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.
Posted by
Samantha
at
6:27 AM
8
comments
Labels: poverty, same sex marriage
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Gay Marriage is good for women?
I know this is not what I usually blog about but, bear with me. Since this topic has been hoisted into the spot light here in America, it has been a hot topic. This is my take.
Women should be for same sex marriage.
Think about it-
The largest segment on the population that are poor in America (or anywhere else really) are women and their children.
Marriage was and still is an arrangement of property and wealth. If you have ever been through a divorce, you know it is true. Sure everyone marries for "love" but divorce comes down to property and money. Then, really that is what legally marriage is.
Marrying for love is not a good enough reason. For women especially. We can get into this on a future post. (Marriage is really not a very good thing for most women but most want to be married very badly, interesting.).
Now I do think anyone should be able to marry anyone that they want, when they want. Consenting adults mind you.( No children or animals) No doubt about it. I think that if that were a law, the world would be a better place.
Marriage among women could help with a significant number of poor single families. Women could marry each other for the sake of their children. They could hammer out an agreement amongst each other on caring for their children, bills, health care and who will be home with the kids more.
It really is not a one person job to care for our children. Many men are not stepping up.
Now, I know what you are thinking- you are letting men off the hook, right? Well maybe. They are not stepping up anyway. Kids are suffering for it. So we should have this "ideal" of men taking responsibility forced on us with no way out. Let's be real. I know that 80% of women on welfare in Arizona are owed child support and are not getting it. That is a lot of people falling though the cracks.
Just to add to the environmental slant- pooling resources can be better for the environment.
Imagine a career orientated woman now can work and focus on her career more, and her part time working wife can take care of the children and have benefit of knowing that she and her children have health care and a better life. It is better for everyone, especially the children.
Now I am all for gay marriage in the traditional sense as well. But, let the churches decide morals and not our country or our laws. Laws are for public protection, not moral judgment.
If a church doesn't want to recognize a marriage so be it. I was married by a city major so, my marriage is not recognized in many churches. No skin off my back.
Does this sound crazy to you? Or am I on to something here.
Posted by
Samantha
at
6:48 AM
7
comments
Labels: gay marriage, same sex marriage
