Friday, September 16, 2005

Should We Abolish Marriage?

I'm sure everyone saw this, but here it is again just in case:

I understand from a feminist perspective that the history of marriage is troubling, but so is much of the history of human existence. As an American, I find this proposal particularly disturbing. We already have such a huge backlash here against real feminism (you know, the kind that asserts that women should have equal rights, control over their own bodies, equal pay for equal work, and shouldn't have to be chained to their stoves) and stories like these will be hailed by all the women-belong-at-home nuts as more "proof" that the whole notion of feminism is evil, crazy, man-hating, dumb, etc.

I support 100% a woman not needing to marry for financial or even social purposes and am glad that these women are free to live their lives the way they choose. But they don't even come close to speaking for the majority of women. And if they truly care about being feminists they should concern themselves with important issues in women's lives, not this nonsense.

Sweden is often hailed as a great place for mothers -- nice long maternity leaves, more flexible work options, good day care options, etc. I can just hear Rush Limbaugh now, foaming at the mouth and ranting, you see what happens when you grant women maternity leaves? The next thing you know everyone's a lesbian, blah blah blah.


Libertine said...

I don't think they meant abolishing marriage as a relationship, but rather, abolishing marriage as a legal institution. That is, many believe that marriage should be privatized, not abolished, per se; that it's not the government's business to meddle in private relationships.

As far as children goes, they can be protected by approaching their concerns focusing on how each parent relates to the child, rather than how they relate to each other.

Anonymous said...

I'm all for abolishing marriage as a legal institution. I am against marriage for different reasons than the norm.

Marriage is not only discriminative toward gays, but mostly discriminative toward women. Why are there more than one title for women (Ms, Miss and Mrs) and only one for men? Or rather, at least this has been corrected in English with "Ms", but it has not been corrected in foreign languages.

I am a heterosexual woman and I have been with my male partner for 13 years. We have no intention of getting married because we do not support discrimination. If we ever run into a legal issue, then we can argue that marriage is discriminative and we strongly uphold the Constitution in fighting discrimination.

Anonymous said...

By pairing off with any old body, do you mean heterosexual marriages that are 50% likely to fail? Because I'm all for getting rid of that. If a woman wants a divorce, better to kill her. Definitely don' let her marry whoever she wants. She might choose a Baptist, or a black.

Anonymous said...

You know what, I totally misread your post. A single mother is much better single than marrying a woman. Like lions, lesbians are known to kill and eat children.

Oh, you're talking about male lions. Well same thing. Better to put the kid in the custody of the church. I mean, they may be second only to NAMBLA in protecting children, but at least they aren't married.

I mean, there's plenty of adopted children (adopted by heteros) who weren't killed and eaten, and you don't seem to be against adoption, so it's not so much that you're against kids living with 2 parents who aren't blood relatives.

Or maybe you are, There's stories of penguins in Antarctica who will adopt a baby whose parents are dead, only to eat it.

Do you hate adoption? Since there's no blood relation and all.

It's not that I'm picking on you, it's just that your arguments are so transparent, and I'm totally drunk and trolling and you'll delete this anyway because it's not something you were ready to think about.

But Dave Thomas, for example. He founded Wendy's. He was adopted and neither of his parents killed and ate him.

And yeah, I'll admit there are tendencies. For example, opponents to gay marriage tend to be white, uneducated, and closet racists as well.

Now, I'm not saying you're a racist, but the tendency is there, like the lions. Shouldn't you be kept away from a keyboard? and black people?

Statistics show that people with your opinions live in areas likely to be foreclosed upon. Shouldn't the government step in and prohibit ownership of land? You're a woman, so you're pretty second class anyway. I mean, not as bad as a gay, but clearly you shouldn't vote.

Anonymous said...

I was just watching a nature documentary, and I saw that lions attack elephants in the night. Is that what you're afraid of?

I've never seen a gay even kill a horse, so I think your elephant herd is safe.

Statistics show blacks commit a lot of crimes. Come on, admit it, you don't think blacks should marry either. Don't worry, I already know you're thinking it.

I mean, marriage tends to protect children, so gay marriage would tend to protect them, but gays, they are wild beasts at best, right? Not humans, like you. Not with your "statistics" with no "references." It's the age of the internet, if you have statistics showing that "parents" with no blood relations, like those with adopted "children" tend to kill their young, go ahead and flaunt them!

topogigio said...

