tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987034451869317078.post4087631812875869424..comments2023-06-19T01:42:09.481-07:00Comments on D constructing D: Why "I Do" are the most Dangerous Words in the English LanguageDaktarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08291715601733518982noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987034451869317078.post-17349139908206780082008-09-16T23:51:00.000-07:002008-09-16T23:51:00.000-07:00Oh, FFS, finally this:Even Gloria Steinem, who sai...Oh, FFS, finally this:<br><br>Even Gloria Steinem, who said she didn't breed well in captivity, got married.<br><br>There is always wiggle room, J.Trail Blazerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08291715601733518982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987034451869317078.post-26101277891065696752008-09-16T23:20:00.000-07:002008-09-16T23:20:00.000-07:00Ok, except for this one thing. You said, "An...Ok, except for this one thing. <br><br>You said, <br><br>"And it seems to me that the state does have a compelling interest in distinguishing between couples considering themselves blood family and those that are more casual -- I'd be all for them de-linking this from marriage, such that marriage is civil and "legal partners" is gov't part, but that de-linking doesn't change the bad origins of state-licensed marriage, nor the real advantages to distinguishing between a relationship meant to be long-term family and one that, well, isn't."'<br><br><br>I'd love to know what you think is the state's specific interest in the differential expression of these personal bonds, and furthermore, I am reminded of the Mormon's "levels" of marriage, wherein a marriage "for all eternity" is deemed higher than those "for just this lifetime". I reiterate my belief that a decoupling of the civil and legal aspects of marriage would go far toward repairing my general opinion of the institution.<br><br>At present, it's all woo on the religious side, and all invasion of privacy on the state's side. <br><br>There is one thing you don't know about marriage unless you've been there. You don't think that sheet of paper is going to change things. You can't imagine that it will. How could it? But it does and in ways that you can't even begin to imagine from the outside and that are exceedingly difficult to explain.<br><br>I will give it a go if you are interested, but definitely not when tipsy and not tonight.<br><br>DTrail Blazerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08291715601733518982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987034451869317078.post-10668809610472965112008-09-16T22:45:00.000-07:002008-09-16T22:45:00.000-07:00Vodka gimlet? On the rocks or straight up? Man, ...Vodka gimlet? On the rocks or straight up? Man, I didn't think that someone your age went there. *hat tip*<br><br>I could respond ad nauseum, but I'm not sure I want to. I've got a good buzz on and I don' want to waste it. :) Enjoy your evening.Daktarihttp://daktarii.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987034451869317078.post-74453501862172908812008-09-16T18:02:00.000-07:002008-09-16T18:02:00.000-07:00Good points. But it seems to me like there is val...Good points. But it seems to me like there is value (separate from the personal/ceremonial value) in a legal declaration of quasi-permanent partner status. The fact that we make it extraordinarily hard to get divorced in most cases is, I think more an argument against extraordinarily cumbersome divorce laws than an argument against legal marriage. Though you are completely correct in that legal marriage/marriage contracts as I'm thinking of them only bears a faint resemblance to what they normally are, and a specific delineation of rights of married couples is completely logical and should be required of the state. But just as you're correct in saying "But isn't the stuff that comes with marriage more a social construct than a fundamental part of marriage?" -- it's also correct to view the problems of divorce as a social construct -- meaning that unless the essential idea of the institution is wrong, it seems to me as logical to reform it as to abolish it. I think the modern understanding of its core concept is partnership and societal stability (though I swear, the ideas you mention have never occurred to me per se -- I never thought I had to get married to have a companion, I don't feel personally that a marriage license inherently generates stability for kids, that comes from the people and how they behave, and not a single mom) is a valid one. So I think the question becomes -- why fight an institution many gain great personal strength from and/or place an (often completely irrational) importance on it, rather than fight to make it what it should be? Of course, in the long term I suppose I'd see the gov't hand in this as acting negatively largely because of the underlying problems with our gov't, rather than inherent in marriage. But hey, what do I know about marriage? It just seems to me to be a beautiful idea often ruined by a combination of unreasonable expectations and both well-meaning and big-daddyish gov't impulses. And ideas are worth fighting for, I think -- and being quite un-libertarian, the idea of being left alone doesn't appeal to me but rather the ideal of creating more and better ways and spaces for people to come together. So we'll see what happens when/if I get married, if my opinions change, but I do think that the ideal is worth fighting the huge, mounting crap around it to create a culture more independent on the ceremonial aspect, and less intrusive/more transparent socio-governmental aspect (not to mention more EQUAL in re: gay vs. straight marriage).