Translate

Monday, April 11, 2016

Women Aren't Barganing Chips In Business Deals

Whether you like it or not, most of us no longer live in a world in which men trade their daughters in arranged marriages that are little more than business deals. Unfortunately, laws still lag behind progress and some exist based on this model of marriage.

Now, women are people, not property.

Now, marriage is primarily a romantic matter, and even if based on finances, is up to the potential spouses, not their father, brother, or uncle.

Marriage used to be a business deal between clans, and a woman's sexuality was part of the deal, which is why women had to have sex with a man, just one man in particular, and of course that man was going to be from a different clan (but the same race) and could be older than her, but not younger. This is why royals often had consanguineous marriages; there were no other nearby clans that could provide a fair "trade."

For the most part we don't think like that anymore, but some people still apply such thinking to relationships and marriage.

If marriage is based on love, if it is up to the consenting adults who are the potential spouses, and if it is a fundamental right to marry or not marry, then there is no good reason to ban interracial, same-sex, polygamous, or consanguineous marriages.

Someone can think it is weird or disgusting or something they would never do, but a woman, like a man, should be free to marry another woman, or more than one woman, or more than one man, or men and women, or a younger man, even if that younger man is her genetic son she gave up for adoption ...as long as all spouses are consenting adults, it is nobody else's  place to try to stop them. Anyone who says that a woman shouldn't be free to marry the adults who mutually agree is saying she should be a bargaining chip, traded in business deals by her father or brother or uncle.

Not only should she be free to marry the adults who mutually agree, but her sexuality should be her own whether she marries or not. She should be be free to share sex and/or residence, married or not, with and all consenting adults, even of the adult is someone of a different race or her genetic father, so, brother, or aunt.

Again, someone might be shocked by the idea, or be against it, but it shouldn't matter. If someone doesn't want such a relationship, the good news is that they don't have to have one. But there's no good reason they should have any power to stop someone else from being with the consenting adults who mutually agree.

If there are two or more adults who want to be together, whether or not that includes sex,  cohabitation, or marriage, then shouldn't they be allowed to live their lives without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination? It seems to us that we should be encouraging people who want to be together to do so, considering how much strife and animosity there is. We can't force people to like each other, but if they do, we should not try to force them apart.
— — —

No comments:

Post a Comment

To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.

IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE.