On Two Theories of Marriage

Disclaimer: Not all of these ideas are mine of course, many of them are restatements that come from the book What is Marriage which was originally published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

There’s two views of marriage out there for quite awhile now, one says that marriage is about more than emotional love, the other says that it is only about emotional love.

Gay marriage is well into the sphere of “emotional marriage” which coincides with policies like easy access to divorce and the slippery slope towards things like plural marriage and temporary marriage licenses. This is because homosexual people cannot have children with each other (bringing in children from other people is not the same) which means that their relationship is purely emotional in nature. This coincides with things like easy access to divorce or maybe even temporary marriage because if the marriage is only about emotion, when the emotion ends (or far more likely, merely becomes less than other emotions) so ends the marriage.

In contrast to that you have traditional marriage which can be extra-emotional in nature. Traditional marriage certainly does not reject the idea of emotional love but it includes other things as well. These other things mostly relate to the goal of raising happy and effective children, people who indisputably contribute more to their community than children raised in other arrangements. This conception of marriage relates to things like traditional marriage and difficult requirements for divorce.

It is also possible to go to the “dark side” of traditional marriage and treat the institution like a factory but it is not necessary.

I believe that if we don’t use traditional marriage as a reference point, the only standard for if a relationship gets state recognition is whether enough people can be convinced that the emotional love felt by the parties is real. This does (in theory) open the door to things like plural marriages, temporary marriages and anything else that people can be convinced is “real love” when we define real love as being nothing but an emotion.

There are two problems with that kind of policy. The first problem is that children from traditional marriages contribute more to society and perform better in every measurable area. The second problem is that if we ever reach a point where everyone can obtain the “marriage” subsidy, it means that no one is obtaining it and it would probably be abolished entirely. This would probably mean we would have gone full circle back to the social values and methodologies that existed in unhappier ancient times.

To summarize, it’s crude to say that traditional marriage isn’t about love but accurate to say that it is about more than just emotional love.

Reasons for why emotional marriage has been gaining ground probably relate to lower fertility rates, with even heterosexual couples increasingly having few or no children, and the spread of public schooling and the “restauranteur” lifestyle; even people who do have children sometimes don’t do much to raise them. This phenomenon clearly can be bad for families and children. Government should encourage more connection between families, not less. This should include refusing to extend state recognition to relationships that are primarily emotional in nature.

Exactly, that’s why straight men and women who are sterile should not be allowed to marry! The same with heathens who say they don’t want to have children. They are all sinners! :fume:

Before you go on, define this term. My definition of “traditional marriage” includes concubinage. Why doesn’t yours? You have complained about how the gay agenda is imposing a strange definition of marriage on you, so why can’t I complain that your definition of marriage violates my conception of what is traditional?

I don’t think that’s anywhere. Let’s look at what California says:

[quote]Both parties must appear in person and bring valid picture identification to the County Clerk’s Office to apply for a marriage license in California. Valid picture identification is one that contains a photograph, date of birth, and an issue and expiration date, such as a state issued identification card, drivers license, passport, military identification, etc. Some counties may also require a copy of your birth certificate.
[/quote]

Nope, nothing in there about love.

To summarize, you think you have a monopoly on the definition of “traditional marriage.” You don’t.

Exactly, that’s why straight men and women who are sterile should not be allowed to marry! The same with heathens who say they don’t want to have children. They are all sinners! :fume:

Before you go on, define this term. My definition of “traditional marriage” includes concubinage. Why doesn’t yours? You have complained about how the gay agenda is imposing a strange definition of marriage on you, so why can’t I complain that your definition of marriage violates my conception of what is traditional?

I don’t think that’s anywhere. Let’s look at what California says:

[quote]Both parties must appear in person and bring valid picture identification to the County Clerk’s Office to apply for a marriage license in California. Valid picture identification is one that contains a photograph, date of birth, and an issue and expiration date, such as a state issued identification card, drivers license, passport, military identification, etc. Some counties may also require a copy of your birth certificate.
[/quote]

Nope, nothing in there about love.

