North Carolina: No Gays allowed

[Phatscotty]

What that picture represents is the courtship between a man and a woman, and only in certain cultures at certain points in history at that.

I believe that was the major point.

Be as it may, the poster is 100% about how marriages were arranged, and it was between a man and a woman at that.

You should ask for a refund for your anthropology classes. Seriously. What you were taught is just not accurate.

that doesn't change that the poster says the definition of marriage is 3 goats and a cow or selling your daughter....

do you acknowledge that?

[huamulan]

Women in societies where women are "bought" are actually treated pretty well. They are valued, that is why the get a price.

Jesus Christ. Learn about the countries of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

[spurgistan]

What that picture represents is the courtship between a man and a woman, and only in certain cultures at certain points in history at that.

I believe that was the major point.

Be as it may, the poster is 100% about how marriages were arranged, and it was between a man and a woman at that.

You should ask for a refund for your anthropology classes. Seriously. What you were taught is just not accurate.

that doesn't change that the poster says the definition of marriage is 3 goats and a cow or selling your daughter....

do you acknowledge that?

It doesn't imply that's the whole definition of marriage. It's just a part of the "traditional" marriage contract, which is something that has changed about that definition. The point is that "traditional" marriage as bigots define it is only a couple hundred years old.

[Woodruff]

Either the most dishonest or least thought about thing I have seen for some time. What that picture represents is the courtship between a man and a woman

You do understand what a "dowry" is, right? It's not dishonest at all.

and only in certain cultures at certain points in history at that.

So what? It absolutely falls within the range of "traditional". Unless you want to redefine "traditional" now?

Be as it may, the poster is 100% about how marriages were arranged, and it was between a man and a woman at that. All it shows is the definition of marriage even more traditionally (ie, the only way it has ever been).

So you agree that the idea being bandied about regarding "traditional marriage" is meaningless because "traditional marriage" has already been changed. I agree.

What the guy has to do to get in the girls pants before the marriage is irrelevant. Poster = 100% fail, again for overreaching and even trying to redefine the word definition. shocker

Redefine the word "definition"? You sound desperate here, Phatscotty.

[chang50]

Either the most dishonest or least thought about thing I have seen for some time. What that picture represents is the courtship between a man and a woman

You do understand what a "dowry" is, right? It's not dishonest at all.

As someone who has paid a dowry,I can concur it is not dishonest.The problem as Player alluded to is Westerners seeing the world through a narrow ethnocentric lens,and being largely unaware that this is a limited and flawed perspective.

[PLAYER57832]

What that picture represents is the courtship between a man and a woman, and only in certain cultures at certain points in history at that.

I believe that was the major point.

Be as it may, the poster is 100% about how marriages were arranged, and it was between a man and a woman at that.

You should ask for a refund for your anthropology classes. Seriously. What you were taught is just not accurate.

that doesn't change that the poster says the definition of marriage is 3 goats and a cow or selling your daughter....

do you acknowledge that?

No. It implies that was one legitimate definition. You are the one wishing to imply there has only ever been one definition.

[PLAYER57832]

Women in societies where women are "bought" are actually treated pretty well. They are valued, that is why the get a price.

Jesus Christ. Learn about the countries of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

How about you verify things before you go off on another rant.

The countries where women come with dowries.. You can think of it as men getting paid to take their women, often coincide with poor treatment --India is a prime example.

In countries where there is payment, it is because women are known to have value. Paying means she has great value, indeed. The higher the price, the more value or the higher the status. Although western stereotypes talk of "selling" women as if they were slaves, the truth is that women are often very much involved in the process. Usually the woman has the right to refuse. The exchange of goods is part of a bargaining process that benefits everyone. Sure, it can go wrong, but so can any type of marriage.

Afghantistan and such, as seem in the news, are distortions. Even the idea of taking a girl young, definitely something I think is wrong, has a purpose. First, a married woman of any age is more "secure". She is protected in a way that a single woman is not. Second, by establishing who her future husband will be, she can be trained (in their view). That part is somewhat traditional. But, it is not traditional that consumation of the marriage would happen while the girl was still young. As a minimum, she normally would have to have gone through puberty. Again, I am not saying I like this, or think their way is best or even good, but to judge everything from western eyes is wrong, too. We have plenty of problems in our system.

