I had a debate with my cube mates about the ammendment to the Florida Constitution about marriage being between one man and one woman.
The concensus of my cube is that "why do we care?!?!?" Well, that depends on what you think the purpose of marriage is...
Is it
1) The institution in which a couple finds satisfaction solely in their own relationship, therefore having no impact on anyone else in a culture or society
2) The institution that provides a stable environment and economy for raising children, therefore providing a strong nucleus that helps create a stable society
So...when you give your answer, also provide whether you think the Government should endorse such an institution and why you think that =p
15 comments:
I say (b).
And government has no business messing with it whatsoever.
Except to neither promote nor hinder it.
The government that can say that marriage is between a man and a woman is the same one that can say that two chicks can get married. Or that a man can marry a goat.
Hmmmm, marriage is neither of those for me.
Marriage is about "feeling". If I went with the logical idea of marriage I probably would not have been married for the third time, last year.
My kids were almost grown and raised. I could be alone and not be terrified or sad or desperate. Time without people was WONDERFUL. I was working, at home, raising kids, earning money, being a mom, doing what it was I needed to do.
AND THEN... my feelings happpened. Someone strong enough came my way. I decided, knowing I wanted him in my life, to marry him.
Friends first. On and off dating. Committment. Engagement. Marriage.
Why marriage?
I wanted him to lay beside me at night and be there in bed with me every morning.
I wanted to feel his arms around me when I did the dishes. His hand on my arse, copping a feel ;)
I wanted to set an example for my boys of what a man is and could be, for my girls to show them how they need to be treated as women by a man.
I wanted to make out with him, on the couch, and when I was interupted by a child or close replica to one, be able to blush and excuse ourselves to OUR bedroom.
I wanted to have my best friend sharing a life with me, under one roof, knowing he wanted to make me HIS wife.
Security perhaps. Knwoing I am worth THAT much to someone truly worthy of ALL of me and my life. I'll stick with my lame answer in the beginning - feeling.
And I work on that feeling with ease every time I set my eyes on my husband. What a wonderful feeling :)
Hey Christina- totally off subject. I asked you a question over on the post about Islam on EW's blog but I don't think you saw it. I am very curious about the answer so I thought I'd come over here and ask you.
You said: "the babylonians and persians actually practiced a religion that introduced the concept of a world savior to Israel"
I asked: "How so Christina?"
Learner, to answer your question, this is in one of my other posts from January...
Zoroastrianism could possibly become one of my new favorite religions to study because it introduced a concept that no religion had yet come up with. They believed that there would be a world savior. They also believed heavily in an apocalyptic event that would end the world. Zoroastrianism was very popular in the Babylonian and Persian empires. The first apocalyptic writings in the Bible were from Daniel - who was a captive in the Babylonian empire.
I'll look up some references for you.
EW,
If, indeed, you agree that the answer is #2 (or b), then why shouldn't the government have a say in it?
Afterall, government relies on the survival of society.
Problem is, no one really knows WHAT the reasons are for supporting the institution of marriage - it has lost its meaning. People are more likely to agree with WW than they are you on this one and that is why the institution of marriage in the US and other western "progressive" societies is so weak.
Government has ALWAYS had their hands in marriage - its just that previous governments actually understood its importance.
America does not.
Thanks Christina, I am curious to see what else you have to say on the subject.
"...then why shouldn't the government have a say in it?"
Because the government will politicize it. If the government wants to promote marriage...because marriage is good for society...then marriage will inevitably become a vehicle to pass out benefits.
Once that happens, then the definition of marriage will be twisted to conform to whatever political definition best suits the whims of the demographic in power.
I claim uncategorically that the troubles we are having with family formation and stability are a direct result of gov't meddling. The only way to save marriage is by granting it a divorce...from gummint.
"Government has ALWAYS had their hands in marriage"
I don't think this is accurate. In the States, marriage was separate from government until the early 1800s, I think. And then it came into being with anti-miscegenation laws.