To summarize, you think you have a monopoly on the definition of “traditional marriage.” You don’t.[/quote]
I think you are just raging here since regarding concubinage et al, I already addressed such things. It is usually not right to approach marriage as a “factory” system but it is also not right to approach it solely as an emotional commodity meant for consumption because society needs both elements to be balanced. That is of course the essence of my argument and it has nothing to do with deflections about concubines and so-on. You are trying to create a false dichotomy, wherein marriage can only be either emotional or industrial. I am saying that it can and should be both.

So, again: if the only standard for marriage is the sincerity of two people’s love, aren’t we on a slippery slope provided that people can convince others that any kind of alternative relationship involves a sincere emotional love?

Incorrect. I am demanding you define “traditional marriage,” since it is central to your argument. I am pointing out that to me, one form of “traditional marriage” is concubinage, since it was in place in China for about 5,000 years before very recently being outlawed. So let’s get our working definitions straight so we can actually discuss the topic at hand.

What is “traditional marriage?”

You are wrong in every sentence. Let’s start with the title: you don’t present two “theories” of marriage. Do you know what a theory is?

[quote=“Il Ðoge”]Disclaimer: Not all of these ideas are mine of course, many of them are restatements that come from the book What is Marriage which was originally published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. [/quote] That book was not published by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

[quote]There’s two views of marriage out there for quite awhile now,[/quote] There’s quite a few more than 2 views of marriage. I’m not sure how “quite a while now” is relevant and “out there” is a rather big place.

Even if one were to accept this, it’s a silly distinction. How much any individual marriage is about emotion probably varies more from couple to couple than a comparison between the sexes. If you are going to create a false dichotomy, it should at least be an actual dichotomy.

Well into the sphere of… is this a third category? Because before you said it’s either partially about emotion or all about it.

[quote]which coincides with policies like easy access to divorce and the slippery slope towards things like plural marriage and temporary marriage licenses. [/quote] Ah, yes, the slippery slope. Are you aware that slippery slopes are fallacies?

[quote]This is because homosexual people cannot have children with each other (bringing in children from other people is not the same)which means that their relationship is purely emotional in nature. [/quote] So their marriages are emotional because they can’t have sex with each other which results in children? Then are infertile people also in emotional marriages? What about women who marry after menopause? What about men who have had vasectomies? Are you not embarrassed to say that you think whether or not 2 people can have sex resulting in children makes their relationship more an “emotional marriage” than the alternative, which is partly emotional, ie, traditional because it’s not wholly emotional, but neither is same sex marriage because it’s just well into the sphere of emotional? You see what I’m getting at? It’s that you don’t make sense.

[quote]This coincides with things like easy access to divorce or maybe even temporary marriage because if the marriage is only about emotion, when the emotion ends (or far more likely, merely becomes less than other emotions) so ends the marriage.[/quote] Easy access to divorce coincides with how emotional a marriage is? So… please give us an example of a state that has made divorce easier after legalizing gay marriage. I’m curious, if marriage is partly or wholly (or in the sphere of emotions), what is your exact cut-off for how emotional the marriage is and then how easy it becomes to get a divorce. Again, this makes no sense.

[quote]In contrast to that you have traditional marriage which can be extra-emotional in nature. [/quote] “It can be” is not a very strong statement. So if people are traditional, they MIGHT be less emotional which is good because then divorce is harder because their marriage isn’t based on emotion as much.

[quote]Traditional marriage certainly does not reject the idea of emotional love but it includes other things as well. [/quote] It sounds like your distinction is rather meaningless, then.

[quote]These other things mostly relate to the goal of raising happy and effective children, people who indisputably contribute more to their community than children raised in other arrangements.[/quote] And this is why your side has already lost the debate. Attacking people’s families usually won’t get you very far. There are no studies showing what you claimed and it’s nothing but bigotry to claim this is true.

[quote]This conception of marriage relates to things like traditional marriage and difficult requirements for divorce.[/quote] So the concept of marriage as less emotional because there are children involved is what you claim to be traditional? And divorce more difficult? I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but children don’t seem to stop divorce.

[quote]It is also possible to go to the “dark side” of traditional marriage and treat the institution like a factory but it is not necessary.[/quote] I’ve tried, but I can’t make any sense of this.

