Why would anyone defend "traditional marriage" - it is reprehensible?

Question

Some interesting qutoes on "traditional" marriage.

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law, that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of her husband, under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything." ~ William Blackstone, " Commentaries on the Laws of England", 1765

"In the nineteenth century [1891!], when a judge ruled that a husband could not imprison and rape his wife the London Times bemoaned, `One fine morning last month, marriage in England was suddenly abolished.' The phrase rule of thumb descends from English common law that said a man could legally beat his wife with a switch `no thicker than his thumb.'" ~ Naomi Wolf, "Radical Heterosexuality"

"The 1804 Code Napoleon, influential throughout Europe [and Louisiana; remember 'A Streetcar Named Desire'?] recapitulated the old terms of the marriage contract, proclaiming a husband head of his household and dictating the arrangement as one of male protection in return for female obedience. Under this code *women were classified with children and mental defectives as legal incompetents*." ~ Jaclyn Geller, "The Marriage Mystique"

This is the tradition that certain religious conservatives are so vehemently defending?

If you love traditional marriage so much, why don't we go back to *truly* traditional marriage of 100 years ago where women were property, mental deficients, and allowed to be beaten?

I never said all marriage was reprehensible, I said traditional marriage is reprehensible.

I am very happy marriage has been redefined to be a state that strives for equality and mutal rights and respect, unlike what it was 50-100 years ago.

Randy:

I am nuetral on the subject of marriage: if a couple chooses marriage as the best rout for them, that's cool, if a couple doesn't choose marriage as a means to start a family, that's cool, too. I know people who have a family without a marriage and without intent of a marriage, and I see that as just as valid as any legal marriage.

There is more than one definition of both 'family' and relationship. I privelege the freedom for individuals to define both to fit their needs.

Answer 1

James, I am very honest about the fact that I am a very vain, very lazy, man. Discussing this issue some years back, I had an acquaintance tell me, in all seriousness, that I should marry, so as to have someone wait on me hand and foot.

Now, mind you, I'm quite inclined to enjoy being waited on hand and foot, but to expect it to happen, simply because I am a male, seems ridiculous to me. It just goes to show, however, how antiquated ideas still have a strong hold on modern minds.

And for all of the answerers who claimed that great progress has been made, I suggest that they visit their local fundamentalist church. They will find that these churches believe it is a man's world, made by a male God.

Answer 2

Marriage is a state of mind, not a piece of paper. I realized that after I got married, and my feelings for my husband didn't magically change. I have always loved him, respected him, and done my best to be a good person he can be proud of. He reciprocates with the same love, respect and decency I have for him. We felt the same way for each other before marriage as we do after. Marriage won't change whether or not you feel like that towards someone, or whether they feel it back. I'm sure gay couples who have been in long term relationships feel just the same when they're actually meant to be together. You can't really control how people feel, about all you can do is brainwash others to feel hate towards them. As for legal benefits of being married, beyond changing my last name, the benefits are negligible in the grand scheme of things. Tax benefits are laughable if you don't have children yet. Most "legal privileges" married people have, 2 mentally competent acquaintances can do too without jumping through any hoops. Also, anyone can change their name if they file the right paperwork (so a gay or lesbian person could change their last name to their partners without marriage anyways). That's still not going to change how they feel, just because they can't save a few bucks on their taxes. Perhaps the question should be- Why exactly do we give legal benefits and tax breaks to one specific group of people, for no real good reason. Why cant roommates who are not romantically involved get a tax break? They live together, sometimes more than just 2 people too. 3 or 4 roommates living together cut carbon emissions from not having to heat, cool, light, run appliances ect...for 3 or 4 separate houses. What (governmentally relevant) do married couples do vs. roommates? Marriage with governmental approved benefits dangerously crosses the line of mixing the 2. Government and religion should be completely separate. If Christian Church A. wants to tell their congregation they can give 20% less to the church if they get married, fine. Churches can certainly give all the benefits they want to married couples over gay couples, that's freedom of religion. But the government should be non-biased towards groups of people based on religious factors. Certain groups of people do NOT deserve governmental benefits for having a certain belief system. Why do my husband and I deserve a tax break because we are a man and a woman, who are participating in a religious sacrament? The government really needs to stop dabbling in age old issues that will always be petty, and have no resolution so long as sensible laws and public order is maintained (as in, not a theocracy or anarchy). They need to start doing their JOBS and running this country better. The religious zealots and atheist know it alls will keep on fighting until the end of time. There have been believers and heathens since biblical times, and there will be until the rapture comes or the universe collapses. Either way, were on this earth for such a short amount of time, and we will never know what happens after we die until it happens. Why waste so much time and energy fighting over the unknown? Why not just focus on enjoying this beautiful gift of life while were experiencing it? If being with someone makes you happy, and makes them happy, why do you need to define what that is with a label?

