06-20-2003, 09:35 PM
Hi,
I'd put that 'central' purpose a bit differently. The central purpose is to define, within a given social setting, pairings who will procreate and ensure the longevity of the tribe/social group.
I think this is pretty much the same thing I said but in different words. Either way, I think we agree that the purpose of marriage is to aid in the continuing existence of the group. There have been many studies done concerning what the purpose of procreation is (the selfish gene, unless you're a mollusk in which case it's the shellfish gene :) ). There have been all sorts of models as to the best strategy for both the male and female (and that strategy is very species dependent). The (supposedly) monogamous lifetime marriage custom of Western Europe is one solution for compromises between "optimal" strategies for individuals.
However, as you point out below, this is strictly besides the point of this discussion.
The point of this discussion as I see it is precisely this: since the legal aspect of marriage no longer fills the purpose for which it was designed but instead addresses many other aspects of life, what should the requirements of a legal marriage be and why.
How that model applies to a non-breeding pair (woman-woman/man-man) is somewhat dubious, until we look into the well accepted social structure of fostering or adopting children born to someone else. Same gender pairs can live together, just as man-woman pairs can live together, without marriage and get along just fine.
A few comments on this. First, based on the statistics for marriage and children, I would say that a lot of male-female pairs could be included in the "non-breeding" category. After all, whether a pair does not have children because they cannot or because they choose not is moot. The fact that is pertinent is that they do not have children, and so they do not meet the "traditional" requirements for the existence of marriage. Thus, if marriage is to be something other than a way to procreate and care for children, two things need to be determined:
1) Just what is the purpose of marriage given that it is not children?
2) How do we as a society make sure that children *are* cared for in a world where traditional marriage no longer fills that function and the extended family is mostly a thing of the past.
Yes, same gender pairs can live together without marriage. However, consider just health insurance. Many employers (and especially the various governments within the USA) supply health insurance to the spouse of an employee. Now, consider a heterosexual pair who either cannot or will not have children. That pair gets the health insurance because they are "married". But, indeed, they are simply companions with no more commitment than they wish to have (i.e., there would be no question of child support and even alimony (which is a travesty) would be questionable). Now, how is this couple any different from a homosexual couple? Indeed how is the heterosexual couple different from apartment mates of the same sex?
The problem there goes back to the fact that a partnership of any two people without the involvement of children is no more nor less than what those two want it to be. Whether those people cohabit or not, with or without a license, does not matter.
So, if the law requires a contract which goes by the name of "marriage certificate" for a couple to be granted certain benefits, but does not require procreation as a part of that contract, then why should not any couple, regardless of gender, be eligible for those benefits and thus for that certificate?
But given your point that the baseline models are a bit outmoded, certainly in America at present, then what would be the point of codifying as marriage a pairing that is not derived from the very same customary roots?
No point at all. Which is why I feel that the religious aspect of marriage stay the same. Which is why the social aspect of marriage should stay the same. It is the legal aspect of marriage that needs to be changed or dropped entirely. The legal aspect of marriage has *nothing* to do with children (they aren't even a requirement). It has nothing to do with companionship. It has everything to do with tax breaks, with inheritance, with benefits, with insurance, with entering the country as a permanent resident.
And it is exactly in that sense that whatever "marriage" means in the law, it does not mean what you point to with the phrase "customary roots". The fact is that the reality of the legal fact of marriage is not what it was in 1900. Thus, the laws governing it should be changed to reflect the reality of the present situation rather than the fiction that things have not changed. And laws do not change themselves. They are changed by the agitation of the governed or the desire for power of the governors.
Part of the process will be the weeding out, by attrition, of folks who are unwilling to accept that change.
Notice that no one is forcing those that will not accept the change to make any change themselves. It is simply a matter of being open minded enough to admit that a set of circumstances might be right for someone else even though they have no appeal (and possibly a distaste) for oneself.
--Pete
I'd put that 'central' purpose a bit differently. The central purpose is to define, within a given social setting, pairings who will procreate and ensure the longevity of the tribe/social group.
I think this is pretty much the same thing I said but in different words. Either way, I think we agree that the purpose of marriage is to aid in the continuing existence of the group. There have been many studies done concerning what the purpose of procreation is (the selfish gene, unless you're a mollusk in which case it's the shellfish gene :) ). There have been all sorts of models as to the best strategy for both the male and female (and that strategy is very species dependent). The (supposedly) monogamous lifetime marriage custom of Western Europe is one solution for compromises between "optimal" strategies for individuals.
However, as you point out below, this is strictly besides the point of this discussion.
The point of this discussion as I see it is precisely this: since the legal aspect of marriage no longer fills the purpose for which it was designed but instead addresses many other aspects of life, what should the requirements of a legal marriage be and why.
How that model applies to a non-breeding pair (woman-woman/man-man) is somewhat dubious, until we look into the well accepted social structure of fostering or adopting children born to someone else. Same gender pairs can live together, just as man-woman pairs can live together, without marriage and get along just fine.
A few comments on this. First, based on the statistics for marriage and children, I would say that a lot of male-female pairs could be included in the "non-breeding" category. After all, whether a pair does not have children because they cannot or because they choose not is moot. The fact that is pertinent is that they do not have children, and so they do not meet the "traditional" requirements for the existence of marriage. Thus, if marriage is to be something other than a way to procreate and care for children, two things need to be determined:
1) Just what is the purpose of marriage given that it is not children?
2) How do we as a society make sure that children *are* cared for in a world where traditional marriage no longer fills that function and the extended family is mostly a thing of the past.
Yes, same gender pairs can live together without marriage. However, consider just health insurance. Many employers (and especially the various governments within the USA) supply health insurance to the spouse of an employee. Now, consider a heterosexual pair who either cannot or will not have children. That pair gets the health insurance because they are "married". But, indeed, they are simply companions with no more commitment than they wish to have (i.e., there would be no question of child support and even alimony (which is a travesty) would be questionable). Now, how is this couple any different from a homosexual couple? Indeed how is the heterosexual couple different from apartment mates of the same sex?
The problem there goes back to the fact that a partnership of any two people without the involvement of children is no more nor less than what those two want it to be. Whether those people cohabit or not, with or without a license, does not matter.
So, if the law requires a contract which goes by the name of "marriage certificate" for a couple to be granted certain benefits, but does not require procreation as a part of that contract, then why should not any couple, regardless of gender, be eligible for those benefits and thus for that certificate?
But given your point that the baseline models are a bit outmoded, certainly in America at present, then what would be the point of codifying as marriage a pairing that is not derived from the very same customary roots?
No point at all. Which is why I feel that the religious aspect of marriage stay the same. Which is why the social aspect of marriage should stay the same. It is the legal aspect of marriage that needs to be changed or dropped entirely. The legal aspect of marriage has *nothing* to do with children (they aren't even a requirement). It has nothing to do with companionship. It has everything to do with tax breaks, with inheritance, with benefits, with insurance, with entering the country as a permanent resident.
And it is exactly in that sense that whatever "marriage" means in the law, it does not mean what you point to with the phrase "customary roots". The fact is that the reality of the legal fact of marriage is not what it was in 1900. Thus, the laws governing it should be changed to reflect the reality of the present situation rather than the fiction that things have not changed. And laws do not change themselves. They are changed by the agitation of the governed or the desire for power of the governors.
Part of the process will be the weeding out, by attrition, of folks who are unwilling to accept that change.
Notice that no one is forcing those that will not accept the change to make any change themselves. It is simply a matter of being open minded enough to admit that a set of circumstances might be right for someone else even though they have no appeal (and possibly a distaste) for oneself.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?