Marrying for love as an individual doesn't actually have anything to do with it: for the fact that one cannot marry for love always is my point, that in America currently marriage isn't about love.
That is not to say love should not factor in individuals choice to marry; but I seriously think saying that marriage is about love and etc. is sending the wrong message - and that's not the message we send culturally when marrying for love, whatever love manifests itself in. Marriage the civic institution is just that: a civil institution. One which I personally disagree with.
That being said, that does not mean I should deny myself either a sense of family and never be connected with another (a la Marilyn Frye's "Willful Virgin") or that I should deny myself a legal family (make it possible for someone other than my parents to represent me legally if and when I am unable) ...
And althought I may love J, that is certainly may change but some things just won't - and because we love each other alone is no reason to make a legal and societal statement of commitment and one-ness. Afterall - I will add $5,000 to my debet and his will triple and we aren't quite sure what our credit will look like. But the good far outweighs the bad.
Urgh and I am deathly ill... It feels like the worst hangover of my life, but I'm aware I didn't drink anything. I think I'm actually have some kind of birth control withdrawls... *dies*
And internet withdrawls ontop of it. No internet in the apartment... I have to go to my school's deathly silent library.
I'm engaged
-
TragicPixie
- Mile High Club
- Posts: 831
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:19 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO
- Contact:
"for the fact that one cannot marry for love"
why not? and again does j know you feel this way? if so then maybe he'll get on and explain this b/c i don't understand this whole concept. looking forward to reading the explanation.
"that in America currently marriage isn't about love."
so now it's a geographic thing? like i can move to another country where it is about love and then it'll be about love?
i hope you feel better. i also hate it for you that you are convincing yourself to do something you don't agree with. and i'm sorry your life partner is going to allow you to do something that you don't agree with:
"Marriage the civic institution is just that: a civil institution. One which I personally disagree with."
why not? and again does j know you feel this way? if so then maybe he'll get on and explain this b/c i don't understand this whole concept. looking forward to reading the explanation.
"that in America currently marriage isn't about love."
so now it's a geographic thing? like i can move to another country where it is about love and then it'll be about love?
i hope you feel better. i also hate it for you that you are convincing yourself to do something you don't agree with. and i'm sorry your life partner is going to allow you to do something that you don't agree with:
"Marriage the civic institution is just that: a civil institution. One which I personally disagree with."
and one or two more things
i just want to state . . . CURRENTLY marriage laws . . . laws governing civil unions . . . and divorce laws are based on state laws. not on "american" laws. they vary from state to state. all of the ins and outs of your marriage and divorce are not dependent upon some theoretical concepts of "america" they are dependent upon your state's laws, which are chaning finally thank god, despite george bush, which is amazing. that we have this right winger fake ass christian croney in federal office and have gained legal marriage rights for gays and lesbians in several states for the first time ever -- in the entire history of this country --in the past few years is REMARKABLE.
and also Historically one concept of a marriage union is based on a colonial set of laws that derived themselves from one religion, christianity . . . which is why there is a problem today in this country for gays and lesbians, it's why for years inter-racial couples had a hard time . . . i can quote the verse folks used to separate . . . really it's why there was a problem then in this country for other folks who had their own ways of doing things, but were eradicated
the problem as i see it, is not with marriage, the problem is with the interpretation of one religion into legal systems which are not flexible enough to handle the varying views the population in a given state has. marriage / choosing a life mate existed in this country b/f the colonials came, and i think blaming "marriage" for how screwed up state laws governing marriage are is not accurate, fair, or logical.
if we had modeled ourselves after those who were first here, we'd be a lot better off and there's no time like the present to learn from the past and change; the arawaks for instance who columbus slaughtered were free to come and go in relation to mates: "marriage laws are non-existent: men and women alike choose their mates as they please, without offense, jealousy, or anger." (that account's from the book a people's history of the united states that sloth suggested in his suggested reading. have you read it?)
