Once one considers the history of marriage, it is necessary to abandon the "sanctity" of the process

[Gravitycollapse]

For instance, in many places around the world, as was the case in nearly all places dating back to antiquity, marriage was nothing more than the transfer of property from one patriarch to another. Women, girls really, were married off to much older men.

Case in point: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/15/world/meast/yemen-child-bride/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

An 8 year old Yemeni girl has died from injuries sustained while being raped (I say raped because that's exactly what happened) by her 40 year old husband on their "wedding night."

What's important to recognize is that these types of cases are becoming the exception. But in the not to distant past, they were the norm.

Marriage only gained an element of romance in the Victorian age. Love only became relevant during this time and so began the evolution of marriage from a property transaction to a metaphysical ceremony.

The history of love and marriage is a short one, indeed. And it betrays the Christian conservative argument that marriage has always been a ceremony of love sanctioned by the will of God. They talk about the destruction of marriage as if any parasitic qualities were bestowed upon the institution by modernization.


In reality, marriage, as is the case with most processes in society, has become more inclusive and more equitable over time. If anything, it has become a vastly better institution.

So the next time you hear a Christian conservative making a loathsome observation of the state of marriage, make sure to remind them that what they really support, if they speak of a marital "golden age," is the selling of women as property and the rape and murder of little girls.

[PoliticAverse]

1. Indeed. n/t

[upaloopa]

2. When are we going to stop accusing people of supporting

child rape? I am not a fundie supporter but I am friends with a few and they don't support child rape.

This is getting pretty discusting on this board. It is shame it has the space it gets. Someone like me will get jury ed out of here or ignored while accusing Innocent people of child rape is applauded.

If you don't like fundies fine. But you are no better than they are saying they support child rape.
Fire away!

[LostOne4Ever]

4. Oh spare me

You are intentionally putting words in the OP mouth that he/she did not say.

No where in his/her post did he/she say all fundamentalist support child rape. Rather she was bringing up the history of marriage and something that really has and continues to happen.

[Gravitycollapse]

5. The issue is the supporting of a false history. So when they say they support...

traditional marriage, they are actually saying they support women as property and child rape. Not that they actually do support such things but that their ambiguous claim of support for historical marriage leads to their accidental support of these atrocities.

Does that make sense?

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Do your friends say loathsome things as cited in the OP? If so then they are endorsing

a legal code that allows parents to sell daughters into both marriage and slavery. That's what the Bible has to say. It is loathsome, and they pretend that the Bible describes a woman in a huge white lace gown and a man in a tux saying 'I Do' when what it describes is in fact so horrific that to practice it today would land you in prison on multiple counts. So yeah, it is loathsome to lie about some Book in order to bash gay people and if that book does indeed count very young girls as marriageable and even marketable they need to own up to the facts.

[awoke_in_2003]

11. When people stop supporting it. nt

[immoderate]

3. Good point! I can't believe how many "sanctity of marriage of a man to a woman" types...

I have come across. Many accept some idea of marriage equality but want to withhold the label! I think there's a zero-sum mentality at work there. As in "if gays can get married, there'll be less left for me."

--imm

[nomorenomore08]

8. Because to them, on some level, it's "icky." A childish argument from childish people. n/t

[nomorenomore08]

7. Excellent! Glad to be the 5th rec!

[LostOne4Ever]

9. Further

There is this:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151581533491275&set=a.180479986274.135777.177486166274&type=1&theater

The two-spirit people and marriages by certain native american tribes.

Also, sanctity means holiness or godliness, and the holiness or godliness of something varies by one's religion and is not an argument against something with regards to SECULAR government.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sanctity

[Squinch]

10. Kick

[markpkessinger]

12. Everything you say is true, but . . .

. . . I'm not sure how far you'll get in convincing a fundamentalist! I think a more productive approach is simply to point out that the word 'sanctity' is inherently a religious concept. The etymology of the word itself bears this out. From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

[font color=red]sanctity (n.)[/font]
late 14c., from Old French sanctete (Modern French sainteté), from Latin sanctitatem (nominative sanctitas) "holiness, sacredness," from sanctus "holy" (see saint (n.)).

You can point out that to the extent a marriage is 'sanctified,' or made holy, that sanctification is something God accomplishes through the agency of the church. As an illustration, ask them whether they regard a marraige between a husband and wife who are both atheists, and which is presided over by a judge, as being 'holy' or 'sanctified.' (If they really are fundamentalists, that question should give them serious pause -- or at the very least will provide you with a bit of entertainment as you watch their heads spin. ) From there, you can argue, within the parameters of their own beliefs, that since it is God, and not the state, that does the sanctifying, there cannot be any threat whatsoever to the 'sanctity' of their (or other Christian heterosexual) marriages. So they're 'safe.'

Full disclosure: I am an Episcopalian who takes far too much delight in destroying fundamentalist arguments!