Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by arauca, May 27, 2012.
In our present society what and when is a person considered a wife ?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I think you have to first be a married woman to qualify as a wife. However, that doesn't mean that men can't preform wifely duties, whatever that may be.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There are some states that allow for a "common law" marriage and that's when a man and woman live or cohabitate together for a certain period of time. After that period of time has lapsed they are considered married and she is his wife.
Married is married, doesn't matter how it happens. However if you don't want common law to kick in, move to Arizona. They don't have a common law rule. You actually have to both decide to get married there.
In the USA it's a legal term. A wife is a married person who is female. Marriage is a ceremony that takes many forms, but from a legal standpoint the essence is:
A. Two people make formal, (more-or-less) legally enforceable vows to acknowledge and treat each other as spouses
B. A document is signed by the spouses, an officiator (usually a religious leader, judge or justice of the peace) and one or two witnesses, stating that the marriage ceremony has taken place and identifying the two people henceforth as married in the eyes of the law and the community.
In the traditional form of marriage and in the vast majority of cases the two parties are of opposite sexes and the male spouse is called a husband. With the success of the gay/lesbian rights movement, in many states a marriage may be performed between two people of the same sex, and in fact a modest number of these marriages have taken place. If they are both female then they are each the other's wife, and if both male they are each the other's husband.
Legally married people have certain rights and obligations such as support, inheritance, cooperative raising of children, medical decisions, co-ownership of homes and other property, and rather messy rules for dividing the property in case of divorce.
In an ever-smaller number of U.S. jurisdictions the doctrine of "common law marriage" endures. Two people who have not had an official marriage ceremony but who have lived together in the equivalent roles of husband and wife for a certain number of years (I believe seven is typical) may, if they desire, be identified as "common-law husband" and "common-law wife." In casual conversation they would just be "husband" and "wife," although many people who frown on this practice would pointedly refuse to use those labels.
Common-law spouses have many of the same rights as legally married spouses, but they should probably not depend on being able to enforce them outside of their own state.
I very much doubt that there are any common-law gay husbands or lesbian wives. The states in which this doctrine prevails are the very conservative ones with significant religious influence over their culture, and these are not the places where one would expect the gay/lesbian rights movement to have made any progress.
After a woman's husband dies, she is called a "widow" rather than a wife. I imagine that if a lesbian's wife dies, she too would be entitled to be called a widow. If a woman is divorced from her husband (or wife) she may be called "his/her ex-wife," or simply "a divorcée." But today that precision is lost and divorced Americans are often referred to as "single," as though that were a renewable state. (Believe me, it's not! Marriage changes you forever.)
Almost all married women in the USA wear a wedding ring on the third finger of their left hand. (It's not as common among men but I wear one.) If the husband dies, traditionally the widow will wear her wedding ring on her right hand, but that tradition is so seldom practiced in the USA that when I met a woman who wears it that way she had to explain it to me. (Twelve years later: the poor lady really loved that guy.)
Unfortunately the meaning of wife it starts to loose its meaning once the homo gained it's rights
I disagree, and I reject the generalized disparagement which reveals homophobia on your part, and says nothing of the people you are targeting, whose private affairs are not subject to scrutiny any more than your own private affairs.
Marriage between a man and a woman is a traditional concept. It arises out of an old culture that carried many more superstitions and taboos than today. The rules it imposes make no sense. For example, in the last century it was prohibited for non-whites to use the same restrooms and drinking fountains as whites. Anti-semitism was condoned. Women couldn't vote, own property, or divorce. Before that was slavery and the decimation of native American civilizations. Before that was monarchy, church-state polity, feudalism, and burning at the stake.
We've grown up a little and we've learned to respect the rights of all people regardless of whether we like the way they look or act or how they think. We recognize that they're just as free as we are to live unimpeded by prejudiced injustice. We know that just as we would deprive them of their rights, so they would deprive us of ours, and that there is no objective test for validating one person's importance over another.
Given all of this, the last part of your statement evokes no sympathy. As for the first part, I think it's just a shallow excuse for expressing hatred. No man married to a woman, and no woman married to a man, has reason to compare their own marriage to the marriage of any other couple for any reason except tax equality and insurance purposes, and only since those restrictions have been externally imposed without consideration for equal rights.
Just as my marriage to a woman has not impact whatsoever on your marriage to a woman, nor does a homosexual marriage have any impact.
All you are doing is using this as an excuse to justify your homophobia. You are angry to see a group of people you hate come up in the world as your equal. You are expressing emotions no different than the supremacists who hated Jews, blacks, and other groups.