[quote]I believe that if we don’t use traditional marriage as a reference point, the only standard for if a relationship gets state recognition is whether enough people can be convinced that the emotional love felt by the parties is real.[/quote] As has been pointed out, the only definition you have given is that traditional marriage is based less on emotion. This is a very stupid idea and I don’t see how it can be a starting point for anything.

[quote]This does (in theory) open the door to things like plural marriages, temporary marriages and anything else that people can be convinced is “real love” when we define real love as being nothing but an emotion.[/quote] I wonder if Josh Duggers “real loves” his wife and kids. He was so traditional. Seems like this traditional stuff opens the doors to things like affairs and lying.

[quote]There are two problems with that kind of policy.[/quote] Because all good things come in twos.

[quote]The first problem is that children from traditional marriages contribute more to society and perform better in every measurable area.[/quote] Bullshit. Even if you ended gay marriage, you wouldn’t end gay parenthood. Marriage is not required for parenthood and both gay and straight people can now, and will continue, to be parents even if marriage laws change.

[quote]The second problem is that if we ever reach a point where everyone can obtain the “marriage” subsidy,[/quote] Wait, what is that? I never got my subsidy! WTF are you talking about?

[quote]it means that no one is obtaining it and it would probably be abolished entirely.[/quote] Huh? If everyone can get it then it will be abolished? First, no law has been passed that everyone could get it. Second, give me an example of something everyone can get that has then been abolished. Seems to be the opposite of how things actually work.

[quote]This would probably mean we would have gone full circle back to the social values and methodologies that existed in unhappier ancient times.[/quote] You mean traditional times?

[quote] To summarize, it’s crude to say that traditional marriage isn’t about love but accurate to say that it is about more than just emotional love.[/quote] Right, but that same thing can be said about every relationship, not just people who are bumping uglies. Your core argument is how emotional a marriage is has an effect on marriage as a whole. I say, bullshit. Every idea you presented is elementary, weak, nonsense.

[quote=“Il Ðoge”]It is usually not right to approach marriage as a “factory” system but it is also not right to approach it solely as an emotional commodity meant for consumption because society needs both elements to be balanced.[/quote] How is marriage approached as a factory system? What are the two elements it needs? Factory and emotions? You are not very good at using words.

[quote]That is of course the essence of my argument and it has nothing to do with deflections about concubines and so-on. [/quote] those are not deflections, they are facts that define what many people consider aspects of traditional. You don’t provide facts, so that’s probably confusing for you.

[quote]You are trying to create a false dichotomy, wherein marriage can only be either emotional or industrial. I am saying that it can and should be both.[/quote] And you are trying to create a dichotomy of marriage being either wholly emotional (a label you actually ascribed to no one), somewhat emotional (traditional), or in the sphere of emotional (homosexual). It’s a silly argument.

[quote]So, again: if the only standard for marriage is the sincerity of two people’s love, aren’t we on a slippery slope provided that people can convince others that any kind of alternative relationship involves a sincere emotional love?[/quote] Nope, because no one asked about this before gay marriage was legal and no one asks now. People’s emotions are not the legal standard, so it can’t be a slippery slope toward anything.

Strange, that looks pretty emotional and traditional to me. And nothing about kids :2cents:

Cooper, have an IOU for one (1) recommend, redeemable once the flob reinstitutes that institution. May not be combined with any other offers.

[quote]
Il Ðoge wrote:It is usually not right to approach marriage as a “factory” system but it is also not right to approach it solely as an emotional commodity meant for consumption because society needs both elements to be balanced.
How is marriage approached as a factory system? What are the two elements it needs? Factory and emotions? You are not very good at using words. [/quote]

I got a Taiwanese acquaintance that is getting married to this guy basically because they share the same goals: get married -social legitimacy, big ceremony brings big face, etc- and having kids -because otherwise you’ll regret it. I have heard that story before, and hence I file that approach under “factory” rather than feelings. If this was an isolated case it would be newsworthy, and to be honest, it still beats the shotgun weddings or established single parenthood in the ol country -which start as early as 9 years old since, well, only that kind of girls use contraceptives but women are only good for that…

I have seen more fickle feelings and emotions then in those shotgun weddings -you are pregnant, we have to get married. Currently, we hold a 60% dropout before the altar -single mothers, couples don’t even make it to the alter- but of the ones who do, that 40%, is also over 60 to 70% failure rate. And as I have explained before, cultural attitudes like troglodyte chauvinism -women as property- and lack of respect of monogamy in marriage -meaning culturally men are demanded to be unfaithful less their masculinity be called into question.