I always kinda wondered why the separation-of-church-and-state crowd never seized on clergy acting as agents for the government when it came to marriage.
Too busy booting the Christian God out of schools and importing other gods, I guess.
It looks like America is really the only one that has ever had such a stance on marriage.
Actually, the only other two cultures that ever had such prevalent and public homosexuality was Rome and Greece - both of which had a hand in promoting marriage between man and woman.
Sparta REQUIRED their men to marry women and have children (while of course strongly encouraging homosexual relationships). I wonder what Sparta saw in marriage that they would require it?
Caesar Augustus also strongly encouraged marriages, providing benefits to couples that married...he understood that the stronger the family unit, the stronger the society he governed. The stronger the society, the more ordered and efficient the government...
What an interesting way to view it - strong families ensure an efficient government? Probably because less effort is needed in taking care of the failings of bad marriages and more effort can be directed to stuff that actually MATTERS.
Because marriage has such a strong impact on society and government, I'm honestly surprised that a government would not want to endorse such an instititution.
Problem is, no one knows WHY marriage should be upheld...not even christians that are adamently against the homosexual marriages - as long as they have no idea what they're fighting for, they have absolutely no argument to stand on.
Christina,
The PURPORTED purpose of marriage is to give a sound environment in which to raise children. The Scriptural reasons for marriage are so that man is not alone, and to have a righteous avenue by which to satisfy certain desire. The ACTUAL, or modern, reason for marriage is to benefit the woman, by making the man her slave. Sorry, but I'm not buying. I'll retain my freedom, along with my peace & quiet, thank you very much!
Now, to address a point of yours that some of my previous posts didn't address your points, I disagree. When I said nagging=abuse, I WAS addressing the topic, since that post WAS about that. I gave you a guy's take on nagging, and I told you what I think of it. Since you say you're an engineer, I should think you'd have appreciated the mathematical symbolism I employed. BTW, why was it okay for you to use similar symbolism on someone else's blog, yet it's not okay for me to do it here? I was just curious. It's your blog, so you can do what you like-such as delete this post, since I don't kiss your derriere.
BTW, if a chick nags me, she is G-O-N-E; she is OUT OF THERE! Nagging isn't for the reasons you stated; it's so that a woman can indulge in the three 'Cs', her raison d'etre: critiquing, criticizing, and complaining. Those are the THREE THINGS EVERY WOMNAN LIKES TO DO. For me, nagging is a means of control, and I believe that's the real reason women do it. If any bitch thinks she's going to control me, she has another thing coming to her. I'll kick her to the curb, and she can play that game elsewhere.
MarkyMark
Marky Mark,
Why are you so abusive and argumentative?
why was it okay for you to use similar symbolism on someone else's blog, yet it's not okay for me to do it here?
It wasn't your symbolism that bothered me. It was your assumption that I was condoning nagging.
It's your blog, so you can do what you like-such as delete this post, since I don't kiss your derriere.
Lose the attitude.
Nagging isn't for the reasons you stated
You know very little about human kind to think that.
Those are the THREE THINGS EVERY WOMNAN LIKES TO DO
And how do you know this? Never have you ever shown any ability to discern WHAT EVERY WOMAN LIKES. Please take ill-informed and over generalized comments elsewhere.
For me, nagging is a means of control, and I believe that's the real reason women do it.
And the reason for feeling the need to control?
FEAR.
Christina,
I didn't state the assumption that you condoned nagging, though I'll plead guilty to thinking that. However, I didn't notice any CONDEMNATION of the practice, either.
As for making generalizations about women and their conduct, I speak from experience. I didn't always have the job I have now; I wasn't always around men only during the workday. I USED to work with women; thank goodness I no longer do! But, that's another rant for another day.