Here, from Wikki:

In anthropological literature, bride price has often been explained in market terms, as payment made in exchange for the bride's family's loss of her labor and fertility within her kin group.[citation needed]

The bride price may be seen as related to present-day customs of maintenance for the wife in the event of the breakup of marriage, and family maintenance in the event of the husband not providing adequately for the wife in his will. Another function performed by the amount was to provide a disincentive for the husband to divorce his wife: he would need to have a certain amount to be able to pay to the wife.[citation needed]

An evolutionary psychology explanation for dowry and bride price is that bride price is common in polygynous societies which have a relative scarcity of available women. In monogamous societies where women have little personal wealth dowry is instead common since there is a relative scarcity of wealthy men who can choose from many potential women when marrying.[1]

[PLAYER57832]

Either the most dishonest or least thought about thing I have seen for some time. What that picture represents is the courtship between a man and a woman

You do understand what a "dowry" is, right? It's not dishonest at all.

As someone who has paid a dowry,I can concur it is not dishonest.The problem as Player alluded to is Westerners seeing the world through a narrow ethnocentric lens,and being largely unaware that this is a limited and flawed perspective.

Saw this after my prior answer. Without getting too personal, care to explain a bit about how it works in your culture?

[huamulan]

You honestly think that treating a woman like a commodity is a sign that a society treats women with any kind of respect? These are places were women are forced into marriage against their will and raped to punish their father or brother for a crime he committed.

I have absolutely no idea how you can conceive of the idea that a society in which women are sold like cattle will treat women well.

[PLAYER57832]

You honestly think that treating a woman like a commodity is a sign that a society treats women with any kind of respect? These are places were women are forced into marriage against their will and raped to punish their father or brother for a crime he committed.

I have absolutely no idea how you can conceive of the idea that a society in which women are sold like cattle will treat women well.

Apparently you are not aware of the difference between comparative and absolute values? Or are you simply confusing the ideas of bride price and dowry (common in the west)? This is something often cited in anthropologic text books. It is a real trend. Societies with dowries are, historically, the ones where women are treated the most poorly. Societies where there is a bride price paid, historically, are places where women are treated better.

Compared to modern western society, you can say that all women, not just those in societies with bride prices, were often treated more poorly. And, of course, no society lives up the the highest ideals all the time. BUT, to think that offering a price for a bride is equivalent to saying women have to be locked away in a Burkha or that an exchange of goods means women are "sold" like cattle is just wrong. In our society, men give women an engagement ring, for example. Any system can and does get distorted. There have been several news reports over girls being forced to marry, but the outcry is not just from outside those countries, it is from within. Many argue those are distortions of a system that works and many argue it works better than our system. Looking at our high divorce rate, even things like domestic violance rates, its hard to deny there is some point to what they say. The fact is that many people today, men and women both, practice these things freely and argue they are beneficial. I don't agree, I certainly don't want to live in any system but ours. However, you cannot look at the worst examples of other societies and compare them to the ideals in ours and say it is a reasonable comparison. That is what you are doing when you claim Afghanistan is an honest example of bride price.

Women in societies where women are "bought" are actually treated pretty well. They are valued, that is why the get a price.

Jesus Christ. Learn about the countries of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

They have dowries, not bride prices in Pakistan. Its actually evidence of what I am saying. Afhghanistan historically practiced both. Contrary to what you seem to assume, the current state of women is due to the Tahliban distortions and war. In the past , women in Afghanistan actually enjoyed a fair amount of freedom. In the 1950's for example, I have heard many say that when you got beyond the cultural differences women there could be argued to have a better life than those here in the 1950's. I don't know how true that was objectively or if it was true everywhere in the country, but I have heard many women speaking of visits to Afghanistan say this. It does seem that, at least in more in urban areas, it was a reasonably accurate assessment.

Why don't you do a little research on the matter instead of just assuming you already know everything.

[chang50]

Either the most dishonest or least thought about thing I have seen for some time. What that picture represents is the courtship between a man and a woman

You do understand what a "dowry" is, right? It's not dishonest at all.

As someone who has paid a dowry,I can concur it is not dishonest.The problem as Player alluded to is Westerners seeing the world through a narrow ethnocentric lens,and being largely unaware that this is a limited and flawed perspective.

Saw this after my prior answer. Without getting too personal, care to explain a bit about how it works in your culture?

In Thailand where I live now,although born in England,it is the custom for the groom to pay the brides family a sum of money for a traditional Thai marriage,this has no legal standing,although you can also go thru the process of having your marriage legally documented with the local authorities,and it will be recognised internationally.In my experience this is not regarded as buying a wife,she is as free to leave as in Western societies where economic pressures to name one also apply.