Having also lent an ear to marital and couple problems both sides of the spectrum -married, singles, gay and straight- it is the same mess in terms of emotional turmoil… except that gays hold an advantage. As that Spanish saying goes: amor de machos, amor sin traicion ni pension. (love between men, love without fear of betrayal -having to care for someone else’s child passed as your own, nor paying alimony in case of divorce/child support).

What I see here is someone desperately grasping at straws to justify a belief that gay people are somehow undeserving of equality.

Here’s where I go off the deep end – I’m OK with that. I know some (not many) people who are simply do not feel being gay should be considered “normal” and given the implicit endorsement of society through legal recognition. It’s their right to believe whatever they want to believe. The thing I’m not OK with is pretending to accept homosexuality as an aspect of modern society (“I have lots of gay friends!”) and then speaking out about gay marriage. I’m sorry to say, they are two parts of the same position.

We live in a liberal society (assuming “we” live in either Taiwan or a Western country) where it has generally been decided that being gay is perfectly fine, and a gay relationship should be respected as two individuals’ choice. Now that we’re here, we can’t arbitrarily stop and say, but that’s as far as we go. If you accept that gay relationships are legitimate, there is no intellectually defensible position that can argue against gay marriage. It’s no different form saying sure, blacks are equal to whites, but they have to sit at the back of the bus.

[quote=“Hokwongwei”]Incorrect. I am demanding you define “traditional marriage,” since it is central to your argument. I am pointing out that to me, one form of “traditional marriage” is concubinage, since it was in place in China for about 5,000 years before very recently being outlawed. So let’s get our working definitions straight so we can actually discuss the topic at hand.

What is “traditional marriage?”[/quote]
Traditional marriage according to recent tradition is marriage between one man and one woman. This is true in all of the developed and most of the developing world for a very long time now. It is of course not strictly true, or true going back forever in time but it is generally true and we all know this.

I am talking of course not about defending the biblical conception of marriage because that is itself open to debate but the more recent tradition of one man and one woman marriage.

So now that I’ve answered your question, can you answer mine?

I’ll take it. :bow:

After going through the dog’s post, my bullshit threshold for the entire week was exhausted :laughing:

[quote=“Icon”]I got a Taiwanese acquaintance that is getting married to this guy basically because they share the same goals: get married -social legitimacy, big ceremony brings big face, etc- and having kids -because otherwise you’ll regret it. I have heard that story before, and hence I file that approach under “factory” rather than feelings. If this was an isolated case it would be newsworthy, and to be honest, it still beats the shotgun weddings or established single parenthood in the ol country -which start as early as 9 years old since, well, only that kind of girls use contraceptives but women are only good for that…

I have seen more fickle feelings and emotions then in those shotgun weddings -you are pregnant, we have to get married. Currently, we hold a 60% dropout before the altar -single mothers, couples don’t even make it to the alter- but of the ones who do, that 40%, is also over 60 to 70% failure rate. And as I have explained before, cultural attitudes like troglodyte chauvinism -women as property- and lack of respect of monogamy in marriage -meaning culturally men are demanded to be unfaithful less their masculinity be called into question.

Having also lent an ear to marital and couple problems both sides of the spectrum -married, singles, gay and straight- it is the same mess in terms of emotional turmoil… except that gays hold an advantage. As that Spanish saying goes: amor de machos, amor sin traicion ni pension. (love between men, love without fear of betrayal -having to care for someone else’s child passed as your own, nor paying alimony in case of divorce/child support).[/quote]
To be successful in pretty much anything, life included, a person has to reconcile their need to be happy with other more realistic needs. Individually this might not make sense for everyone as to marriage or different people might do it in different ways, but on the macro (government) level it makes sense to have a policy that encourages what’s been found to be an effective combination of “emotional marriage” and “productive marriage” or whatever you want to call it. The most generally effective combination of course has been one man, one woman marriage.

