If you've posted in forums you might remember writing some decent responses. I usually spend a lot of time polishing my discussion forum responses depending on the subject or who I am talking to. Often I want to remember what I said about something, but finding the original post can be difficult. So it makes sense to capture the better responses for later review. Welcome to Clint's Reposts.Thursday, February 19, 2004
The Homosexual Marriage Issue (Politics Forum Feb 18)
>Curious to hear what you all have to say. (About Homosexual Marriage)
This is a fascinating topic. First of all, you have to come to grips with what the term "marriage" means today vs an earlier age. In an earlier day, the concept was the exclusive province of religion. I'm no history expert but I can surmise that marriage arose in religious culture as a way to codify, i.e., to provide a socially lubricating framework, around the concept of the relationship between a man and a woman who were going to have kids someday. This change made marriage a civilized feature of society - escaping what no doubt was earlier a brute and unsatisfying, perhaps socially fabric tearing relationship between men and women who had no peer pressure or even concept of lifetime commitment. It provided a social reason for people to stick it out when relationships foundered. Whoever might have formed a same gender relationship in those times no doubt had no need of the entire concept of marriage, as it provided the couple nothing additional since it was children that society, particularly women, was interested in protecting.
As society evolved, the State bequeathed certain benefits upon married couples in order to ensure the survival of a fit society because nurtured children are more likely to preserve a certain predictability and civility in society then those not nurtured. Property held in common by married folks gradually was recognized legally by the law of the land and ensured even more reasons for sticking it out on behalf of the children, thereby ensuring the health of the State.
In our lifetimes we've seen all this turned on its head. Divorce is at some 50% of the population now. No longer can we count on the old ways to sustain social equilibrium. Add to this the fact that the State's social laws designed for a man and a woman provide legal leverage when relationships sour, when one of the couple dies, and so forth, and you can easily see why any couple hetero or homo would want to partake of the bounty provided by the State. And so begins the "marriage" gold rush of our times.
The word "marriage" is a loaded word nowadays. What marriage means now is to enter into the laws of leverage and privilege the State provides for couples, but also provides psychological solace from the religious sphere - those sects who will provide it anyway - as a stamp of approval, a way to be loved by society.
What's sad of course is that the meaning of the original roots of the origin of marriage have been cast aside. Today, marriage is almost meaningless in the older sense and is more about legal leverage and psychological social comfort derived from certification by society.
Recognizing this and moving on, I really don't have a problem - society evolves in fits and starts. What is most fun and interesting to me about all this marriage maneuvering of late is the fact that a small group of people, aided by a city (San Francisco) are asserting power over the dull gray of middle-of-the-road social morality, which as we've discussed regarding marriage as it used to be, is gone anyway. What will come of it no one knows, but the battle is exciting to me because this is exactly how society evolves. I am watching.
-Clint
This is a fascinating topic. First of all, you have to come to grips with what the term "marriage" means today vs an earlier age. In an earlier day, the concept was the exclusive province of religion. I'm no history expert but I can surmise that marriage arose in religious culture as a way to codify, i.e., to provide a socially lubricating framework, around the concept of the relationship between a man and a woman who were going to have kids someday. This change made marriage a civilized feature of society - escaping what no doubt was earlier a brute and unsatisfying, perhaps socially fabric tearing relationship between men and women who had no peer pressure or even concept of lifetime commitment. It provided a social reason for people to stick it out when relationships foundered. Whoever might have formed a same gender relationship in those times no doubt had no need of the entire concept of marriage, as it provided the couple nothing additional since it was children that society, particularly women, was interested in protecting.
As society evolved, the State bequeathed certain benefits upon married couples in order to ensure the survival of a fit society because nurtured children are more likely to preserve a certain predictability and civility in society then those not nurtured. Property held in common by married folks gradually was recognized legally by the law of the land and ensured even more reasons for sticking it out on behalf of the children, thereby ensuring the health of the State.
In our lifetimes we've seen all this turned on its head. Divorce is at some 50% of the population now. No longer can we count on the old ways to sustain social equilibrium. Add to this the fact that the State's social laws designed for a man and a woman provide legal leverage when relationships sour, when one of the couple dies, and so forth, and you can easily see why any couple hetero or homo would want to partake of the bounty provided by the State. And so begins the "marriage" gold rush of our times.
The word "marriage" is a loaded word nowadays. What marriage means now is to enter into the laws of leverage and privilege the State provides for couples, but also provides psychological solace from the religious sphere - those sects who will provide it anyway - as a stamp of approval, a way to be loved by society.
What's sad of course is that the meaning of the original roots of the origin of marriage have been cast aside. Today, marriage is almost meaningless in the older sense and is more about legal leverage and psychological social comfort derived from certification by society.
Recognizing this and moving on, I really don't have a problem - society evolves in fits and starts. What is most fun and interesting to me about all this marriage maneuvering of late is the fact that a small group of people, aided by a city (San Francisco) are asserting power over the dull gray of middle-of-the-road social morality, which as we've discussed regarding marriage as it used to be, is gone anyway. What will come of it no one knows, but the battle is exciting to me because this is exactly how society evolves. I am watching.
-Clint
