The Death of Marriage I

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | February 5, 2004 | Roger F. Gay

[RightWhale]

I would be incredibly opposed to government meddling in the religious institution of marriage.

Rightly so. How about government meddling in the secular institution of marriage?

[Modernman]

Another question then: what is the need for marriage?

I would say, historically, they served for one of two reasons:

1) To tie two families together and thereby increase the political or material assets of the families;

2) To establish a clear way for property to be passed down from generation to generation. Theoretically, all sons borne in wedlock were fathered by the husband.

Today, I think those two reasons don't really apply. Marriage serves as a form of social stability. Married couples are able to pool their various resources to improve their lives and the lives of their children.

[Modernman]

Rightly so. How about government meddling in the secular institution of marriage?

The only way government won't meddle in the secular institution of marriage is if government is removed from the equation and marriage becomes essentially an issue of contract law. By its nature, when government gets involved in something, it'll meddle as much as it possibly can.

[RightWhale]

Good points. There would be more than one way to administer such institutions. For example, in America a system of patriarchy was superimposed over an existing system of matriarchy when the Euros arrived. The matriarchy still exists although it is not recognized by the state.

[RightWhale]

Okay. When the matter becomes law as in contract law, the state becomes the administrative agent. It is possible in this country for sectarian institutions to continue independently of the state administered institutions. For this reason, I believe we are talking about at least two forms of marriage that are at core unrelated although superficially they appear similar.

[Modernman]

For example, in America a system of patriarchy was superimposed over an existing system of matriarchy when the Euros arrived. The matriarchy still exists although it is not recognized by the state.

One quibble here- I think you mean matrilineal rather than matriarchal. Matrilineal inheritance of property is a logical system since it is always clear who the mother of a child is, but up until recently it wasn't always, ahem, certain who the father was. Of course, a matrilineal system only works if a woman was able to independently own property, which was generally not the case in a lot of Western history.

[breakem]

Us? Are you pregnant?

[breakem]

"Assaults" more propaganda. How about describing your ideas without the emotional garbage.

[breakem]

I think I'll make that my New Years Resolution for 2005. I've been here 5.5 years and have yet to read the post at the beginning of the thread.

[RightWhale]

I shall have to check with the nearest authority, who happens to be not far from here.

[Modernman]

When the matter becomes law as in contract law, the state becomes the administrative agent.

Not necesarily. I'm a real estate lawyer, and most real estate contracts stipulate that any disputes will be handled by a private arbitration organization- government courts never get involved. A lot of contracts are handled that way these days in many fields. However, your point is essentially correct- any private contract requires a mechanism whereby a third party can resolve contract disputes.

It is possible in this country for sectarian institutions to continue independently of the state administered institutions.

Do you mean that, for example, a secular divorce has no effect on the status of a marriage within the Jewish or Catholic faiths? There are rabbinical courts in Brooklyn where Orthodox Jews go to get their marriages dissolved under the requirements of their religion. Such a rabbinical ruling, however, in no way affects the validity of their secular marriage, and vice versa.

For this reason, I believe we are talking about at least two forms of marriage that are at core unrelated although superficially they appear similar.

If we are talking about the same thing, I agree completely. There is the secular institution of marriage and also the religious institution. However, either one can exist independently of the other.

[RightWhale]

Okay, the local authority figure agrees that the system is matriarchal rather than matrilineal. Although she had not made the distinction before, and I hadn't either, we agree there is a distinction.

[RightWhale]

If we look at the religious institution of marriage, it would appear to based on a moral code or moral codes. If we look at the secular institution of marriage it would appear to be based on legal precedent. There is blurring around the edges, for instance when civil marriage law recognizes religious marriage during tax time, or when the marriage is dissolved.

[Romulus]

Actually I expected you to be flustered by "authentic anthropology", but perhaps I over-estimated you.

Gender-bending is a component of the agenda for creating the New Man -- an artificial contrivance sold with the promise of freedom, but radically sundered from the liberating truth of what man is. It's an agenda that (paradoxically) strips man of the genuine selfhood that's realised in the encounter between persons. The New Man has no soul and enjoys a purely biological existence purely for his own sake. He is emptied of all historical and cultural memory, and his very body, designed for nuptial union and life, is stripped of semiotic significance.

Your evident enthusiasm for the enterprise makes plain that its you who's the propagandist.

[breakem]

You should have studied propaganda more and anthro less. Although, it's a fairly advanced technique to accuse someone of the behavior they are criticizing and ofor which they have listed numerous examples. Advanced, but transparent.

[Romulus]

The preference for peripheral trifles rather than confronting the substance of an opponent's argument is another technique of the propagandist.

[breakem]

Then you are convicted by your own words.

[RightWhale]

Do we detect just a trace of marcuseanism?

[sr4402]

However, most of the virtues mentioned are not high on the Aristotlean list.

If love is not on the list, I would question the list, not love. Jesus said, "No greater love has any man that this that He lay down his live for his friend". On that basis, I can look at any moral question and ask is it love? And in this case, diluting marraige is not love and definitely harmful to children.

If we can't come to an agreement of the need for the institution, it will die away and be abolished just as King Hamekameha abolished taboos once no one remembered the basis for the taboos.

I don't know this King Hamekameha, nor how he would abolish taboos from the human race by what you are saying here. Or how marraige, created by God could be abolished by mere man. What I worry about is the effects of this adulteration of marraige on our country, our children and our future.

"Vitures based ethics" is very valuable based on the person of the Lord Jesus Christ and His word. Because it allow you to stand on a rock and pull others to safety, while the rest goes into sinking sand.

Take the high ground my freind and not those of the moral reletivists.

[sr4402]

Another question then: what is the need for marriage?

Preserve mankind from evil and degeneracy.