think if we dissolved our marriages like that today.
another great reason to marry like the indigenous folks -- one of their reasons for marrying was unity, not of one tribe, but of all tribes. they purposefully married outside of their tribes so that their concept of family got larger and larger and larger . . . and resulted in peace, the thinking being it's harder to war on someone you consider to be your family -- "christian" thinking in this country, has been the exact opposite, it's sinful to marry someone who's black if you're white . . . it's wrong for a christain and a muslim or a christain and a jew or a christain and a hindu to marry . . . what'll it teach your kids? is a question i've heard. ummm, that we're all family i think, but nope the traditional "christian" ideology remains extremely ass-backward to peace thinking, and that is ironic b/c christ is supposedly the prince of peace . . . What a shame.
but not the fault of christ or marriage, imo. the fault of those who think war is justified . . . ultimately and back again to what you said the fault of those who believe in ownership and entitlement, the fault of those who act on jealousy, the fault of those with inferiority complexes who needed to set themselves up as a"people" who were to be "God's" people, the fault of a religion that perpetuated this myth of a race that is God's -- give me a f-ing break
There is an Algonquin tale of marriage called the rough face girl that illustrates the vast difference in the colonial's concept of marriage and the native's concept of marriage -- my students read it last year. it's compared to the european cinderella story, but as opposed to the heroine being a hot blonde chick, she's a girl who's severely scarred because she's been burned. She's chosen in all her burnt, sooty scarred up poverty b/c she understands and respects nature -- not b/c she's a hotty with a small foot and some great new magical clothes, who looks all rich in her fancy carriage: http://schools.tdsb.on.ca/johndparker/p_legend.htm
just because european christians fucked up the concept of marriage doesn't mean you, pixie, have to accept their fucked up concept. just because folks fucked up the concept of beauty doesn't mean you have to accept that bullshit either. the native story rejects both, and . . .it is the story of the first americans. i mean it's awesome. i don't know why a female would want to cling to the history served to us on a platter by ignorant, racist dumbasses who think the country “began†in 1492.
i just want to state . . . CURRENTLY marriage laws . . . laws governing civil unions . . . and divorce laws are based on state laws. not on "american" laws. they vary from state to state. all of the ins and outs of your marriage and divorce are not dependent upon some theoretical concepts of "america" they are dependent upon your state's laws, which are chaning finally thank god, despite george bush, which is amazing. that we have this right winger fake ass christian croney in federal office and have gained legal marriage rights for gays and lesbians in several states for the first time ever -- in the entire history of this country --in the past few years is REMARKABLE.
and also Historically one concept of a marriage union is based on a colonial set of laws that derived themselves from one religion, christianity . . . which is why there is a problem today in this country for gays and lesbians, it's why for years inter-racial couples had a hard time . . . i can quote the verse folks used to separate . . . really it's why there was a problem then in this country for other folks who had their own ways of doing things, but were eradicated
the problem as i see it, is not with marriage, the problem is with the interpretation of one religion into legal systems which are not flexible enough to handle the varying views the population in a given state has. marriage / choosing a life mate existed in this country b/f the colonials came, and i think blaming "marriage" for how screwed up state laws governing marriage are is not accurate, fair, or logical.
if we had modeled ourselves after those who were first here, we'd be a lot better off and there's no time like the present to learn from the past and change; the arawaks for instance who columbus slaughtered were free to come and go in relation to mates: "marriage laws are non-existent: men and women alike choose their mates as they please, without offense, jealousy, or anger." (that account's from the book a people's history of the united states that sloth suggested in his suggested reading. have you read it?)
think if we dissolved our marriages like that today.
