Talk:Marriage/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 5 October 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

For the religious right

Ask yourselves about the words used in Ruth 1:16-17

And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.

To me, that sounds like marriage vows. Many of those same words and feelings are repeated in marriage ceremonies today. The missing part in these two verses is the name of the person Ruth is talking to - Naomi.

--Shagie 01:06, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Controversial edit

I received a message that I have done controversial edit. But I think since this site is written from RPOV, I see no problem in mentioning at first that marriage is legalized version of prostitution. It is proved by a number of feminist theorists. Discussion is welcome, of course. Radical feminist 03:45, 17 December 2008 (EST)

If you want to debate it why not put it in the "debate" or essay "space". Your use of the term "proven" appears to be very post-modernist, more or less "someone I agree with said it" and much the same way as they use the word on Conservapedia. --Toffeeman 04:11, 17 December 2008 (EST)

OK, I understand your point. I will present it as opinion as you said it is opinion rather that fact. But please do not make wholesome deletion. Radical feminist 04:23, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Great, thanks. Can we have some examples/cites of those equating marriage with legalised prostitution? I'd particularly be interested in how, given that

1. prositution is legal in many places (e.g. the UK),
2. legal prostitution is indistinguishable from marriage

that, at least in the UK, we are able to distinguish quite readily between married people and prostitutes. --Toffeeman 04:36, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry, missed this before reverting.... Pinto's5150 ^Talk 04:45, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Would it be best in the "anti-marriage" page RadFem has created? That's a bit short at the moment and could do with stuff to support "marriage is prostituion" etc. --Toffeeman 04:57, 17 December 2008 (EST)

BTW How does the anti-marriage movement look at same-sex marriage? --Toffeeman 04:59, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Anti-marriage movement is opposed to same-sex marriage, not to homosexuality. They believe homosexual couples should live together in their own choice, but should not marry. Finally it depend how you define "abuse". Marriage is of course a bondage, a legal bondage. For example if a woman marries someone, she is restricted to that particular man. Her right to love any other man, if she wants, is taken away. In marriage a woman is only loved by the man if she sexually satisfies her. For example a wife may have to engage in sex even in times when she does not wish so. This is not marital rape, when the husband does not force her, but still he becomes displeased or dissatisfied due to her inactivity. She receives money and living expense from husband in exchange of sex, this is why marriage is called legalized prostitution. Finally some feminists have suggested men are inferior than women. Radical feminist 06:29, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Actually we're still waiting for a link to the anti marriage movement.--Bob^{bing up} 06:41, 17 December 2008 (EST)

What version of marriage are you using? In a religious and "moral" sense, maybe it is that. But in a legal sense, it's just protection for one partner in case one either messes up, cheats or dies or whatever. What you actually do in a marriage is up to you. If you want to go off with other people while married and your partner isn't impressed, that's not the fault of marriage it's your fault for marrying someone who doesn't understand that you may want a polygamous or open relationship. If both partners agree to a slight bit of openness, then it's their choice. Nothing (from a practical and legal perspective) stops you from doing this. Besides, it's not bondage (unless you're into that sort of thing) because there is an option for divorce in more developed societies as well as counseling and other help to avoid that if necessary. If you get into a relationship you're not happy with (i.e., having to perform sex when you don't want to, in which case, it's one partner being a doormat. Peacefully consenting to doing something you don't want to do is still consent), it's not the fault of the name, the legal process or the act, it's your fault and there's always an out to it. ArmondikoV^postate 07:36, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Good points. Furthermore, now that jurisdictions are starting to recognise the concept of "marital rape", you've got protection from that as well. --Bob^{bing up} 07:48, 17 December 2008 (EST)

And marital rape is considerably different to someone just rolling over and thinking of England. Similar to how recently judges have been wising up over rape allegations, they basically say that saying "yes" while drunk is still a "yes". I still don't see a "legallised prostitution" connection though. ArmondikoV^postate 07:51, 17 December 2008 (EST)

