Serious Discussion-Stress and Psych Disorders- Page 20

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 1:42pm

The idea of marriage is and will remain a fluctuating idea. The notion we have of marriage as the outward manifestation of love is a long time Romantic Notion, but relatively small in historical reality.

As the institution changes, many churches and goverments are changing the contract to an inclusive formulation based out of love. This will hopefully continue to bring in more gay and lesbian couples.

That entire idea of marriage as an inclusive thing though is a modern western convention.

It is not a heterosexual vs. homosexual question. It is a question of understanding history and doing our best to make things equal and inclusive today.

beacon, it is true that many who stay at home are looked on less favorably, but it is still very much the case that there is a stigma on NOT doing just that. A woman with a career is still singled out and told she should "start a family." And there is still the notion that the woman who has a child and works is not "caring for the child" and giving them the care they need. I think that reamains a large and detestable part of our society.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 2:09pm

and yet, look what is happening in the Senate at this moment...

[bythesword84]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 2:20pm

If you want to talk historically then actually marriage and romantic love really don't belong in the same sentence let alone the same relationship. Not to say that marriages for love never happened (take a look at King Richard II of England.) But although divorce has been considered to only really be "mainstreamed" since the infamouse Henry VIII debacle, if you want to really look at old school women's rights in marriage go back to medieval (particularly late 12th/early 13th century) Wales. Before it was "conquered" by Edward I the Welsh held women in relatively high esteem for the time. It was common practice that a woman could divorce her husband, although I can't swear to the frequency in which that happened, it was available. I've always found it particularly interesting that one of the grounds for Welsh divorce was a woman could leave her husband if she found him flaunting his mistress in front of her. Although rare, its not as nonexistant as people seem to think, women having some say in their marriages.

If you ask me (which obviously no one has but I'm going to say it anyway) the institution of marriage, which I wholly support and believe to be a beautiful thing, would have remained much simpler and more effective if it had remained a political alliance of sorts. People's hearts have proven to be fickle time and time again and the sense of duty and loyalty so closely tied to it historically has diminished, or at least changed to be virtually unrecognizable in many cases. But I digress...and I'm done.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 2:23pm

Just wanted to say that I've read today's contributions. Beacon--thatnks especially for your insight into women and the LDS.

I don't have anything pertinent to add, but I wanted to let Addy know I had been here. I'll check in again if I have something worthwhile to add.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 2:26pm

bythesword- That was in fact my point. Although the "romantic notion" of marriage an love being connected has been around for a very long time. My first couple posts on that topic take those historical trends into accont.
I disagree with the main point you make though, I feel that the identification of a person with a "transaction" or "property exchange" that happens when it is a contract is very negative and destructive thing.

Nyadgal- That is precisely why I say we have a responsibility to ACT for these changes and educate people as to why they are needed and valid.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 2:28pm

I agree... which is why I made mention of this thread on the thread which just popped up.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 2:42pm

I have never understood how gay marriage is a liberal idea. To me, it is a conservative thought that gay men and women should enter into a contract of marriage with monogamy. For conservatives isn’t promiscuity an evil?

The biggest obstacle for gay marriage being recognized is Alito and not the Senate. The Supreme should rule that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional as a denial of the equal protection clause. With Alito on the bench this will not happen in the next decade.

[yodamarie78]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 3:00pm

I agree completely brdlwyr. If churches do not want to marry gay couples that is one thing, but because the government also grants marriages it is an equal protection issue, plain and simple.

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 3:01pm

Marriage in many Eastern cultures is not necessarily borne of love either. But the cultural aspect of needing to perpetuate a family and the family name. The pressure is great for both sexes to enter into marriage, though more so for women. The ironic aspect of the cultural importance of marriage is the biological gender imbalance that is being generated by trying to perpetuate the family line. Male children are more cherished than female children (wrong, wrong, wrong, in my opinion! be happy you have one!). The ratios are being tilted towards more men than women come marrying time. One positive consequence, is that women would be able to be more selective as to who they choose to marry. Assuming that a choice can be made, in certain cultures...

[theatreboi11]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 3:01pm

I posted this in an other thread but it seems to also fit here as well!

Today in acting class a girl simply read from the Declaration of Independence. This is the paragraph she read:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I can not and do not understand how and why we have gotten so far from this! And how a country that was founded on freedom has come to this! Equality is a false truth that we all believe. Until we have a government that solely believe in that paragraph this country will never be free or represent the ideals that is supposed to make this country great!

[beacon1]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 3:10pm

"...A woman with a career is still singled out and told she should "start a family." And there is still the notion that the woman who has a child and works is not "caring for the child" and giving them the care they need. I think that reamains a large and detestable part of our society."

I agree Penguin. A person's choices for their life are their choices and their responsibility. We don't know why some choose as they do. I do feel bad for the women who are so career-focused for so long that when they do decide they want children the biological clock is against them. There can be some real grieving for them.

And a mom working outside the home while raising her family is often a testament to multi-tasking and creativity.

Who was it who said "No one ever asks a man how HE juggles family and a career." Helen Gurley Brown?

In fact, I find it sad that in families with two parents employed outside the home, more men aren't asking themselves that question and taking on more responsibilities around the house and with the kids. Some do...some do not.

As we always jokingly remind the men at Church:
"Staying at home with the children while your wife goes out IS NOT BABYSITTING. It is PARENTING."

Updated On: 1/27/06 at 03:10 PM

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 3:22pm

luv the last line, beacs..