Answer 3

Have a muslim marriage :
The wife and husband live their lives according to the sunna, respect each other and consult each other before taking decisions that concern them both and their hoousehold. For the wife's business, the husband has no say at all, but he has the obligation to support his family with his own means, unless the wife decides to help him out
if he is angry with her, he is allowed to reprimand her (talk), keep from her bed, and if that does not work give her ONE tap, light so thay it does not mark, or damage her in any way, and away from her face...
The wife that is not satisfied with her husband can seek counsel, and a third party will intervene to reason the couples. If a wife is disgusted by her husband so that she cannot share his bed with pleasure, she is allowed to demand divorce, and if the conciliation fails, the imam will pronounce the divorce. She then leaves her ex husband and keeps all her riches...
That is even better than marriage in most so-called developed countries...

Answer 4

Well said.
And the tradition of marriage has nothing to do with religion. It is a legal contract and always was. When the early medieval church realized that it could charge for the service, that's when they began to tell people that religion was a "religious institution". Utter hogwash.
Thankfully, the religious nuts out there are becoming more and more marginalized. Soon, hopefully, they'll be extinct.

Answer 5

You have based your assumptions upon shaky arguments. Fast forward to today.

"Traditional" can mean the last 50-years depending upon who is defining the term. My father and mother had a marriage where he worked and she was a homemaker all her life. This was the "tradition" of their families for a good marriage. And, it was a great marriage! Mom was an equal partner in all decisions and took care of her end of the marriage while Dad took care of his.

Jim DeSantis

Answer 6

You are full of anger. I wonder if you've been beaten, too. Still, christianity is not what you suppose, nor is it what the so-called "churches" suppose. It is the will of Christ & God, and it is salvation for us by faith, through grace.
In God's version of marriage & family, you, as a believer in Him, would likely be very glad to be with the love & protection of a caring husband. As a man & a devout believer, myself, I find it sometimes difficult to suffer what is at the workplace. It would be easier to have a refuge away from it all. A wife in such a case could be supportive & nurturing to a husband suffering the workplace politics, etc. all week long. Also, there are biblical references showing that a godly wife was highly-esteemed, not trodden underfoot, as many rebellious women these days seem to pretend. If you are willing to be fair, why not ask that God Himself help you to see things more from His perspective. Remember, I used the term "His"...not "religious people's." Peace.

Answer 7

The Abrahamic religions are paternalistic and authoritarian. In America, as recently as the early 1980's, a man could not even be brought up on rape charges if he forced himself on his wife because she was considered his property, and sex was considered her "wifely duty." A man could get away with beating his wife and children, again because they were his "property."

Times change, and so does religion, even if only begrudgingly.

Answer 8

I have never heard of traditional marriage being defined as a man beating and raping his wife.
The fact that you had to back over 200 years and one mans quote says a lot. It's a good thing people didn't listen to the medea is those days.
How about a little more stereotyping. Homosexuality is about molesting animals and mass murder, and feminism is about animal sacrifice and witchcraft. How do you like that?

Answer 9

you clearly do not know the bliss of being happily married. Or of loving person so much that you will lay your life on the line for that person. Or perhaps you do not know the joy of feeling protected, nurtured and loved by your spouse.
Yes, there will always be differences of opinion and the occasional quarrel, but true love overcomes all evil.

And, God instituted marriage. How dare you say it is 'reprehensible'?

Answer 10

Marriage is not reprehensible.

Look at the dates you gave. Times change.
Do you want to go back to the ways people lived then?
No lights, no modern conveniences, etc. OR, are you just picking this subject out to "pick a fight" and cause strife?

Make peace, not war. Try to be a peace maker, not a trouble maker.