Against traditional marriage

[Mama Twinkles]

Lately I've been thinking about the term "traditional marriage." To me it implies an authoritarian male and a subjugated female who shores him up, a kind of folie a deux that hurts everyone. On those grounds, I OPPOSE traditional marriage, and so does most of America! Perhaps gays are just a convenient target for those who cling to an outdated model of relationships that almost the entire culture wants to put behind us. They are right that "traditional marriage" is under siege, but they are wrong about who is responsible and in seeing that outcome as a bad thing.

This isn't just a semantic game. I really do think homophobia is rooted in misogyny and that it is the traditionalists who pretend to themselves and others that gays are the threat when really they are threatened by the freedom for women and gays and heterosexual non-traditionalists of both sexes of the last 35 years. Neither are divorce or out-of-wedlock childbearing truly what bother them, though those do undercut their security in old-fashioned roles.

 

[OrlandoMike]

It still amazes me that they preach this sanctity of marriage crap.

Babies out of Wedlock, many times not even knowing who the father is.

Multiple marriages to multiple partners. It's all cool! Heck, head to Vegas and do it again, and again, and again!

But boy howdy! Let two gay people, who have been together for dozens of years, raising kids that they had to beg, borrow or pay to get, want to join in on this fun and all hell breaks loose!

I just don't get it?

 

[Jennasmomma]

Ya know...homosexual marriages are only "non traditional" because people that make the laws judge who dates who. If there were laws to all same sex marriages...I bet you the divorce rate in the US would be a lot lower. I've heard of gay couples being together for years, decades making a life/family together. I seriously think in this day and age we, as a country, need to worry about more important things than if Joe wants to marry Jeff or if Mary wants to marry Sue.

 

[OrlandoMike]

One of the problems is they never show plain old folks like us. Married for years, some have kids, we go to Disney, we are BORING!

They would rather show the 19 year old boys, behaving like 19 year old boys do, or "Dikes on Bikes", it's better press!

Rosie, Will and Grace, Ellen, and the likes have helped this a little, but there is more work to do. That's why I think it's important to be out. People get to meet the more "normal" Ozzie and Harriet version of us.

 

[Rence]

Marriage as it exists today is not traditional marriage. One of the arguments against gay marriage is that we can’t just willy nilly go changing marriage. But that is exactly what has been happening.

Throughout most of recorded history, most marriages were arranged. The individuals involved did not select who they married, this decision was far to important to leave to the young. People were told who they would marry. This is traditional marriage.

Marriage was not about love, it was about economics, social position etc. The bride and groom were bargaining chips to be used to enhance the position of the respective families. Love had nothing to do with it. This is traditional marriage.

Divorce was unheard of. Divorce was not allowed in many cultures and only in extreme cases in others. Till death do you part. This is traditional marriage.

The woman had no say in the marriage. In fact she was the property of the man and had to obey without question. This is traditional marriage.

In many cultures, plural marriages were the norm. This is traditional marriage.

Love, women’s rights, divorce, people deciding for themselves who they want to marry. All this new fangled nonsense is not traditional marriage. If marriage is to be unchangeable, perhaps it is time for society to undo all the changes that have already happened and return to traditional marriage. Those who want to defend traditional marriage should fight for its return and then live with the results.

 

[Mama Twinkles]

Hear, hear, Rence. Well said.

 

[majortom]

I bet you the divorce rate in the US would be a lot lower. I've heard of gay couples being together for years, decades making a life/family together.

Within a very short period of time, divorce rates would stay right where they were.

/carmi

 

[iankh]

A psych professor of mine back in 1973 said that a problem in American was that there are too many people who live in fear that somewhere someone is having a good time.

Otherwise, why be so concerned with things that, let's face it, when all is said and done have nothing to do with you?

 

[Ava]

One of the problems is they never show plain old folks like us. Married for years, some have kids, we go to Disney, we are BORING!

They would rather show the 19 year old boys, behaving like 19 year old boys do, or "Dikes on Bikes", it's better press!

Rosie, Will and Grace, Ellen, and the likes have helped this a little, but there is more work to do. That's why I think it's important to be out. People get to meet the more "normal" Ozzie and Harriet version of us.

That's so true Mike. None of my gay friends live the "party" lifestyle, and most never did, except for the typical college partying that everyone does. We go to work, come home to our cats & dogs (no kids yet amongst us), go on vacation when we can, etc etc. We're all just as boring as any straight couple, lol.

I also agree that it's important to be out so people see that we are just like them. My partner & I are both lucky to have families that have been very accepting. We spend every holiday with my extended family (hers live far & are scattered) and they all must "get" that she's my partner (the adults anyway), and it's never been an issue.

 

[Mama Twinkles]

Anyone see this article on Huffington Post? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/prison-rape_b_21075.html?view=print

At first it looks as though it's about rape in prisons, but what it's really about is the tacit arrangement in some regressive heterosexual relationships whereby the woman subjugates herself (sexually and otherwise) to the man in exchange for his protection (physical, financial, etc.). That's the arrangement I was ineloquently trying to argue (in first post) some conservatives are trying to preserve. Acceptance of gays is a threat to the hierarchy they want to hang onto, a hierarchy that is rooted in male domination with the threat of rape, beating, withdrawal of life-sustaining financial support, etc. as an enforcement tool. If women (i.e., lesbians) don't need to serve men, it threatens the hierarchy. If some men desire other men, it threatens the hierarchy because in theory, then, rape can be used as a weapon against heterosexual men. And femininity in men is to be punished to reinforce the message that masculine=dominant. Masculinity in women is to be punished because the women are acting more important than they are, and need to be demeaned back into place. So sad.

 

[java]

I was floored at church this weekend. In the bulletin there was a postcard that they wanted you to mail in to so and so senator. It was prewritten- all against gay marriages. The priest said very matter of factly "so sign and mail it to show your support" Now, I am not gay, but I was so offended by this. Why should I tell 2 people that love each other that I don't respect their commitment. That my commitment is worth more than theirs??? So wrong and I just wanted you all to know that there are heterosexuals that stand by the rights of whoever wants to be married. In fact I wrote my own letter in support of the bill and mailed it off. I really don't understand why someone would assume that their beliefs are the only legally correct ways to go through life.