another great reason to marry like the indigenous folks -- one of their reasons for marrying was unity, not of one tribe, but of all tribes. they purposefully married outside of their tribes so that their concept of family got larger and larger and larger . . . and resulted in peace, the thinking being it's harder to war on someone you consider to be your family -- "christian" thinking in this country, has been the exact opposite, it's sinful to marry someone who's black if you're white . . . it's wrong for a christain and a muslim or a christain and a jew or a christain and a hindu to marry . . . what'll it teach your kids? is a question i've heard. ummm, that we're all family i think, but nope the traditional "christian" ideology remains extremely ass-backward to peace thinking, and that is ironic b/c christ is supposedly the prince of peace . . . What a shame.
but not the fault of christ or marriage, imo. the fault of those who think war is justified . . . ultimately and back again to what you said the fault of those who believe in ownership and entitlement, the fault of those who act on jealousy, the fault of those with inferiority complexes who needed to set themselves up as a"people" who were to be "God's" people, the fault of a religion that perpetuated this myth of a race that is God's -- give me a f-ing break
There is an Algonquin tale of marriage called the rough face girl that illustrates the vast difference in the colonial's concept of marriage and the native's concept of marriage -- my students read it last year. it's compared to the european cinderella story, but as opposed to the heroine being a hot blonde chick, she's a girl who's severely scarred because she's been burned. She's chosen in all her burnt, sooty scarred up poverty b/c she understands and respects nature -- not b/c she's a hotty with a small foot and some great new magical clothes, who looks all rich in her fancy carriage: http://schools.tdsb.on.ca/johndparker/p_legend.htm
just because european christians fucked up the concept of marriage doesn't mean you, pixie, have to accept their fucked up concept. just because folks fucked up the concept of beauty doesn't mean you have to accept that bullshit either. the native story rejects both, and . . .it is the story of the first americans. i mean it's awesome. i don't know why a female would want to cling to the history served to us on a platter by ignorant, racist dumbasses who think the country “began†in 1492.
sloth, i'm sorry some of this stuff it's taken me a while to gather info on in order to answer your question as fully as i can, it's a huge issue, but i'll give it a shot, if myke or someone who knows more about this would like to jump in and point out things, that'd be great. . . "As you can probably guess... Sweden used to be very old fashioned and finally 'had enough of the bullshit'. When is this going to happen in the States?"
“In a historic decision on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the government may no longer deny marriage and marriage rights to same sex couples.â€
Folks who tell you that gay folks can't get married in the united states are not telling the truth -- They can, the problem is gay folks can't get married in most of the united states.
There are also several states where “civil unions†or “domestic partnerships†have been legal, just like these things are legal in Germany: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Vermont, and the U.S. territory of Washington, D.C..
After researching this a bit, I don't think these states in the US are all that different from European countries, in their timing or in how they are carrying out legality of homosexual unions and rights guaranteed to couples -- for instance from what I've read civil unions were legalized in Germany in 2001, in Vermont they were legalized in July of 2000 -- not a huge difference at all.
In terms of american politics, folks who tell you that the slow recognition of civil rights for gays and lesbians who want to marry is solely a republican issue are not telling the truth -- Bill Clinton's work against same sex marriage includes:
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. The law:
for purposes of federal law, it defines marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
only twenty-five states have DOMA, that I know of: Alabama, Arizona, California*, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia. (you may or may not be interested to know that this information came from “The Traditional Values Coalition which is an inter-denominational public policy organization speaking on behalf of over 43,000 churches.†I mean there is definitely a religious finger slicing our legal pie today -- These folks make me a little nauseated, but it's eye opening to see what you are up against if you want equal rights for all Americans:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/marria ... dments.php
DOMA is where the federal law kicks someone who is in a civil union or domestic union's ass in the following areas:
Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.
Because civil unions and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.
Sloth or sloth's wife, if you don't mind, let me ask you something. In a country the size of Sweden are there states? If no, how does the lack of states change things in terms of the government's regulation of marriage?
“In a historic decision on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the government may no longer deny marriage and marriage rights to same sex couples.â€
Folks who tell you that gay folks can't get married in the united states are not telling the truth -- They can, the problem is gay folks can't get married in most of the united states.