[PLAYER57832]

In Thailand where I live now,although born in England,it is the custom for the groom to pay the brides family a sum of money for a traditional Thai marriage,this has no legal standing,although you can also go thru the process of having your marriage legally documented with the local authorities,and it will be recognised internationally.In my experience this is not regarded as buying a wife,she is as free to leave as in Western societies where economic pressures to name one also apply.

That sounds about like what I have heard. In many ways, it might not be that different from exchanging engagement rings, just with a different form.

Thank you for answering.

[chang50]

In Thailand where I live now,although born in England,it is the custom for the groom to pay the brides family a sum of money for a traditional Thai marriage,this has no legal standing,although you can also go thru the process of having your marriage legally documented with the local authorities,and it will be recognised internationally.In my experience this is not regarded as buying a wife,she is as free to leave as in Western societies where economic pressures to name one also apply.

That sounds about like what I have heard. In many ways, it might not be that different from exchanging engagement rings, just with a different form.

Thank you for answering.

My pleasure,the facts seldom match the stereotypes perpetuated in the Western media and swallowed uncritically by so many who regard their own cultures as superior.

[PLAYER57832]

My pleasure,the facts seldom match the stereotypes perpetuated in the Western media and swallowed uncritically by so many who regard their own cultures as superior.

Its much easier to see the wrongs in other societies than in one's own, but educated people try to get beyond that. We don't always succeed, but we try. Most of us here are largely "western". I think many of us particularly enjoy hearing perspectives from people with more broad experiences.

[BigBallinStalin]

You honestly think that treating a woman like a commodity is a sign that a society treats women with any kind of respect? These are places were women are forced into marriage against their will and raped to punish their father or brother for a crime he committed.

I have absolutely no idea how you can conceive of the idea that a society in which women are sold like cattle will treat women well.

Yeah, one of the problems with PLAYER's argument is that:

1) Yes, prices are a reflection of preferences; however,

2) prices as a reflection of preferences don't mean much if the exchange involves coercion.

[PLAYER57832]

You honestly think that treating a woman like a commodity is a sign that a society treats women with any kind of respect? These are places were women are forced into marriage against their will and raped to punish their father or brother for a crime he committed.

I have absolutely no idea how you can conceive of the idea that a society in which women are sold like cattle will treat women well.

Yeah, one of the problems with PLAYER's argument is that:

1) Yes, prices are a reflection of preferences; however,

2) prices as a reflection of preferences don't mean much if the exchange involves coercion.

Except traditionally, coersion is not as much a part of this as the stereotypes imply. That is part of the distortion and abuse. As I said, no society lives up to the ideal. Also, its not really "my" argument. This is something you see often mentioned in anthropologic texts.
But here is something you might find interesting (from wikki):

United States The dowry was a custom brought to the United States by colonists from England and elsewhere in Europe. One legend tells how John Hull, the Master of the Mint in Boston and a wealthy man, determined the dowry for his daughter Hannah's marriage to Samuel Sewall. Hull is said to have set his 18-year-old daughter onto one side of the large scales in his warehouse. He piled shillings into the other side of the scale until he reached her weight in silver, and that was her dowry.[55]

The dowry system existed in certain tribes. An example is found in the marriage of Virginia settler John Rolfe to Pocahontas, who brought a dowry to the marriage that included a large amount of land.[56]

The daughters of wealthy 19th century industrialists, who were able to inherit large amounts of money and property, were given "dowries" by their fathers to marry European aristocrats who held a title but had little wealth. The mutual exchange of title and wealth raised the status of both bride and groom.[57]

And, as I noted earlier, even an engagement ring could be seen as a kind of bride price.

[PLAYER57832]

Letting the states decide on issues has been a major platform for Ron Paul, who is definitely a Libertarian, and is all I have really suggested as the best answer. I have not made a religious argument on the issue of gay marriage, so I will just disagree I am trying to make this about religion. I don't even know where in the bible it addresses homosexuality, I would guess Letivicus. Yet that does not mean I don't acknowledge marriage has religious roots, because obviously it does.

Except referring to "tradition" instead of "morality" is really a cop-out for the same thing. If anything, tradition is even less of a reason to keep doing something when it causes other people harm. Denying homosexuals to have the same legal protections and benefits that heterosexuals have is harm. (and please note, I did not say "rights")

[huamulan]

Arf arf! I assumed I already know everything. Is it not coercion when a marriage is arranged on behalf of the woman?

