06-20-2003, 03:34 PM
Hi,
What I don't remember is laws getting changed. "They {Variations on communal living} do not seem to have caught on" may very well be because they are not only still not recognized, but actually illegal in many places. Making something illegal does seem to drive it underground.
Then there are those who work to actively destroy the very concept of marriage
Which concept of marriage? The traditional christian, Western European concept, as I've said in other posts, is dead. Has been since restricting procreation by means other than abstinence became a choice. Everything aside, the *central* purpose of marriage is the care of the children. With the large percentage of children without marriage and the large percentage of marriage without children, that concept covers nearly nothing.
The social and religious aspects of marriage can remain whatever tradition wishes them to be. Individuals can choose to accept those any way they want to. For the legal aspect, if the purpose of legal marriage is to provide for a *family* (and not just a couple), then make a *family* the requirement. Make laws favoring and benefits for marriage apply only to a family. In other words, children must be involved. So, a couple of opposite or same sex are not a marriage *in the eyes of the law* until either a female becomes pregnant or a child is adopted. They remain "married" for the purpose of tax and other benefits only as long as they have a "minor" child living at home. As for ownership of property and other long term effects that are not related to children, let them, if they wish, sign a contract.
However, to say that marriage is and must be what eleventh century christians adopted as a social norm is limited thinking. It neither accepts the concept that other people's solutions to the same problem may be equally valid nor does it accept the fact that many factors have changed extensively in the last *millennium*.
--Pete
What I don't remember is laws getting changed. "They {Variations on communal living} do not seem to have caught on" may very well be because they are not only still not recognized, but actually illegal in many places. Making something illegal does seem to drive it underground.
Then there are those who work to actively destroy the very concept of marriage
Which concept of marriage? The traditional christian, Western European concept, as I've said in other posts, is dead. Has been since restricting procreation by means other than abstinence became a choice. Everything aside, the *central* purpose of marriage is the care of the children. With the large percentage of children without marriage and the large percentage of marriage without children, that concept covers nearly nothing.
The social and religious aspects of marriage can remain whatever tradition wishes them to be. Individuals can choose to accept those any way they want to. For the legal aspect, if the purpose of legal marriage is to provide for a *family* (and not just a couple), then make a *family* the requirement. Make laws favoring and benefits for marriage apply only to a family. In other words, children must be involved. So, a couple of opposite or same sex are not a marriage *in the eyes of the law* until either a female becomes pregnant or a child is adopted. They remain "married" for the purpose of tax and other benefits only as long as they have a "minor" child living at home. As for ownership of property and other long term effects that are not related to children, let them, if they wish, sign a contract.
However, to say that marriage is and must be what eleventh century christians adopted as a social norm is limited thinking. It neither accepts the concept that other people's solutions to the same problem may be equally valid nor does it accept the fact that many factors have changed extensively in the last *millennium*.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?