There are also several states where “civil unions†or “domestic partnerships†have been legal, just like these things are legal in Germany: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Vermont, and the U.S. territory of Washington, D.C..
After researching this a bit, I don't think these states in the US are all that different from European countries, in their timing or in how they are carrying out legality of homosexual unions and rights guaranteed to couples -- for instance from what I've read civil unions were legalized in Germany in 2001, in Vermont they were legalized in July of 2000 -- not a huge difference at all.
In terms of american politics, folks who tell you that the slow recognition of civil rights for gays and lesbians who want to marry is solely a republican issue are not telling the truth -- Bill Clinton's work against same sex marriage includes:
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. The law:
for purposes of federal law, it defines marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
only twenty-five states have DOMA, that I know of: Alabama, Arizona, California*, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia. (you may or may not be interested to know that this information came from “The Traditional Values Coalition which is an inter-denominational public policy organization speaking on behalf of over 43,000 churches.†I mean there is definitely a religious finger slicing our legal pie today -- These folks make me a little nauseated, but it's eye opening to see what you are up against if you want equal rights for all Americans:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/marria ... dments.php
DOMA is where the federal law kicks someone who is in a civil union or domestic union's ass in the following areas:
Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.
Because civil unions and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.
Sloth or sloth's wife, if you don't mind, let me ask you something. In a country the size of Sweden are there states? If no, how does the lack of states change things in terms of the government's regulation of marriage?
I admit I haven't read all of this thread (far from it) but what sticks in my mind is Pixie's saying essentially (correct me if I'm wrong) "marrying for love doesn't really exist because gays can't get married". Well, that just seems to me a really cop-out, convenient, self-righteous thing to say. Of course gays should be allowed to get fuckin' married. That doesn't mean that folks such as myself who think marriage should be primarily about love are against gays getting married. It also doesn't mean that plenty of straight couples don't get married for love every damn day.
What an easy way to change the subject by throwing in a red herring and painting me and others who believe this way as bigots. Well done.
What an easy way to change the subject by throwing in a red herring and painting me and others who believe this way as bigots. Well done.
-
TragicPixie
- Mile High Club
- Posts: 831
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:19 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO
- Contact:
I'm not saying you shouldn't...
I am saying that actually marriage isn't about love at all. And I'm going to have to say that honestly it never was and perhaps the view that marriage is about love is what I find most harmful - especially to girls.
But that's me. And my reasons for getting married are not soley based around "because-I-love-him-and-we'll-be-so-great-together" ... which I honestly don't think anyone here would have been too supportive of either.
Unless of course we are saying 20 year olds have no right to make descions ... because they are too young. Which is a view I don't share and didn't particularly think anyone else here did either. I mean, afterall, if I can't decide who I would like to spend the rest of my life with because I haven't fucked half the male population in the midwest ... then how can I possibly choose a major, a general course of study, or a career...
and I'll leave it at that.
Marriage: not actually about love when it comes down to it. If you love someone fine, stay with them - be happy. If you love someone and would like a legal respectable family fine, marry them. But I seriously disagree with saying that marriage is about love: it's not. It's about what we define family as - and I don't agree with that and cannot possibly say I even *want* to be a part of it. But that's me and that's fine.
I am saying that actually marriage isn't about love at all. And I'm going to have to say that honestly it never was and perhaps the view that marriage is about love is what I find most harmful - especially to girls.
But that's me. And my reasons for getting married are not soley based around "because-I-love-him-and-we'll-be-so-great-together" ... which I honestly don't think anyone here would have been too supportive of either.
Unless of course we are saying 20 year olds have no right to make descions ... because they are too young. Which is a view I don't share and didn't particularly think anyone else here did either. I mean, afterall, if I can't decide who I would like to spend the rest of my life with because I haven't fucked half the male population in the midwest ... then how can I possibly choose a major, a general course of study, or a career...
and I'll leave it at that.
