We're Here and Queer!
Women in Bangalore
What I feel is marriage is an unnecessary evil. I think it orginated because during the stone age times there were many men fighting and killing for beautiful women. Those days only beauty mattered for women and strength mattered for men. Marriage gives one of the couple a sense of owning and control and another a sense of belonging. Is that good or bad? I think it is bad but I might be wrong as I am not a relationship person eventhough I have been continuously in relationships from the age of 11. I have not thought deeply and considered all the pros and cons of a world with marriage or a world without it. Even If the world will be a better place with or without marriage be it queer or straight. It is a very old social institution. I suppose it wld be easier for the queer people to opt for marriage to have equal rights than for the straight people to opt for doing away with marriage.
My blog entry on marriage:http://dollyabraham.blogspot.com/2008/01/marriage.html
At Omega...I think marriage originated for more complex reasons than simple stone age power struggles over beauty.What about real, genuine affection and love? There are still those in the world that want to get married to share their lives together, and celebrate the union of two souls.It seems lately to me in Queer circles that monogamy and marriage are subjects that aren't cool, and that are looked down on. I don't know why this should be so. Just because Heterosexuals do it, doesn't make it wrong, no matter than promiscuity on a rampant scale is right, because it's done by Queers.Also...it seems that there's alot of speculation these days about marriage, when most everyone who's talking isn't married, and never has been.How would we then know what it's like to take such a committed step, and become a family, and why would it necessarily be wrong? People say it's wrong because of the history, but then they still practice their religions with histories that are horrifying in what was required of women, and they still celebrate holidays that also have bloody stains attached to them.History itself is not a reason to be against marriage between two consenting parties who want that piece of legal documentation, to cement their union publicly and officially. A friend recently summed up her argument for Gay marriage to me in a simple sentence "As long as you need a piece of paper to be a family, we need that paper."I agree. We need the right be called a family.
@ metaphors,I'm happy that this discussion is continuing! while i wouldnt agree with Omega on the assumed origin of marriage, i do think that the language in which real, genuine love and affection is expressed is intereting, and requires interrogation.Yes, people do look forward to getting married, and in that respect, I will attend those marriages,but it seems rather sad that we see the creation of family as requiring this piece of paper that is loaded with discrimmination. That piece of paper is sanctioned by the State. There have been numerous instances where hindu marriages have been deemed invalid in court, simply because some ceremony was not performed. When the state begins to regulate genuine love and affection, it is comforting that there are other ways of looking at family that are more considerate and supportive.Why is it that annulments granted by eccelesiastical tribunals are not recognised in court? What is this privilege to certain kinds of family?