On Jun 23, 9:58=A0am, eugene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Eugene Griessel) wrote:
> "deemsb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <deemsb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On Jun 22, 8:24=3DA0am, "Andrew Chaplin"
> ><ab.chap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> <deemsb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
>>news:6898cda9-d005-4af1-a076-d2ca78aea5f5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0You left out that marriage has served as
prot=
ection
> >> > for women and children.
>
> >> Only as chattels, much like title and rights to other things viewed
as
> >> property.
> >> --
>
> > =A0 =A0 Uh, no. Marriage gave women and their children legal
protection=
s.
> >The man was legally bound to sup****t them. Without marriage, what
> >stopped a man from just kicking them to the curb? In times when women
> >couldn't easily sup****t themselves, this was a benefit.
> > =A0 =A0Now, I'm not saying it always worked out in reality.....but it
> >seemed to have worked well enough to base our society upon.
>
> It is not essential to a society. =A0It is merely one base that could
> work - especially if you can claim that God ordained it. =A0The "legal"
> surrounding many marriage systems was more like "gangsterism" in a lot
> of cases. =A0Marriage could lose a woman her property and most rights we
> regard as "normal" today in many places just a hundred years ago. =A0How
> long ago was it that Britain legislated on the size of a cane a
> husband may use on his wife? =A0In a lot of British type places a woman
> had more legal rights if she stayed single.
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
>
I never said it was essential, just that it worked well
enough. While some places a woman could own property, in others she
couldn't. Marriage is a means of societal control for both women and
men.....but it grew out of a way to stabilize family units.
|