Marriage: not actually about love when it comes down to it. If you love someone fine, stay with them - be happy. If you love someone and would like a legal respectable family fine, marry them. But I seriously disagree with saying that marriage is about love: it's not. It's about what we define family as - and I don't agree with that and cannot possibly say I even *want* to be a part of it. But that's me and that's fine.
Lie to me, it takes less time to drink you pretty.
I didn't say 20 year olds were too young to make decisions. If there's no law saying you can't get married at 20 years old, then you are fully free to get married.
I think what you are saying is that marriage is something a feminist would never do, is that right? I don't think marriage is inherently anti-feminist, but again you are fully free to do and think as you wish.
When is Tommy going to weigh in?
I think what you are saying is that marriage is something a feminist would never do, is that right? I don't think marriage is inherently anti-feminist, but again you are fully free to do and think as you wish.
When is Tommy going to weigh in?
"But that's me and that's fine"
and i do believe that is all that needs to be said -- sort of like "IMO," in terms of how any one individual here feels. it I THINK is dangerous to make a generalization like, "no one can marry for love, that's not possible."
you may not be able to say that you can marry for love and that for you that would not be wise
whereas mark can say i can marry for love and for him that would be wise
i think the big problem was that a huge generalization was made without a shred of logical reasoning to support it.
also as maverick said, i think it is unfair that people here asked you to explain your decision . . . from the get go as if you can't make that decision. at the same time in fairness to them i don't think that they meant a twenty year old can't make decisions i think perhaps they thought wow, i've ten years of mistake making on this girl perhaps i'll share a bit with her before she does make a decision.
does j know you don't believe in marriage?
and i do believe that is all that needs to be said -- sort of like "IMO," in terms of how any one individual here feels. it I THINK is dangerous to make a generalization like, "no one can marry for love, that's not possible."
you may not be able to say that you can marry for love and that for you that would not be wise
whereas mark can say i can marry for love and for him that would be wise
i think the big problem was that a huge generalization was made without a shred of logical reasoning to support it.
also as maverick said, i think it is unfair that people here asked you to explain your decision . . . from the get go as if you can't make that decision. at the same time in fairness to them i don't think that they meant a twenty year old can't make decisions i think perhaps they thought wow, i've ten years of mistake making on this girl perhaps i'll share a bit with her before she does make a decision.
does j know you don't believe in marriage?
-
Tommy Martyn
- Mile High Club
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 8:01 am
- Location: a desk
I've been on a world tour of England, Ireland and Scotland. I caught up on all branches of the family (I'm one of five) but mostly I researched the rock novella/SF fantasy that I've loosely based on conversations with Marky.
Seems like everyone has weighed in here. Obviously there is no right or wrong answer. My short answer is to approach this Texas hold em style. To my eye, the whole situation says fold, then wait and try for the big pot when your hand is stronger.
Seems like everyone has weighed in here. Obviously there is no right or wrong answer. My short answer is to approach this Texas hold em style. To my eye, the whole situation says fold, then wait and try for the big pot when your hand is stronger.
A feminist would never get married? That's an excellent point to ponder. I think more likely a feminist would never be Christian, muslim, or jew, as those are obviously all very bigoted hateful unfemale friendly religions.
Come to think of it though... I am a feminist and I am married... so there you go. Feminists can get married. I am living proof. Sorry Marky.
Well I am still in Italy and this temrinal sucks so I am outta here. McCutcheon you are getting a post card. It will probably contain lots of obscenities.
Come to think of it though... I am a feminist and I am married... so there you go. Feminists can get married. I am living proof. Sorry Marky.
Well I am still in Italy and this temrinal sucks so I am outta here. McCutcheon you are getting a post card. It will probably contain lots of obscenities.
