Thread: The Frenchies and Civil Unions

Good or bad?

I'm surprised actually... maybe the Vatican has been right about how certain legislation will cause a more systemic impact on marriages throughout a given society.

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/wo...c=me&ref=world

Whatever their reasons, and they vary widely, French couples are increasingly shunning traditional marriages and opting instead for civil unions, to the point that there are now two civil unions for every three marriages.

When France created its system of civil unions in 1999, it was heralded as a revolution in gay rights, a relationship almost like marriage, but not quite. No one, though, anticipated how many couples would make use of the new law. Nor was it predicted that by 2009, the overwhelming majority of civil unions would be between straight couples.

The idea of monogamy was because the fragile human child could not survive without two dedicated parents. in a far more advanced society today, that isn't necessarily true, and so lifelong commitment really isn't looked upon as 'ideal'. society is becoming more liberal as time goes on i guess.

I agree with Lamperoux. Marriage was done more out of necessity back in the day than for "sanctity" or "purity of a union". Women were denied work and weren't able to support themselves (much less a family) so being dependent on the man to provide the bread was what kept the two together.
Given how many divorces happen in modern times (and how many marriages are made from the wrong reasons/doomed from the start), this is probably a good step forward.

No, I don't think that reflects very accurately the history of marriage in the Western world.

Polygamy was allowed in certain pagan Western societies and in the Eastern society of ancient Hebrews. Christianity placed a strong emphasis on monogamy due to the New Testament words of Jesus.

Furthermore, Christian marriages were more revolutionary in bringing equality to women (in spousal relationship terms) than what one found among Germanic pagans would would trade off their women for pieces of merchandise like modern 1%'er bikers.

Christian monogamy demanded men be as sexually faithful to their wives as wives are to be to their husbands. Osama Bin Laden is the 50th some child of his father who is married to several women. Osama Bin Laden himself has several wives. Children can be reared perfectly fine in marital environments that are not monogamous.

Aside from any metaphysical beliefs in a sacramental nature to marriages, there still exists the issue of commitment, and most political philosophers regard the family as part of the basic structure of a civilization. It is the first school or mores and life for future adult citizenry.

And the idea men simply walked around "working" like modern day office workers while women toiled like slaves in the household is pure fiction.

The history of labor throughout the world is one primarily of physical toiling. Pennsylvanian mine workers come to mind. I'd prefer to share in spousal duties by doing domestic work than toiling in dirty mines, developing cancer, and putting myself and my family in debt to the notorious "company store."

There's a reason female feminist largely don't purse low paying work breaking rocks with a sledge hammer and would prefer to marry a wealthy man and work at their leisure cleaning a house.

The majority of humanity has always married into their social class. You think Cleopatra married a Hindu slave and provided him with nightly blow jobs? No.

And First Lady Michelle Obama's marriage to a well educated, professional, intelligent, and presumably faithful man like Barack Obama is the envy of millions of impoverished, single Black-American women.

I knew I should've timestamped my comment.
It's reflective of marrying in North American... maybe Western in general but not completely sure... during the 20th century.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

No, I don't think that reflects very accurately the history of marriage in the Western world.

Polygamy was allowed in certain pagan Western societies and in the Eastern society of ancient Hebrews. Christianity placed a strong emphasis on monogamy due to the New Testament words of Jesus.

Furthermore, Christian marriages were more revolutionary in bringing equality to women (in spousal relationship terms) than what one found among Germanic pagans would would trade off their women for pieces of merchandise like modern 1%'er bikers.

Christian monogamy demanded men be as sexually faithful to their wives as wives are to be to their husbands. Osama Bin Laden is the 50th some child of his father who is married to several women. Osama Bin Laden himself has several wives. Children can be reared perfectly fine in marital environments that are not monogamous.

Aside from any metaphysical beliefs in a sacramental nature to marriages, there still exists the issue of commitment, and most political philosophers regard the family as part of the basic structure of a civilization. It is the first school or mores and life for future adult citizenry.

And the idea men simply walked around "working" like modern day office workers while women toiled like slaves in the household is pure fiction.

The history of labor throughout the world is one primarily of physical toiling. Pennsylvanian mine workers come to mind. I'd prefer to share in spousal duties by doing domestic work than toiling in dirty mines, developing cancer, and putting myself and my family in debt to the notorious "company store."

There's a reason female feminist largely don't purse low paying work breaking rocks with a sledge hammer and would prefer to marry a wealthy man and work at their leisure cleaning a house.

The majority of humanity has always married into their social class. You think Cleopatra married a Hindu slave and provided him with nightly blow jobs? No.

And First Lady Michelle Obama's marriage to a well educated, professional, intelligent, and presumably faithful man like Barack Obama is the envy of millions of impoverished, single Black-American women.

you're not understanding me. i'm not saying monogamous relationships are impossible, i'm saying that they came to be out of the need to support young human children who required much care. this led to the use of monogamous relationships, sensibly. religions adapted this as teachings. as women become more independent, and as it becomes easier to raise a child by one's self, marriage becomes a less attractive option. also, marriage has become such a deeply religious thing, the connotation of it is undesirable to many.