During my time working with them, I observed them. I noticed certain characteristics about them. One of them I noticed is that they COMPLAIN ABOUT EVERYTHING-everything! As a Navy veteran who's seen REAL poverty (not poverty, American style), I have NO PATIENCE for complaining whatsoever. While the women I've known over the years talked about other things, much of their blithering consisted of complaining-complaining about the office temp being too hot, being too cold, complaining about their jerk boyfriend, etc.
There was the joke, "The Husband Store", which I posted on my blog recently. There's another joke about a woman having the hovel by the sea; she meets a magician, wizard, or someone like that who grants her wishes for progressively nicer accommodations. Each time her wish is granted (going from a hovel, to a simple house, mansion, etc.), she ends up complaining. In frustration, the magician concludes that women cannot be pleased, so he turns her mansion back into the hovel she had in the first place. This joke has been around since the 18th Century, so it isn't new. Why is this important? What's this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Well, for one thing, the joke is not new; it's quite old, actually. Two, it's been said that much truth is spoken in jest; humor is a means of conveying truths we all know, or at least all see. Three, the fact that this joke has been around for hundreds of years, and the fact that humor is a vehicle that conveys truth means that this joke shows us a truism about women that has been around a long time-to wit, women are complainers, and they're not satisfied with anything you do for them. The feminists' conduct in recent years is nothing but a mutation of this truism in action.
I said I was going to eat after the last comment. I'm going to do just that now. I'm going to ATTEMPT answering your other comments about my quotes when I get back-if I feel like it, that is...
MarkyMark
For those of us who aren't getting enslaved, er married, the purpose of marriage doesn't matter, hehehe... :)
Christina,
To add a tidbit to your mention of Rome...I think they 'encouraged' single men to marry with a 'bachelor tax'.
Somehow I don't think a similar measure is very far-fetched in our society's not-so-distant possible future
"...strong families ensure an efficient government? "
I'm thinking the opposite. The family is the chief competitor to government. When family works, government doesn't have a need to exist, and vice-versa. Thus, I contend that government has a stake in low rates of family formation, and lo and behold, government is out front in making sure that families don't form, and when they do, government is first in line to bust it up.
Was it Thoreau who said that government is best that governs least?
MM, is your avatar a Norton?
EW,
My avatar is a Kawasaki W650, which is my ride. That pic isn't of my bike in particular, but it's the same make & model as my ride. Though Kawasaki said that the W650 was based on their old W1, anyone seeing it can tell that it more closely emulates the old Triumph T-120 Bonnevilles of the 1960s. All the classic styling cues are there: the rubber fork gaiters, braced chrome fenders, wire wheels, rubber kneepads on the tank, and the instruments (which look like a set of Smiths clocks from back in the day), it was clearly designed with the old Meriden Triumphs in mind.
The main difference between my bike and the T-120 is the gas tank. On the old Bonnie, the gas tank held three gallons vs. the four that the W650's holds. The T-120's tank is a lot narrower, and it's tapered where it meets the seat. That's the easiest way to tell the two bikes apart.
Having said that, I have people mistake my bike for an old Triumph all the time! Everywhere I go, I need to be ready to talk about my bike, because more often than not, folks will want to ask me about and/or comment on it.
Motorcycle Consumer News, the only bike mag to which I subscribe, had an interesting article comparing the original Meriden Bonnie with a new Hinkley (where Triumphs are built since John Bloor resurrected the company) Bonneville (the 2001 model), and my W650. In the article, they said that my bike provides the RIDING EXPERIENCE that the old Bonnie provided, while removing all the HEADACHES (excessive vibes, Lucas electrics, and leaking oil among others) that were part of the original. They said that, if you wanted to have the ride of the original and the reliability of a modern bike, then the W650 was the only way to go.
If that's true, then I can see WHY the original Bonneville was so loved, and why it's become an icon. What I love about my bike is that it is SO FORGIVING; it's like riding a big moped! I can sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride. On my ZRX1100, I could never, ever do that...
MarkyMark
Post a Comment