Skip to main content

View Diary: The Supreme Court hears the same old arguments (137 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So what if children are the primary reason why (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love, RiveroftheWest

    marriage exists.

    They are, you know.

    Arguments about 55 year olds are just as silly as requiring perfectly responsible people to get background checks before buying guns.

    The reason you let 55 year olds get married (aside from the fact that there is really no good reason NOT to let 44 year olds get married) is tha laws are, always have been, and always will be blunt instruments.

    It's very much the same as deciding that we aren't people until we pop out of the birth canal.  Laws are good at bright and easily identifiable lines, not so good at nuance.

    Perfectly responsible gun buyers should get background checks because we don't know they're perfectly responsible and don't have a really good way to tell.

    55 year olds -- not to mention infertile men and woment, etc -- are allowed to get married because we don't -- and especially in the thousands of years that marriage has been around, didn't -- have a good way to know who could and could not have children. And -- in the old days, people didn't much live to be 55 so it wasn't worth pondering.

    All of which amounts to what, exactly?

    Even if the care of children (and maintenance of lineage) was the primary reason for instituting marriage, that doesn't mean that marriage is nothing more than that.

    And -- gosh -- last I looked, there were more than a few children of gay parents floating about. They might need a little care as well.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:56:51 PM PDT

    •  Then again I have friends married at age 25 and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      had no kids, great aunt married four times, no kids at all.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:05:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The real question is whether or not we should allow people of the same gender to get married, not the origins of the institution.  Marriage has evolved over the years.  Who's to say any particular point in that evolution is the "right" one?

        Kagan's right.  If marriage has been an state issue for as long as we've been a country, what is the justification and role for DOMA?  If anything, in terms of American history, DOMA should be called the AOMA, for trying to usurp state jurisdiction.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:21:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  But they aren't... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Youffraita, milton333, killjoy, burlydee
      So what if children are the primary reason why marriage exists. They are, you know.
      Many years ago I read about some researchers trying to figure out if there were ONE reason that every society recognized some form of marriage.  I think it was recounted in Sarah Hrdy's book "Mother Nature," but I couldn't swear to it.  Anyway, no matter the argument for marriage, somewhere, at some time, they could find a society that didn't feel that was a reason for marriage.  Yes, in some societies, procreation was the primary reason for marriage.  In others, it didn't matter if you were married or not for you to procreate.  In some, men and women lived together after marriage.  In others, they didn't.  Etc.

      Finally, the researchers were left with only one reason that they could find NO exceptions to, and that was that marriage gives you in-laws.  In other words, it widens your social network.  If the researchers did their research right, then the primary reason why marriage exists is to give us a wider range of people to exploit for our own survival.  

      "Shit-dripping pond scum" may not advance the English language but it shows people are working to see our common tongue doesn't stagnate at some elitist level.

      by Ratmum on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:22:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  IIRC the most recent respectable (0+ / 0-)

        social anthro book about marriage says: its point is merger of two (usually otherwise competing/hostile) families.

        All the romance, procreation, passing on of property, and all that can be and historically often was done outside of marriage.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site