transcription: just saw a straight woman CONFIDENTLY say lesbian marriage isnt a real marriage its just “two best friends who get each other off” and like bestie, idk what has gone wrong in your life but thats exactly what marriage is supposed to be, regardless of the genders involved. as opposed to real marriage, where you have two people who dislike each other and dont get each other off.

  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Historically marriage used to be a legal relationship for the purpose of discussing who takes care of the children. Children are really expensive and if it isn’t cleared uo who’s responsible for them, you end up with a situation where nobody seems responsible for them and the children suffer. To prevent that situation, marriage was introduced.

    • Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      I learned at my local humane society that when it was established it was for looking after unwanted children because children were considered chattel. I think marriage was a business transaction, at least in western cultures.

    • Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 days ago

      Marriage was the sale of goods in trade for goods or a further trading relationship.

      The goods were a woman and a dowry, the trade was two families having a long term business relationship or if it was royalty then a short or long term peace treaty between countries or fiefdoms.

      Likely the discussion of children in case of rich families and royalty back in the day, was how many wet nurses and maids were needed to take care of the children so they could be not seen and not heard until they were adults.

    • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zoneM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I doubt this is true. They probably had more to do with binding households together than any consideration of the well being of anyone involved. Our modern concept of raising children past the age of 6 isn’t even that old.

      • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        You still have to raise them to 6 though? And also yeah, binding households together is a significant thing, mostly among nobility. for commoners, that’s not such a big topic, as there’s no “political alliances” to be made.