i'm moving this here b/c it doesn't really fit under the condom poll anymore.
it's not a straw man at all. i disagree that the social k of marriage includes an expectation of monogamy - it may include an expectation of the appearance, but not the actual behavior. we're starting from two different positions; i believe yours is incorrect.
there's a whole body of research on the dialectic of marriage that suggests you're wrong.
i'm not even going to try to address the religious issues - i have no background whatsoever in religion. i do find it interesting, though, that you qualified marriage by writing that it "normally" has specific legal obligations.
the rise and widespread use of "no fault" divorce is a clear indicator that "traditional" notions of marriage (and its expectations) no longer apply. furthermore, it's worth noting that in many states, the "specific legal obligations" of marriage are essentially waiveable: for example, while adultery is still grounds for divorce in virginia, the code also states that "When the suit is for divorce for adultery, sodomy, or buggery, the divorce shall not be granted, if it appear that the parties voluntarily cohabited after the knowledge of the fact of adultery, sodomy or buggery, or that it occurred more than five years before the institution of the suit, or that it was committed by the procurement or connivance of the party alleging such act." (VA Code 1919, ยง 5110; 1975, c. 644.)
essentially the law in virginia - and other states - recognizes that partners have flexibility in determining what behaviors are acceptable within their marriage, and there is no single hard and fast rule as to what partners' obligations are to each other.
and again, i answer: your purported model is not the model, but simply a model; it is not the model i subscribe to.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Belethedheliel
That's a straw man argument. I'm not talking about what people do or don't do, I'm talking about the fact that the social contract includes a promise or expectation of monandry.
|
Quote:
| Certainly, a limited amount of polyandry exists, but it is relatively rare. Spontaneously occuring polygamy and monogamy are more common. ... If, for whatever reason, the people choose to treat each other differently or percieve their relationship differently because of their marriage, they are equally capable of so doing without that construct. Whatever psychological baggage the partners place on marriage are not the fault or facility of marriage itself, and would clearly be related to the partners individually. |
Quote:
| You seem to think that it involves more than legal rights and recognition (given your comment of the psychological impact). Legally, marriage normally has specific legal obligations and therefore does rigidly conform to that model. Religiously it typically has even more obligations. Divorce laws generally reflect what the legal system constitutes as reasons to terminate a marriage, which IMHO suggest that avoiding behavior that would grant a divorce is expected within a marriage. |
the rise and widespread use of "no fault" divorce is a clear indicator that "traditional" notions of marriage (and its expectations) no longer apply. furthermore, it's worth noting that in many states, the "specific legal obligations" of marriage are essentially waiveable: for example, while adultery is still grounds for divorce in virginia, the code also states that "When the suit is for divorce for adultery, sodomy, or buggery, the divorce shall not be granted, if it appear that the parties voluntarily cohabited after the knowledge of the fact of adultery, sodomy or buggery, or that it occurred more than five years before the institution of the suit, or that it was committed by the procurement or connivance of the party alleging such act." (VA Code 1919, ยง 5110; 1975, c. 644.)
essentially the law in virginia - and other states - recognizes that partners have flexibility in determining what behaviors are acceptable within their marriage, and there is no single hard and fast rule as to what partners' obligations are to each other.
Quote:
| And, again I ask, if that model is not what you want, why would you get married? |