<br><br>In a way, it's the opposite for me of male polygamy -- while I have little doubt some people legitimately want to be in some arrangements and can create a loving space with it, that's not what usually happens, nor what is was created for, thus though I believe people should have the most rights possible without infringing on others, the institution of polygamy has seemingly almost always infringed on women's rights and is based on ideas of property and religious dominance, so that's one not worth saving for some of the same reasons I think single marriage is. But I digress =]<br><br>I'll take a vodka gimlet on our first round =]Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10444952585830773530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987034451869317078.post-37180866765850528562008-09-16T14:44:00.000-07:002008-09-16T14:44:00.000-07:00Truthfully? You can see no reason that gay people...Truthfully? You can see no reason that gay people would want to marry? I mean, I'm all for your aversion to marriage -- or rather, all for you being able to have it and never get married again, etc. But there are several elements of the institution. The state involvement, if it is as recent as you claim, is a distinct element rather than the whole -- perhaps you *only* meant state marriage, but I didn't get that impression. And of course, even if it was founded on poisoned ground, that in itself does not mean the institution is rotten -- almost everything one treasures from the past seems to have, in reality, been founded on poisoned ground, and I believe in the conscious choice of reclaiming the good from things that have that potential in them, even without a purity of origin.<br><br>As to marriage itself, I can trace my own desires simply to a certain like of ceremony. While I'm not one for ceremonies of all kinds, my friend Jef and I once commented that the problem with secularism is the lack of ceremonies. Ceremonies bring communities together and form and reinforce bonds that help people be <em>people</em>, I feel. To each, their own ceremony, but that is why the institution of marriage -- despite being inherited from a system of ownership -- appeals to me in its pure sense. A public declaration of something before your friends and family is, to me, fun (or can be). And of course its not mutually exclusive with choosing to be with someone every day -- a painful marriage may be the result of not making that choice for the right reasons, but not making that choice for the right reasons is not a necessary result of marriage.<br><br>I'm not trying to advocate marriage for you -- the details and elements of relationships deeply personal thing which one person can't (or shouldn't) proscribe for another (outside of reasonable boundaries regarding civil rights). And it seems to me that the state does have a compelling interest in distinguishing between couples considering themselves blood family and those that are more casual -- I'd be all for them de-linking this from marriage, such that marriage is civil and "legal partners" is gov't part, but that de-linking doesn't change the bad origins of state-licensed marriage, nor the real advantages to distinguishing between a relationship meant to be long-term family and one that, well, isn't.<br><br>And of course there's separate but equal -- not all gay people who want to get married necessarily analyzed it on this level, but if they did, I suspect the emphasis is on legal equality and joining a cultural tradition -- much more appealing than tearing the tradition down for everyone, to some (or many). The fact that there are very bad elements of the tradition does not mean it hasn't worked well or brought joy to some -- and for some, that's all they want, and if they themselves, imho, fight for and practice the relevant civil rights for everyone, the fact that they choose to celebrate their interpretation of an ill-conceived celebration, all power to them.<br><br>I don't want to come off as preachy (too late) or trying to convert anyone -- I'm not. I'm just talking about my interpretation of things, and reasons why I see some worth to an institution that has so poorly served so many (though like I said, the legal and the ceremonial are separate components, and it seems like you're implicitly critiquing both though your evidence primarily deals with the former). This is obviously a longer conversation meant to be had over alcohol =]Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10444952585830773530noreply@blogger.com