From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
Charles Brown wrote:
>
> Is marriage a situation that enhances sex and pleasure attainment ?
>
Probably not, but it certainly enhances the probability that if your companion is injured in an accident the police will let you know what hospital he/she is in. And so forth. And as I understand the law, you can't be compelled to testify against your spouse, but that protection would hardly extend to a live-in companion. There are a number of important rights that go with marriage but would not go with civil unions. Medicare is available to spouses, not to companions or (I assume) to those who have "civil unions." Also social security pensions. Also . . . . .
Carrol
^^^^^ CB: Yes, however, along with the advantages of marriage go the disadvantages of divorce: alimony,loss of half pension, of half property and of custody of children for one spouse, and payment of child support thereby; one person in the world who hates you especially or your own personal enemy. Half of marriages become divorces ( divorce being an ongoing relationship ). That's officially. Some divorcers remain married, and live their unpleasure together.
"Marriage" is marriage/divorce, a unity and struggle of opposites.
And , serious question, is marriage no longer a male supremacist institution ? I assume we all agree it was at one time.
In terms of the basic right to sex and pleasure,as discussed on this thread, isn't promotion of marriage a capitulation to "puritanism" and sexual repression, in some ways ?
Isn't promoting marriage kind of like supporting Kerry ?
Charles