Like I keep saying (and people are generally ignoring) if we define marriage solely on the basis of emotion then anyone with a plausible claim to emotion would rationally have access to government’s marriage subsidy. So two brothers who really love each other, more than some spouses may love each other, are now getting a subsidy even though their brotherly love is not contributing anything back to the society that is giving them money. The long term results of this kind of mentality can only be one of two things: either no one gets any marriage subsidies or we eventually return to the days when oligarchical, polygamous men defined who was reproducing. The latter form is ironically what a lot of socially liberal people do already, they just don’t call it marriage and instead call it mistresses etc. There is a term for those women though that existed historically, the courtesan.

[quote=“Hokwongwei”]Here’s where I go off the deep end – I’m OK with that. I know some (not many) people who are simply do not feel being gay should be considered “normal” and given the implicit endorsement of society through legal recognition. It’s their right to believe whatever they want to believe. The thing I’m not OK with is pretending to accept homosexuality as an aspect of modern society (“I have lots of gay friends!”) and then speaking out about gay marriage. I’m sorry to say, they are two parts of the same position.

It’s no different form saying sure, blacks are equal to whites, but they have to sit at the back of the bus.[/quote]

That is indeed the deep end, because using your own analogy, it would be akin to saying you are ok with people flat out believing that blacks are not equal to whites.

I understand what’s not what you mean, you simply are saying acknowledging gay relationship but denying them marriage is even more cynical than flat out saying homosexuality is abnormal.

However, in the context of human rights, which to me, gay rights is just an extension of human rights, it is also not ok to believe such a thing or promote such a belief.

Yeah, we are barely getting to a place where people saying “homosexuality is abnormal” would get the same regard from society as people saying “blacks are not equal to whites”, but if you really think about it, the two lines of prejudice thinking is exactly the same, with just the subject swapped from one group of people to the next.

Holy shit!!!

So it’s recently true (that doesn’t sound traditional), but not strictly, but generally, just not forever, so we should all accept this. Do you realize you’ve just said nothing?

Oh, and not recent like last 10-20 years recent, but before that but not too far before when there were exceptions. Clear?

Yah, I think Il Doge’s outmaneuvered you guys somewhere in this thread. I had a kind of epiphany, a sort cathartic release as I was reading his thesis

That’s not a thing. That makes no sense. Do you realize how absurd that sounds? You are pinpointing a particular point in history and saying: THIS one arbitrarily defined section of history! Not before, not after, only THIS one!

Marriage being between one man and one woman and not involving concubines or anything has been the global standard for… what… a century? Since we’re on a Taiwan forum, our focus should be on this part of the world. Concubinage has been a Chinese tradition for thousands of years. Referring to an arbitrarily made up “recent tradition” is absurd. It makes as much sense as saying wearing Western-style suits and ties is a Taiwanese tradition… of the past century. Taking the MRT to work is a Taiwanese tradition, too, right?

That is in fact what I mean. Personal belief is just that – personal. And no matter how strongly I disagree with it, Il Doge has the right to believe what he wants. He doesn’t have the right to act on it if it disobeys the law, though. And he has to be willing to put up with the rather unhappy response saying something like this is bound to create. But it’s his right to do so.

I mean, if we could make the discussion of the pros and cons of monogamy, even from a biological point of view -as have been many discussions in scientific and philosophical fields, well, perhaps we could argue about that. But saying that just because you can’t reproduce the feelings are not equal… where are the supporting arguments? Biologically/chemically /endocrinologically? Historically? We could pull the Greeks with their real love being that among heroes and women really doing just the baby factory role.

From my personal belief point of view, I know legally speaking gay marriage solves a lot of problems but I still know I still will have to listen to some half drunk pal crying his eyes out because he has not found that life companion yet or that his relationship is complicated or that they had an argument over a piece of furniture/literature, etc, ad nauseum. Those are the real problems in this world.