-
mccutcheon
- New York Scribbler
- Posts: 4996
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:01 am
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Don't say sorry to me, Sloth! I was interpreting *Pixie's* stance to be that marriage is anti-feminist. I was not stating that that was my own opinion. This is what I said - to Pixie - upthread:
Don't you just love Mercury in Retrograde misunderstandings? Thank god it's finally over at about 5pm today, my time.I think what you are saying is that marriage is something a feminist would never do, is that right? I don't think marriage is inherently anti-feminist, but again you are fully free to do and think as you wish.
-
TragicPixie
- Mile High Club
- Posts: 831
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:19 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO
- Contact:
a feminist cannot get married is a common stance.
many feminists do actually define it that way
will have internet by Sept.
moving to new apt. soon.
new job really sucks - no spare time. I am working on the damn voting machines. It's a worry; there will be compeletely electronic voting in missouri.
That's illegal, but the state of missouri doesn't care.
oh - and the illness was/is not a hangover; it was apparently stress-induced. I will not stop vomiting until I am unstressed. The vomiting makes me more stressed.
and there was a tornado. we just spent the last week without power and then another storm came and knocked out the power for a few hours. I am a mightly unhappy pixie. but I am alive - and as of today I have a lease for Septemeber so I have somewhere to live and a job for school.
I swear I will be back. But maybe not before Sept. My cellphone still works tho' if marky wants to call me.
many feminists do actually define it that way
will have internet by Sept.
moving to new apt. soon.
new job really sucks - no spare time. I am working on the damn voting machines. It's a worry; there will be compeletely electronic voting in missouri.
That's illegal, but the state of missouri doesn't care.
oh - and the illness was/is not a hangover; it was apparently stress-induced. I will not stop vomiting until I am unstressed. The vomiting makes me more stressed.
and there was a tornado. we just spent the last week without power and then another storm came and knocked out the power for a few hours. I am a mightly unhappy pixie. but I am alive - and as of today I have a lease for Septemeber so I have somewhere to live and a job for school.
I swear I will be back. But maybe not before Sept. My cellphone still works tho' if marky wants to call me.
Lie to me, it takes less time to drink you pretty.
Well, I think the point here is do YOU define it that way? I can well see people taking this stance back when women couldn't own land and have jobs and blah blah blah but today it just doesn't make much sense to me. I mean...if you are a woman in a relationship with a man, say, and you are living together for years at a time, and then you one day finally do tie the knot, what has really changed from a purely feminist perspective? Or does it all come down to what happens when/if the marriage breaks up? Because if it does, then it seems to me the courts probably favor women in that case, if the male is the primary income earner. Anyway I'm not trying to open up a whole giant can of worms here but for sheer curiosity I would like to hear a paragraph's worth of reasons why marriage today, in 2006, in western countries, is anti-feminist. I also can't help but think of Sloth's wife Linda and almost wish she would pipe in here, as she is a feisty sort to be reckoned with!a feminist cannot get married is a common stance.
many feminists do actually define it that way
Sarah, too, another Aries, let's hear it girls!Anyway, I'm glad to hear you have a place to live for September and a job, that is great. I'm also glad you have survived the insanity of the power outages out there. I'm sorry your job leaves you with no spare time - but won't it be over soon? I mean how can you be working so hard when elections are in November? Not doubting you, just confused.
As for me, I have a nice new shiny diploma (just opened it up and looked at it today in fact) and more free time, but still no job. Two weeks ago I got fed up with looking and quit. In any case, I have a better idea of what I want now that I intend to start looking again (I figured I'd wait until Mercury went direct for god's sake - no point applying for jobs if your email is likely not to arrive, etc). What I do know is that the place I work now is absolutely and entirely unacceptable to me. I detest it with all my being and I will overcome it if it's the last thing I do. It's all I can do to keep myself from walking out but I've done that before with a job and I've sworn to myself I will not walk out this time until I have another job to go to. I will get my revenge, to be sure. In time, I will have my revenge. And when I am gone, I'll tell them all what I think of them point blank. Hahaha.
Wow the Velvet Underground are getting kindof jazzy/funky on me here, this is weird. I love it.