Post #394,297
9/9/14 10:18:54 AM
9/9/14 10:20:23 AM
|
It may be narrow, but I claim it's logical.
It's one I was taught as a child. You don't need to be married to love someone. Mores have changed so much in my lifetime that the "stigma" of "shacking up" is gone. Moreover, the stigma of having "illegitimate children" is also largely gone. One could argue that there is no longer any reason for marriage at all. There are far easier methods of achieving visitation rights, end-of-life decision making authority, and so on without marrying.
(Aside: "Illegitimate children" is an interesting phrase, don't you think? Illegitimate means lacking legality. How are children born "legally?" They're parents are married at the time of their birth, of course. Does this not suggest further that my definition of marriage was, at least at one time, the prevailing understanding?)
You say my narrow definition doesn't match the wider societal definition. That may or may not be true. I do not have (and have not researched) how many married couples capable of producing children do so, but I'd guess that is the most common result. In any case, the meaning of the term has now evolved into a term that ambiguously defines multiple sorts of relationships. In the end, all we've really lost is precision in describing legal relationships.
Edit: I hasten to point out that my definition of marriage does absolutely not preclude love. It's not possible for me to imagine coming to the decision that you want to bear and raise children with a person whom you do not love.
Edited by mmoffitt
Sept. 9, 2014, 10:20:23 AM EDT
It may be narrow, but I claim it's logical.
It's one I was taught as a child. You don't need to be married to love someone. Mores have changed so much in my lifetime that the "stigma" of "shacking up" is gone. Moreover, the stigma of having "illegitimate children" is also largely gone. One could argue that there is no longer any reason for marriage at all. There are far easier methods of achieving visitation rights, end-of-life decision making authority, and so on without marrying.
(Aside: "Illegitimate children" is an interesting phrase, don't you think? Illegitimate means lacking legality. How are children born "legally?" They're parents are married at the time of their birth, of course. Does this not suggest further that my definition of marriage was, at least at one time, the prevailing understanding?)
You say my narrow definition doesn't match the wider societal definition. That may or may not be true. I do not have (and have not researched) how many married couples capable of producing children do so, but I'd guess that is the most common result. In any case, the meaning of the term has now evolved into a term that ambiguously defines multiple sorts of relationships. In the end, all we've really lost is precision in describing legal relationships.
|
Post #394,336
9/9/14 3:50:48 PM
|
But marriage isn't logical.
People get married because they love each other. Take one look at the rings, the honeymoon, all of that stuff: it doesn't scream "CHILDREN". Children are generally expected from married heterosexual couples, but society also expects that people who love each other get married, whether they want kids or not. Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #394,340
9/9/14 4:10:16 PM
|
Well, it should be. It's a contract.
But if I grant that marriage is an expectation of people being in love today, I think that idea is time limited. I was taught to believe that people should get married if and only if they intend to have children because of the stigma attached to the children (the "bastards", IOW), not to the parents. Since "living together" is no longer considered a vice, and no shame is associated with having been born out of wedlock, I believe "marriage" today has precious little value. Marriage belongs to a bygone era.
|
Post #394,342
9/9/14 4:43:49 PM
|
Your vows must have been very interesting.
I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part. I don't see "children" in there. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #394,364
9/10/14 8:55:37 AM
|
Heh.
My uncle had written our vows and I honestly don't remember them. What I do remember is why I wanted to marry my wife: to start a family with her. But, I've already said that. ;0)
|
Post #394,350
9/9/14 9:15:05 PM
|
Reminds me of Humpty Dumpty.
Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." Alex
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
|
Post #394,352
9/9/14 10:48:44 PM
|
thats the old, you knocked her up you have to marry her
meme, hasnt been in force for a looong time Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
|
Post #394,360
9/10/14 7:10:07 AM
|
Ah, but
|