For example if a woman marries someone, she is restricted to that particular man. - and the other way round. The forsaking all others part of the marriage vows works both ways. BTW, my wife, who has strong feminist views, would find your statement that she is a legalised prostitute highly offensive. We both entered into an equal relationship and our marriage vows are a public declaration of that. She is no more a prostitute than I am. Silver Sloth 08:28, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Furthermore, which one is the 'prostitute' in the wedding of Debbie and Naomi, or David and Red, two same sex couple friends of mine both of whom are married? I'm sure they would feel that the long struggle to get same sex marriage accepted wasn't so that one of them (or both?) could become a legalised prostitute. Silver Sloth 08:31, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Well, "prostitution" can mean two things. As it's a loaded word, it can be used as a pejorative synonym for exploitation. Or it can mean what it actually means, which is the exchange of sex activities for payment (usually money because otherwise, with the amount of stuff you spend on girlfriends and wives, all relationships are prostitution :P). Unless you're talking about basically pre-20th century relationships (which even then, I don't think fully fit) or very harsh arranged marriages outside the mainstream western world, the comparason doesn't work. ArmondikoV^postate 09:08, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Marriage is exploitation of women by men. It is the right of a woman to live with more than one partners if she wants. Marriage is defined in most legal systems (except some Islamic countries) as union between two individual, thus it is fundamentally opposed to the concept that women has the right to simultaneously live with more than one partners. And if they do, the law describes it as "adultery". And I disagree men needs protection because men are always the source of violence and women are the victims of violence. The law also restricts the right of self-defense of a woman. For example a woman cannot retaliate against husband. The number of women prisoners with the argument they "abused" their husbands is increasing in the United States. It is something to be worried of. If a man is unpleased with the behaviors of his wife, then it the fault of the man and the institution of marriage, not of the woman, because the woman has her right to do it. Radical feminist 10:20, 17 December 2008 (EST)

(UNDENT)I agree with you most of the way RF, but just to be a shit-disturber, if it is "the right of a woman to live with more than one partners if she wants," why are polygamist marriages involving one man and many women so problematic for many feminist scholars? Does it not work both ways? PFoster 10:24, 17 December 2008 (EST)

It is because unlike women, men are sexual predators. According to Andrea Dworkin "Men are distinguished from women by their commitment to do violence rather than to be victimized by it." [1] This is why women should be given the right she wants to do, not men. And as Robin Morgan says "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." Since women are orpressed, they have the right of self-defense and to do whatever they want. Comparison of polyandry with polygyny is unfair judging the argument of Morgan. Radical feminist 10:48, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Alright. now read the comment I added re: your paragraph on religion and oppression--it really needs some work. PFoster 10:52, 17 December 2008 (EST)

OK, RF, you have some points but your broad brush sweeps too wide. Marriage is an institution which, in the vast majority of cases, is an equal sharing relationship between two people committed to each other. To go from some wives are abused to all marriages are abusive is poor logic and simply doesn't hold water. Incidentally, if marriage is so detrimental to the distaff side why is it that men have commitment problems? Silver Sloth 11:00, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Why do I get the feeling we're just dealing with Fall Down but with the gender specific pronouns reversed? ArmondikoV^postate 12:50, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I sort of get the same vibe.--Bob^{bing up} 13:55, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I felt like putting up the "Fall down sock-puppet" template over here. ListenerX^TalkerX 13:59, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Oppression?

The majority of this article is complete bullshit. Historically speaking, the institution of marriage has served to provide legal, social and economic security for women, not to be a source of oppression. The assumption of certain radical feminist scholars seems to be that if it wasn't for marriage and kinship and similar social institutions, women would have lived in a sort of happy wonderland where they could frolick around in a state of complete emancipation and do whatever they wanted. Obviously, this is not the case. Pre-modern societies were not nice places. The lack of the sort of stable public services and institutions that we enjoy in the modern world meant that people were often left to their own devices when it came to protecting their rights and property, and such circumstances put women at a particular disadvantage. Marriage served as a framework for protection under such circumstances, and it also provided economic security through inheritance laws and through such concepts as the European "dower" or the Islamic mahr. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:53, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Yet again I find myself on the same side as AKj. And I do so love the use of the word "frolic" above. I'm really going to have to try to fit that into something I write tomorrow. Or maybe "frolicking". --Bob^{bing up} 12:23, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Some words really get used far too little. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 13:15, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, I agree. It's nice to dust them off from time to time. I was thinking about "gambol" as well, which is a word of a similar ilk. --Bob^{bing up} 13:54, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I've partially rewritten the "traditional marriage" bit to try & reflect this - I.E. that the husband has obligations too under the traditional model, & that it is partly about protection. Further changes would be welcome. weaseLOId~ 14:57, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Radical Feminist Criticism

The last paragraph of that section uses the word "oppressive" several times in a row. The author needs to 1. work on how it's put together in order to make it more readable 2. qualify the term "oppressive" by showing what shapes that oppression takes in each of the cases she mentions. PFoster 10:04, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I've had a stab at it. I don't want to completely delete the section as there are critics of marriage and that needs to be addressed, but I've taken the overtly cynical feminist anger out of it. ArmondikoV^postate 13:19, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I'm wondering if we shouldn't leaven the RadFem view with the views of other sorts of feminists, since the RadFem focus on structures and institutions is not representative of all feminists. It's a tough slog through Google though, since if you put in "feminism" and "marriage" you get an awful lot of right-wing blogs generally misrepresenting feminist positions, rather than necessarily feminists explaining their own. --Kels 14:01, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Moved from article page