[KelRel]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 3:23pm

I got married when I was 20 years old. A lot of people gave me a hard time because of it. They said I was too young, that I hadn't lived enough, etc... I don't think that that is true at all. I got lucky. I found a wonderful husband in the man whom I had been friends with since I was 15. There are sacrifices that have to be made sometimes, but you find that in any relationship. My marriage is recognized by the Church and the government. I have rights to everything that we as a couple own and that he owned before he and I were together, and vice versa. We are seen as one. We get tax benifits, health benifits, visitation rights, inheritence rights, etc... I don't see why we should be the only ones (we as in heterosexual couples) to get these rights. I am a Christian and a "conservative" one at that, but I see absolutly nothing wrong with two people who are in love being joined together as a married couple.

brdlywr said it very nicely that promescuity is highly frowned upon and one of the "plus" sides of marriage was that it (in theory and intent) ends that and institues a state of manogamy. How can that be wrong? How can anyone who believes in the equality of mankind and the message of Christ, which was to love everyone, be against two people who are in love? It just blows my mind. I feel that any rights that I have as a married woman are hollow until everyone has them. If you are willing to pledge yourself to someone for the rest of your life then you should have the same "perks" as anyone else.

[yodamarie78]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 8:21pm

This was a very interesting discussion to follow all day at work, but now I'm home and can actually comment.

SonofMammaMiaSam brought up something that I'm very torn about. I have a old friend from high school who is incrediably smart and gifted who after she graduated from college got married and almost immediately quit her job because she had a baby. She could have been anything, but even back in high school she said that all she really wanted was to be a housewife. It's what makes her happy, but is this former Rhodes scholar wasting her potential?

The feminist movement fought for the right of women to choose to work, which implies the right to not work. As both Penguin and Beacon pointed out, it's a double edged sword. If you stay home to raise a family, you're wasting your potential. If you forgo having a family to have a career, you should be at home having babies or you'll never be fulfilled. If you have children and continue to work, you're neglecting your children.

[CostumeMistress]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 8:39pm

I guess there's no real answer to that one - the answer depends on the woman. I would LOVE to, if I ever marry, drop everything and have children and stay home with them - yes, have artistic activities outside the home, but have my kids be my main priority. Yet I still stay in college - where I'm always encountering new people, learning to think more critically and learning to articulate myself better. If I marry when I graduate, did I waste four years? Absolutely not! I have confidence that my future (currently non-existing) children will be better-educated and better-informed people because I chose not to deny myself of higher education.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 9:34pm

I basically shot my wad on the other thread.

But, not surprisingly, I agree with Brdlwyr.

It depends on whether you view the word marriage.

For some, the term marriage implies some religious ceremony - which clearly is true in some instances, but not in all. There needs to be a separation of the discussion of the right for gays to wed, which should be granted, vs the obligations of churches to perform gay marriages, which cannot be mandated by teh law.

A good number of people I spoke with on a personal level have no problem with granting gays all of the same rights, priviliges and responsibilities associated with marraige, they for some reason just don't want to call it "marriage". They are hung up on the word itself, not the underlying civil rights issue. I think somehow the religious context of the word and the legal consequences of the act are messing up the discussion.

Others, of course, are just bigots and do not want to see gay couples have the same rights as straight couples.

[CostumeMistress]

Posted: 1/29/06 at 2:53am

*hauls thread up to first page, from the third page*

*grunts*

*pants*

Okay. I propose we start nominating new topics for the coming week, so that we can start with a fresh discussion on Monday?

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 1/29/06 at 10:41am

Maybe bwaysinger can edit into the first post the topics we have had so far?

1. Literature (emphasis on Fantasy in Tolkien and Lewis)
2. The Arts and Crafts movement.
3. Assisted Sucide
4. Cartoons as Social Commentary
5. Landmark Buildings/ Preservation
6. Body Weight/ Image Issues
7. Marriage

As far as new topics, I am trying to think of some things to start talking about, but at the moment I can't articulate any.

Updated On: 1/29/06 at 10:41 AM

[NYadgal]

Posted: 1/29/06 at 10:43am

Great ideas....

[DG]

Posted: 1/29/06 at 11:17am

"If you stay home to raise a family, you're wasting your potential."

This has been a great discussion to read, and it's probably run its course, but I just want to interject that I disagree with this sentiment. To my mind, there is no greater purpose, so nothing could be considered 'wasted'.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 1/29/06 at 11:23am

That was not a statement Yoda was making, she was trying to portray the sentiments that many hold against people who stay home. She was not stating her opinion, or relating what she considers a "fact" at all.

I do have serious reservations though with the statement "there is no higher purpose." That is the thing we have been discussing, if people do not pursue that path, then people seem to think they are somehow following "lesser purposes" and are not as important. That is a hurtful and destructive notion for those people.

[DG]

Posted: 1/29/06 at 11:28am

Valid point, Smart - I guess then my thought is, I find great value in the developmental guidance of those who are to follow us.

And I purposefully said I didn't agree with the sentiment, not that I disagreed with Yoda - I know she was summarizing.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 1/29/06 at 11:33am

I just know she was very worried about being misinterpreted.

I agree with you, I do think it is a very important and necessary job, it just comes down to saying what is "most" important that can be a tricky endeavor.

[DG]

Posted: 1/29/06 at 11:38am

Absolutely. However, I will say this, as concerns the needs of society as a whole (if not the species in general) parenting is hard to argue against as the necessity.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 1/29/06 at 11:43am

I would say, for those that choose to be parents, parenting is the necessity, but making that choice is not necessary.