Exchanging engagement rings is nothing like paying for your wife.

[chang50]

Arf arf! I assumed I already know everything. Is it not coercion when a marriage is arranged on behalf of the woman?

Exchanging engagement rings is nothing like paying for your wife.

Not always,a little research would show the bride is often happy with her family's choice of husband.Where she is not and she is coerced into marriage that is unequivocally wrong,and no-one here has defended that.

[huamulan]

And we she is not happy and is coerced anyway we see just how much regard the woman's opinion is held in.

[chang50]

And we she is not happy and is coerced anyway we see just how much regard the woman's opinion is held in.

It's kinda obvious to say that when anybody is coerced into anything their opinion is held in little regard by the coercees,but thanks for sharing that little pearl of wisdom.

[PLAYER57832]

Arf arf! I assumed I already know everything. Is it not coercion when a marriage is arranged on behalf of the woman?

Exchanging engagement rings is nothing like paying for your wife.

Most people don't exchange engagement rings, though they often do exchange wedding rings.

but how, exactly, is it different than offering other types of goods?

Per the "choice" bit.. I have heard a lot of women, both those now older and happily married and younger women who each say their family (or the people their family consult) can choose better husbands than they. They point to the high rates of divorce here in so-called "love marriages". I would not want my parents to have chosen my husband, but unlike you, I recognize that choice means just that.. the right to choose from many options.


But go ahead and keep on with your ignorant rant assuming that anything I have said endorses forced marriage. Its pretty clear you have no desire for intelligent discourse.

[Symmetry]

If someone is against government recognition of gay marriage, that person is a social conservative and, simply put, wants the government to regulate marriage such that only certain peoples' marriages are recognized (hey big government!).

With that logic, would it be fair to state that during the majority of the the first term of his presidency, you saw Obama as a social conservative as he was against government recognition of gay marriage until just a few weeks ago?

That seems to push things a little far (sorry, I realise you were talking to TGD). On a lot of issues Obama took a socially conservative stance, but I'm not sure it's entirely fair to say that that makes him a social conservative. I think he generally leans that way on a lot of issues, but also leans socially liberal on others.

Social conservatism and liberalism tend to involve a wide range of viewpoints as a political stance (read not necessarily partisan, but political). Partisan politicos will tell you that some of these issues are a litmus test of an overall political stance. It's not often true, and believing that it is true will only serve the agendas of partisans.

[patrickaa317]

If someone is against government recognition of gay marriage, that person is a social conservative and, simply put, wants the government to regulate marriage such that only certain peoples' marriages are recognized (hey big government!).

With that logic, would it be fair to state that during the majority of the the first term of his presidency, you saw Obama as a social conservative as he was against government recognition of gay marriage until just a few weeks ago?

That seems to push things a little far (sorry, I realise you were talking to TGD). On a lot of issues Obama took a socially conservative stance, but I'm not sure it's entirely fair to say that that makes him a social conservative. I think he generally leans that way on a lot of issues, but also leans socially liberal on others.

Social conservatism and liberalism tend to involve a wide range of viewpoints as a political stance (read not necessarily partisan, but political). Partisan politicos will tell you that some of these issues are a litmus test of an overall political stance. It's not often true, and believing that it is true will only serve the agendas of partisans.

I agree and that is why I asked TGD since he said if someone was against recognition of gay marriage that it made them a social conservative.

If someone is against government recognition of gay marriage, that person is a social conservative

[Symmetry]

If someone is against government recognition of gay marriage, that person is a social conservative and, simply put, wants the government to regulate marriage such that only certain peoples' marriages are recognized (hey big government!).

With that logic, would it be fair to state that during the majority of the the first term of his presidency, you saw Obama as a social conservative as he was against government recognition of gay marriage until just a few weeks ago?

That seems to push things a little far (sorry, I realise you were talking to TGD). On a lot of issues Obama took a socially conservative stance, but I'm not sure it's entirely fair to say that that makes him a social conservative. I think he generally leans that way on a lot of issues, but also leans socially liberal on others.

Social conservatism and liberalism tend to involve a wide range of viewpoints as a political stance (read not necessarily partisan, but political). Partisan politicos will tell you that some of these issues are a litmus test of an overall political stance. It's not often true, and believing that it is true will only serve the agendas of partisans.

I agree and that is why I asked TGD since he said if someone was against recognition of gay marriage that it made them a social conservative.

If someone is against government recognition of gay marriage, that person is a social conservative

Fair comment that.