what not until you are blue in the face. Joe and Marsha are idiots, they will never be able to tell you how Bruce and Spencer affect thier lives in any way, but they vote.

Don't call it marraige. Give up the word, call it sumpin else and win everything that comes with it.

Joe: "Isn't that nice, Bruce and Spencer got civily unified".

Marsha: "We should send them sumpin nice, like his and her's Miatas".

Joe: "Little pricey, don't you think? How about a nice set of matching pink chaps".

Marsha: "Good idea, let's go breed".

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:55 pm Post subject: Re: The word...

teacher · Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 26

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:51 pm Post subject: Re: The word...

tristanrobin · Joined: 29 Dec 2007 Posts: 142 Location: New Haven, CT USA

This is not an issue that should ever be put to a popular vote.

This is an issue of civil rights - and we don't vote on civil rights. If we did, do you REALLY think there would be African American kids sitting next to little blonde blue eyed Sally in school? Not for a SECOND.

This is a matter which should be settled by courts - as all issues of rights are.