tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6966005.post114973629422341712..comments2023-05-01T06:44:03.404-04:00Comments on David 2's Brutally Honest Random Thoughts: Brutally Honest Rant - 06/07/06David 2http://www.blogger.com/profile/12138208895799312312noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6966005.post-1151578338105853612006-06-29T06:52:00.000-04:002006-06-29T06:52:00.000-04:00While "traditional marriage" itself has been consi...While "traditional marriage" itself has been considered property rights in certain circumstanaces, the final verdict is still out according to social anthropologists as to whether the origins of marriage were based on property (as many have asserted) or religious domination (as I have asserted in this rant), since there were signs that either one could be correct.<BR/><BR/>My selection of the idea of religious domination being the true origins of marriage has more to do with a rational look at who actually benefits the most from the concept. Marriage as a business arrangement works with rich families, but not with those who are poor. If marriage was purely a business transaction, then adultery would never be considered a crime, but the concept of marrying for love would be. Plus, ship captains would never have the ability to marry people while at sea since that would also make for a bad business decision.David 2https://www.blogger.com/profile/12138208895799312312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6966005.post-1151493997029113572006-06-28T07:26:00.000-04:002006-06-28T07:26:00.000-04:00It's hard to imagine that 50 years ago, there were...It's hard to imagine that 50 years ago, there were laws to prevent people of different races from marrying and of corse people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were using God to keep things that way. The reason I say this is because it's not that different from what is being done today with gays.<BR/><BR/> Not to mention that so-called "traditional marriage" is nothing more than proprerty rights. Why else was female virginity stressed more than a man's? Because women were either property of their husbands or fathers depending on their marital status and could be used as barter between two men.<BR/><BR/> I think it's time to rethink marriage as a whole. We live longer, not everyone lives on a farm, and we're coming to the realization that straight, rich non-disabled male WASPs aren't the only ones that count as Human beings. Just because an idea is new doesn't mean it's bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com