This paragraph was in the Radical Feminism section, and doesn't really seem to fit. The latter part about institutionalized rape and slavery seems to be editorializing, and it doesn't really fit in as a matter of feminist theory in any case. Also note that it's not cited at all, which suggests it needs a bit of discussion before it can go back into the article. --Kels 14:23, 17 December 2008 (EST)

---

Within strict religious practices, marriage is considered by such critics to be institutionally oppressive. In several countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, marriage is generally considered, even by non radicals, to be more oppressive of women. Many religious forms of marriage, particularly when adhered to strictly can be seen as far more oppressive of women than more progressive forms. Until the 20th century, women often had to hand over control of their property to their husbands and promised to obey them (as shown in traditional vows of "love, honour and obey", which is generally considered out of date and not used except at request). Even in western culture the worst and most abusive marriages amount to institutionalized rape and slavery.

---

I would dock the last sentence, do a bit of light grammatical editing, and give it its own section ("Marriage and Fundamentalism," perhaps). ListenerX^TalkerX 14:26, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Pagan Rome??

I have cut this line from the article:

• And the Bible takes a rather dim view of pagan Rome.

The link goes to Revelation, and the word "Rome" does not appear in that article. Shum mistake?--Bob^{bing up} 14:57, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I understand that certain parts of the Book of Revelation are supposed to be an allegory condemning the Roman Empire of that time. The Wikipedia article on Revelation mentions this. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:02, 17 December 2008 (EST)

EC. Was about to say the same thing. Anyway, it's irrelevant to this article. weaseLOId~ 15:05, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I put that (1) whereas Old Testament marriage was polygynous, (2) whereas the writers of the New Testament saw fit to require especially that bishops and deacons have only one wife, (3) whereas ancient Roman marriage was monogamous, (4) therefore, today's monogamy owes more to Rome than the Bible. Specifically which of these statements is being disputed as untrustworthy? ListenerX^TalkerX 18:29, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Actually I've got a problem with us asserting: Traditionally, marriages in most societies have involved a man and a woman - and - Christian monogamy owes more to the pagan traditions of Rome. (Presumably Christian monogamy is similar to any other monogamy.)

The first sentence seems to be referring to societies globally - not just those which might have been influenced by Rome or Christianity. While Rome was undoubtedly influential I don't see how it could have spread monogamy throught the whole world.

Consequently, one of the two sentences needs to be modified for clarity.--Bob^{bing up} 02:48, 18 December 2008 (EST)

My statement is that Christian monogamy owes more to Rome than to the Old Testament. This statement says nothing about other sorts of monogamy, nor does it imply that Rome was the only place to develop monogamy. The statement about "most societies" is incorrect as polygyny is allowed in the Islamic world. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:05, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I think one problem here is assuming that there is such a thing as an unchanging "Old Testament marriage". This is not something I know a great deal about, but the OT covers a period of almost a thousand years that saw considerable upheavals in Hebrew society, so it stands to reason that marriage customs could have changed considerably on their own in that time. The Persian and later the Greek domination of the region also had a fundamental cultural impact, so if we must look for a foreign influence, that seems a more likely source. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 03:06, 18 December 2008 (EST)

By the time of the New Testament's authorship, polygyny was still allowed, as I mentioned in point (2) above. Read 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:16, 18 December 2008 (EST)

That is not at all how I read that passage. It lists a number of virtues which the episkopos should possess, among them being "the husband of but one wife". That pretty strongly suggests that polygamy is not at all socially acceptable at this point in time, considering how it appears in the same context as "drunkenness", "violent", "quarrelsome", and being "a lover of money". --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 03:27, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I am not disputing that it had fallen out of favor by that time, if there ever was a time when it was in. The question is whether it was legal or not. Analogously, in the Islamic world today, polygyny is frowned upon and not widely practiced, but still legal. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:35, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Considering the mostly oral nature of Jewish law before 70 AD, it's probably going to be hard to say anything certain about that. In any case, we do seem to have moved a fair bit beyond the "Old Testament vs. Rome" interpretation that we started out with. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 03:48, 18 December 2008 (EST)

True, that was probably a simplistic model of things.

My understanding is this. Polygyny was only ever practiced sporadically among the Jews and was always treated in a negative light in the Bible, but it was always permitted — monogamy was not hard-and-fast in the law — which was still the case by the time the New Testament was written, as is documented by the explicit monogamy requirements for clergy.

In pagan Greece and Rome, meanwhile, monogamy was hard-and-fast, and divorces were often rampant as men swapped wives for social status. Christianity combined this hard-and-fast monogamy with Jesus's (very original) prohibition of divorce to get the Christian monogamy we know today. The Jews finally outlawed polygyny 1000 years later. (I believe I read that in a Bible commentary, though I forget the title.) ListenerX^TalkerX 13:57, 18 December 2008 (EST)