I think that this topic deems further discussion.
I would just like to clarify a few things. (For those of you that didn't see the earlier post click here, make sure to read the comment section as well)
I am actually thinking that women should not marry for love. (Actually, women never should, but that is besides the point) I believe that if women marrying for the benefit of pooling resources and their children, they probably would love each other though. Just not sexually. Do you have to marry because of sexual love?
A single woman marrying another woman could also lower instances of child abuse. Men are statistically more likely to abuse children (especially step children) sexually and physically.
There could possibly be less latch key kids. Someone would be home for them.
It certainly would not be a "sugar daddy" situation anymore than it would be for a man who works and a woman who stays home and cares for the children. The goal of this type of arrangement is to make a stable loving home for both of the women's children and each other.
I think that for this situation to work one woman is possibly career orientated. She loves her children and is frustrated because she is torn between home and work.
Another woman is sad because she has to work a full time job and she can not spend time doing with her kids what she thought she would be able to do.
These women become friends, possibly best friends. They love each other (non sexually) and loves each other's children. They realize that they could get married and help each other get what they want.
Isn't that what marriage is really about anyway? Supporting each other? Helping each other? This sounds like a pretty healthy marriage to me.
Sure, it may not always work out. These women may divorce, or have a fight or two. But, it is not as if regular, sexually based marriages are doing any better.
At least in America, poor single mothers is an epidemic. What can we do about it? Right now, they are forced to go it alone with very little support. Some are willing to marry any man, exchanging sex for stability. Telling themselves that they are in love. Is that better?
I think that is a recipe for disaster. It sure isn't solving any of the most fundamental problems.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
More on my same sex marriage proposal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I think consenting adults should marry anyone they please. You've made good, compelling economic arguments. Perhaps if marriage was viewed more as a business arrangement as opposed to romantic fantasy we'd all be better off.
An excellent post, Samantha. Thanks for bringing it up.
Allowing same sex couples to marry would boost the wedding industry and divorce lawyers simultaneously. It is good for the family unit, it is good for the economy. And it sure will make things confusing for future genealogists! ;-)
Hot topic alert! Wow, i was not expecting to see this topic here on your blog. Good for you.
Fact is, i live with a woman and i believe that gay woman (gay women is what you're referring to, right?)should and DO marry for love. But as you know only a handful of states allow this type of union. It is interesting to see (how time) will pan this one out for us all. It is a hot topic and one folks feel real strongly about and that is never going to change. But many gay men and women want to have the same rights as the hetero's. And i'm sure someday that they will.
It is not only about children, but what about health related issues, too. Like if you've been living with a woman for 30 some years (not me) and you love this woman, and she falls ill and you're not allowed to see this woman in hospital or make life altering decisions for her, because with todays laws you're nobody to her. (you're not related, legal, etc)
I think it is a deep issue for alot of gays and it is a complicated one, too. But definitely one should marry for love, and NOT for business, money, or anything like that.
Anywho, just thought i would drop by. lol.
P.S. Does your hubby like pasta?
Yes he does like pasta. I think that could be a good way to start out with him:)
I actually agree with you--but then, I'm gay so I'm not sure how many straight women would want to enter into such marriages.
But I often wonder why more long-single straight women, especially those with kids, don't set up households with their good friends and pool resources. I'm guessing they don't want to give up on the idea of meeting a guy and falling in love. But also for older women, I think having nonsexual "marriages" for companionship might be quite practical.
But again, I have a "real" same sex marriage, not that most states would recognize our 17 years together!
This is a topic I've been wanting to deal with on my blog at some point, and I'll have to remember to alert you because this is a unique take on it!
Sam,
we've had long conversations about this, and I totally support the idea. I do think marriage is fundamentally economic - or should be - since assets become communal, I don't think there is any getting away from that fact.
I totally agree that non-sexual unions for women would go a long way to eliminating poverty and abuse. Men would be held to a higher standard. In a non-sexual marriage you could still have sex with partners outside your marriage, so it is not like you would be completely "guyless".
In fact, I think this would be ideal. Have a female union for economic stability/child rearing and a guy on the side for sex and love.
That said, living in Hawaii I've seen plenty of great fathers (you see guys alone with infants just as often as women). Here though, you also see a lot of multigenerational families, so childrearing is spread amongst aunties and uncles, cousins, and grandparents. Kids are usually well loved and it shows in their behavior.
So I really think that the "nuclear" family idea is a 20th century fabrication that is one of the most difficult family structures to maintain. We should not be shamed into awkward family shapes.
Wow, I forgot about the first post for this, I'm glad I came back. Crabby says: "But I often wonder why more long-single straight women, especially those with kids, don't set up households with their good friends and pool resources."
Here's the thing about that. Independence is nice. Not to have to depend on someone else is nice as well. But it would be soooo much easier sometimes to simply set up house with some other single girlfriends -- in some ways. The ways it would suck:
1. You don't get on with them after living with them.
2. You don't like their kids.
3. The kids don't like each other.
4. You aren't making your own decisions without a group meeting.
It's hard to find the perfect partner no matter if it's a love relationship or a friend relationship or what have you. Roommates can be just as much trouble as a lame love-based partner.
In the end, I still think that marriage for economics is a bit depressing though. I like the post but I doubt anything is going to change my mind about that point.
Post a Comment