But all is not lost. There's hope. All you have to do is: get over it! If I were you, I would seek counseling.
Lucky that you got here first. Being from Hollywood where I had dozens of gay friends, I would have responded in a much more insulting way.
As it is, I'm going to notify my colleague Tiassa, who is the moderator of this subforum, and let him know that someone used the slur "homo" on his watch.
I would say that Arauca has less than an hour to edit his post.
From the persona you project here I can only surmise that your friends are in a good place as far as ideals, judging by their association with you. They would be typical of - millions? I don't even know the numbers - who have systematically been targeted for all kinds of undue hatred.
I would offer one thing on arauca's behalf, which you might appreciate more than others. Based on his posts, I assume he is not a native English speaker. This might have been a language gaffe.
I would suggest that it is more likely a cultural gaffe, rather. This due to his (elsewhere stated) advanced age (older than me or Frag, I believe :itold: ) and his complete lack of empathy/understanding in areas such as child abuse (my previous personal exchanges with him on that topic) and responsible canine companionship. I have been giving him the 'benefit of the doubt' due to his obvious cultural naivete in such topic areas. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nicely put up there, Frag - well defined and concise.
Estimates vary. For obvious reasons most homosexual people don't talk about it. Many don't even admit it to themselves, and live sad lives trying to fit in and wondering why they're sad. But in aggregate, LGBT probably make up at least five percent of the population.
Perhaps the specific words, but not the assertion.
This is not "stop by" vs. "knock you up." This is "cultural gaffe" vs. "hate speech."
Lack of empathy is not an excuse. It is a problem.
Time to stop doing that or he'll never improve. "Cultural naivete" is not understanding that American women shake hands with strangers, hug acquaintances, and kiss friends. This is intolerance and outright hatred. We can't control whom we hate but we can control the way we talk about our hatred outside our intimate circle of Stone Age throwbacks. (Yes, that was the controlled version of that sentence. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
That you cannot even address them as human beings, but instead view them as objects of derision or disgust indicates an extreme level of homophobia on your part.
If this thread is merely another attempt by you to spout your homophobic gibberish, then you have failed. You have already failed to gain traction with your comment and have instead, invited members of this sub-forum to virtually laugh at your homophobic views.
It is unfortunate that as moderators, we have to somehow protect you from yourself and your stupidity.
I have to thank the members who have taken the time and effort to try and educate you and point out the ridiculousness of your argument and your homophobia. And for having done so with a lot more politeness than you actually deserve.
Having said that, homosexual marriage does nothing and means nothing to the term "wife" or its meaning.
Good call. I missed that altogether, having been drawn into the gay-bashing aspect. I forgot that I came here expecting to read something about wifery (wifedom?).
It does raise another point in my mind. Is it only men who are sweating this issue? I can't think that I've ever heard a woman (except for maybe Palin/Bachmann) even bring this up.
Yeah, you are right on this one. I sit corrected, he is indeed intolerant and extremely biased and shouldn't be let off the hook for that stuff. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Looks like somebody else thought that too, as he has been banned. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The difference is although there was never any scientific proof whites and non-whites can pass kooties at drinking fountains (was all superstition) science still demonstrates that only male and female can naturally procreate; without artificial additives. One should not compare superstition to hard science.
The ancient concept of marriage was not about tax exemptions, being able to join the lodge or who gets to wear the wedding dress. Rather is about forming the basic human biological unit, that would not require artificial additives nor excessive social costs, which would assure procreation as well as the care of the offspring. Other combinations are possible, but none meet all the natural requirements without artificial additive and/or extra social cost.
Based on that natural unit, which can self sufficiently provide the entire biological spectrum needed for human procreation, as well as the physical, mental and emotional nurturing of children (without artificial additives or extra social costs), the two team members of natural marriage were assigned roles based on their natural attributes. The wife had breasts so she would nurture. With artificial additives like baby formula and plastic bottles, we can do alternative. But if you take away artificial only one way can naturally provide.
The wife was associated with the natural female specialty attributes, which do not require artificial additives or excessive social costs. The basics were extrapolated from breast feeding to food preparation, from nest building to home care, etc. This was the wife.
Natural does not mean being propped up with artificial additives, not does it make use of excessive government spending and/or buzzy body laws to make it possible. That is more like a zoo than a natural environment, where we pretend the fake is as good as natural. Natural is self sufficient, requires no artificial additives and does not need censor not does it need to be supported by politics and mutant science. Natural is the gold standard and anything else is margarine calling itself butter.
