Marriage feedback [inofficial Poll]

[Loggos]

I think the difficulty of this is that whatever it meant in the ancient past is not necessarily valid today any longer.

Very basically marriage is a promise to be together forever.

It was necessary in the past for families as, starting eons in the past up to years in the 20th century, women had little rights and were often tied to the men around them (in several cultures even). In some cultures they had to obey their fathers first, then their husbands, then their son and if all of those passed away, their brother. Furthermore women where handled by their virginity. A woman that was not virgin anymore, was (and sometimes is still today) considered impure (and maybe worthless).
Marriage was a protection for women and their children because if the promise had been made then it was more difficult for them to be forsaken and also to be tormented by other men.

If the "family founding" was just an "idea of the moment" the woman might get pregnant and suddenly the man might decide to leave her just because. A pregnant single woman at ancient (till more modern) times was probably considered a severe disgrace, not to mention that it would be close to impossible or at least socially really hard to raise a child or more on your own. Those children would, too, suffer a huge impact of the social standing of their mother.

Besides this marriage was also for expanding and keeping power, for gaining prestige and wealth. A cleverly arranged marriage could bring a family a lot of honour while the wedded woman (and man) were just the pawns in the game.


So at least I think it was not really for reproduction or at least not for reproduction only - because you can reproduce without marriage - but to keep the given social norms stable and to influence social situations, from a minor household up to a whole kingdom, a bonding of humans had to be made.



However this cannot be applied in at least our Western society anymore.
A single woman can (more or less) raise children alone and she is not considered a disgrace or worthless person (at least ideally). Ideally, there is no social rule than women have no freedom and need to be obedient to their husband so that they'd need a marriage to tie themselves to them as a security.
And since inherited power has been removed with democracy political marriages are at least no official and expected game of our society anymore.
Don't want to be too biased on men though as their situation has also changed: They don't need to present enormous wedding presents to vow for (or "buy") their brides, they too have more freedom to choose a partner and not have to tie her(him) to himself etc.


The idea of a promise to stay together forever has stayed though but due to our society there are new premises and possibilities tied to it.


So since the social norm has changed the social norm for marriage has changed, too. You cannot apply an ancient marriage concept that comes from a totally different society on a modern society whose binding behaviour and gender models have changed drastically.

[Kallivis]

Opening a can of worms there...

So who/what determines what is right? How do you know that 60 years from now, people won't look back at SSM with the same disgust that we have for slavery?

Because people are smartening up with social and scientific advancements.

Do you see other animals getting married? I don't. They still reproduce.

They also engage in homosexual activity.

Hell, I took off my shoe at my girlfriend's house before and her cat walked up and started having sex with it.

Everybody and everything is nuts. At least in our global retardation we could at the very least make things better for people in general and allow people the same rights other people have. It's not hurting anyone.

[ZakarnRosewood]

Zan: it appears to be a personal thing where you have a disgust for SSM (many people do and that is sad) but what does it matter to you if two people love each other enough to want to dedicate their lives to one another? just because you think its icky and they cant have babies? those parts still function, there are surrogate mothers, orphanages, and many other ways this type of union will greatly benefit society as a whole.

but we arent even talking about real life here, this supposed to be about a video game, a fantasy world where there is magic, monsters, and myths. unfortunately it will be people like you that make SE afraid to add in SSM for fear of offending someones sensibilities. as for your "strongest argument" about biology, can hetro married couples have a baby in FFXI or FFXIV?

If you are a representative of the site of the same name, i have lost a lot of respect for you guys. not that you will care but i will no longer be supporting that site.

[Loggos]

There are also many "single mum" animals and some females even eat their "husbands".
Of course there are also groups of animals that stay together their whole life like penguins or swans.
There is such a diversity in the unions of animals that one cannot derive "one" way of family from it, specially that is applicable for human beings.

And to stress this: I think allowing SSM does not mean that DSM becomes anyhow less valuable!!!
It is a CHOICE of lifestyle. Personally I really want to have a "classical" family with a husband and children. That is my family dream so to speak.
But that doesn't mean that this applies for others too.
If you just can't love a woman as a man (or a man as a woman) but you still have the really really urgent wish to have a family nonetheless and to raise children with then one you love then what can be done about it? Force yourself to become different? I don't think that will work.
And I think it is the wrong way to protect the DSM by forbidding another kind of marriage.
Speaking of a real society that is worried about birth rates there should rather be measures to strengthen family making (also from an economic point of view because specially for women the work/family factor is difficult and it is also difficult for men who actually want to be fulltime fathers).
Allowing LGBT to marry won't make more people gay. There will be more orphans that could then possibly have a family though. Homosexuality always existed.

[Kallivis]

If you are a representative of the site of the same name, i have lost a lot of respect for you guys. not that you will care but i will no longer be supporting that site.

I don't think that person is a representative of the site.

[Zantetsuken]

Zan: it appears to be a personal thing where you have a disgust for SSM.

Nice projection job there. Nowhere did I say that I have disgust for SSM. (I did say that I had disgust for slavery... perhaps you are confusing the two?)

If you are a representative of the site of the same name, i have lost a lot of respect for you guys. not that you will care but i will no longer be supporting that site.

Who has disgust for others' opinions again?

[Kallivis]

Nice projection job there. Nowhere did I say that I have disgust for SSM.



Who has disgust for others' opinions again?

I think you'd do well to stop deviating from the topic with baseless arguments and things such as offspring and tradition and answer what I addressed in post 723: http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...l=1#post893582 Considering it sums up the primary thing the ones arguing against this concept have yet to address.

[ZakarnRosewood]

Nice projection job there. Nowhere did I say that I have disgust for SSM.



Who has disgust for others' opinions again?

in one of your comments you implied that people would hold the same disgust for SSM as they do for slavery in the future, my apologies if i assumed you were one of those people.

as for disgust, no, more like disappointment. like another poster said you may not be a rep of that community so i will reserve that until i have verification.

you are entitled to your opinion though and i apologize for participating in a topic I knew would go nowhere.

[Kallivis]

you are entitled to your opinion though and i apologize for participating in a topic I knew would go nowhere.

Yoshida requested opinions from the community about this subject, that is why this thread still exists.

Although there have been some cases of name-calling the thread is still a debate. They take this information into consideration, and it has been well-moderated as the mods have been actively removing pointless posts.

[Zantetsuken]

I think you'd do well to stop deviating from the topic with baseless arguments and things such as offspring and tradition and answer what I addressed in post 723: http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...l=1#post893582 Considering it sums up the primary thing the ones arguing against this concept have yet to address.

I stick by what I've said all along.

1) FFXIV should not have marriages in the game at all. They are stupid/silly and add needless drama to the game. I know of several endgame FFXI linkshells that broke up over the absurd marriage drama in that game.

2) If they DO end up adding marriages to FFXIV (and sadly, they are), they should call them something other than "Marriage" (in which case they won't run into any touchy issues with having same sex couples 'bond'). It's in SE's best interest to stay away from toxic political/cultural issues.


I think most people (who don't have a SSM agenda) would agree with me on that second point -- and the smartest will agree with me on the first.