Using your logic, *remarrying* should definitely be abolished, even if you think marriage as a whole should not. After all, with all these divorces going on there are now too many stepfamilies - kids living with and being controlled by people who are not their parents and who do not have their best interest at heart. I am using your logic here... and I don't even totally disagree. I just think it actually gives strength to the case against marriage.

If divorce is legal and common, kids often end up with stepparents. Having had one myself, I can tell you that it is not a fairy tale dream and most stepparents do not treat their stepkids the same as their natural kids. So, basically, marriage should only be allowable between two single childless people (oh, and in your world, they have to be a man and a woman, too). If that gets dissolved, and if they have had a child, game over; no subsequent marriages allowed. Of course, that does not prevent women and men from having subsequent *relationships*. Therefore the influence of nefarious unrelated adults can still occur.

Obviously, then, the only true solution is either to abolish marriage or to abolish divorce. Since there's probably not a married person alive today who would vote to abolish divorce, the abolition of marriage is infinitely more practical. Men and women could still have lasting bonds and religious sanctions, they could still break up, and could still find someone new. Only now, they would not be required to go through lengthy legal proceedings that ruin them financially and psychologically. Now they would have the autonomy to leave in really unbearable situations. Now they would have a legal responsibility only to themselves and their children and any responsibility to each other would be negotiated on their own terms. Yeah, that sounds awful.

I'll tell you one thing, I'm never getting married. I have seen far too many people's lives get ruined by marriage but I've never seen anyone's life get ruined by intentionally remaining single. We're born alone and we die alone and the love relationships and commitment that may come in between are not exclusive to marriage (and never have been).

sims said...

Interesting reading...

I guess I never thought of marriage as an institution. I always thought of it as the meaning of the word. You know: marry. "To unite in a close, usually permanent way" is one of the non-social meanings. If I marry someone, I don't need a piece of paper. It shouldn't even have to be a promise. You should both know each other and like each other so much that you can't stay apart. It's like a magnet. If both of you don't have that, then you shouldn't consider marraige.

Oh, you said you thought you had that, but then it faded and now you're jaded. Well, obviously you didn't. So some suckers don't know themselves, and they go changing and estranging those that they grew close to and that grew close to them. This results in pain. So that's probably how promises originated, which is only sort of a clarified statement.

Then there is affection which is closely related to sex. You see, when you didn't get enough affection growing up as a child in your broken home, affection from peers of the opposite sex had and still has a drug like affect on you. It made you feel good. If you'd have been more balanced and your parents had educated you better, the affect wouldn't have been as strong. Now a days we have condoms. Hundreds of years ago, uneducated people had sex and made more uneducated people. So I guess condoms are a good thing. However, people, educated and uneducated, are now having sex as a pasttime. This induces the drug like state and people think they are in love, when actually, they can't stand each other unless they are having sex. This is not love, these is hormones - drugs.

So, my answer to all of you fools is a sort of a biologically and emotionally correct concept. Making love (as I like to call it to differenciate it from the foolish pasttime version) is by far the strongest glue to bond two people together.

Sick people should not have sex. They should not glue themselves to someone else until they work out their own problems. We can't really tell if someone is sick unless we really get to know them. So as humans, it is our responsibility to get to know people really well and be good friends and be honest and kind and caring and loving. Of course, if you don't know yourself, how can you know someone else?

This is the only way we can heal society. If you can sort out everything and anything in your life to abide by that one rule, I dare say you can rule the world. I dare say wars would not occur as often if at all.

OK, that is the end of my little trip down utopia lane. But I dare you, without the help of some religion or law - just your own will. If you can't do it, or if you already blew it, at least teach your children to be wise.

Agnetha said...

First up, I find it amusing that feminists think not being able to cook is some kind of political statement. Has anyone else noticed the rash of successful, high-profile women boasting how they can't cook? Personally, I think both sexes should be able to cook, simply for health reasons. If you can't cook, you're really just a pawn of the fast food and processed food industries.

Secondly, marriage today IS a feminist institution and has been thoroughly taken over by feminists and reformed into an arrangement that purely benefits women at the expense of men and children. Feminists don't need to abolish marriage because they have already reinvented marriage in their own image, as an ideal institution for oppressing/exploiting naive men.

Lastly, Sweden isn't really the utopia it's made out to be. Swedish women are the most depressed in the world, have high suicide rates, high rates of alcoholism and report low levels of happiness and intimacy in their so-called perfect lives. Perfection, my friends, does not exist. Not even in lovely Sweden!