What we should do is compare the original ancient marriage (before artificial and large social costs) If the math is exactly the same are they exactly the same. Real science is not about PC word play but math.
That was really, really weird. :huh:
Never thought about this question earlier as to when was the first person went for getting married.
Yes, and the fossil evidence indicates that such things as helping with the mastodon hunt & kill was part of that "etc", just as it was for the "husband". Yeah, the bigger kids came along too, as it was a community activity. If the wife died, do you really think the husband would just walk away from his children, even in paleolithic communities?
As I recall, arsenic, radiation, the Black Death, cobras and the Irish potato famine are/were all "natural" things too. Just because something can be called "natural" does not necessarily mean that it won't kill you or that it is good for you. The converse is also true - antibiotics, surgery, irrigation and fertilizers etc etc are not "natural" things, but they are indeed beneficial to us humans.
I must suggest the memory of that particular event is lost hundreds of thousands of years in our collective past and is now only mere speculation as to how and why it was done. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mrs. Fraggle's opinion seems to be representative of my female acquaintances: From a political perspective this was not the right time to make a big issue of it, since it's driving a wedge between the left and right at a time when they have so many other more urgent (which is not the same as more important) issues in dire need of compromise. But from a moral or philosophical perspective it's a non-issue to them. They think all men are silly at best and jerks at worst (to exaggerate perhaps a teeny weeny bit), so to have a small number of us not hitting on them all the time is a bit of a relief. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
When I met her she had spent many years working in the helping and healing professions (probation camp counselors, psychiatric ward orderlies, etc.) which (for reasons that invite much speculation and I'll leave that for another discussion) seem to attract a disproportionate number of gays. So most of her friends, and therefore many of our friends, were gay.
With two moderators participating in this discussion and reporting back to Tiassa, waiting patiently for it to be morning in the Great Northwest, it was inevitable. Arauca is taking a one-month vacation.
Procreation was one of the major responsibilities of marriage... a hundred years ago. In case you haven't noticed, the human population has just about reached its practical maximum. Since the early 1980s the mean planetary birth rate has been falling steadily. It's universally predicted to drop below replacement level (2.1 children per woman, allowing for infant mortality) by the end of this century, with a barely sustainable global population of ten billion.
In other words, procreation is no longer an obligatory cornerstone of marriage and family. My wife and I have no children yet everyone tells us that our contributions to the local community and to civilization as a whole are much appreciated. The same is true of many gay couples.
As for "natural" procreation, despite the decrease in population pressure there are still millions of children who, for one sad reason or another, need parents. Gay people do just as good a job of raising them as straight people. In fact, if there's any truth to the common stereotype that gay people are more loving and caring than the rest of us (this is the unscientifically suggested reason why so many of them work in hospitals, and also in schools wherever it's allowed) one would think that the general population would be delighted to let them take over as many foster children as they can handle.
The ancient concept of marriage quite often embraced polygamy, incest, and treating women variously as chattel, spoils of war, third-class citizens, slaves, and outright prisoners in their own home. I don't think you're going to win much support for your argument by asking us to remember this era in human history wistfully.
You seem to be fixated on your grandparents' era. As I already noted, times have changed. The family is no longer primarily about procreation, but rather about playing their role in an increasingly global and increasingly virtual civilization. To the extent that there are, obviously, still children, there are also, just as obviously, still orphans and other children who desperately need some loving people to take over their parenting. Anyone who's willing and able to fill that role should be honored and given a government subsidy, not ridiculed and discriminated against.
Monogamy has been an archetype in human culture since (arguably) the Paleolithic Era. Humans are one of very few species whose females are physically capable of copulation outside of their estrus cycle, and it's been argued that this evolved because it encourages fathers to stay home even when the mother is pregnant or nursing--i.e., to practice monogamy. This is crucial for a species whose children have the longest maturation cycle of any animal and really need two parents. (Dolphins and chimpanzees also have this unusual ability but they use it for pack bonding.)
Nonetheless, monogamy has not been a universal practice throughout human history.
As for the insitution of marriage, it has been practiced in various forms well beyond the veil of recorded history or even prehistoric archeological artifacts--but again, with intervening periods during which it was not.
But it's quite sobering to find that marriage only became a sacrament in the Christian church in 1215. "Before that it was complained that married people cared more about pleasing each other than doing the Lord’s work." (Washington Post 20120527)
Separate names with a comma.