Bright Copper Kettles

Other relationship types have the same legal and property rights. So if the word is so un-important, why are people so adamant about wanting to use it?
 

Yeha, yeah. I know the rules about commenting twice in sucession. However, this quote seemed like one you might like.

Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
- Walter Lippmann
 

TCM, there are rules about commenting twice? Not on my blog :)

As well as not understanding the defense of the marriage word I also don't understand why people are so adamant about using it.

My totally unsubstantiated made-up-out-of-thin-air-theory about it is this:
People who don't fit in to what is considered the "normal" society (eg gays) get sick of feeling like outcasts. They face a lot of discrimination on a regular basis. So when people tell them, no you can't use the marriage word because you aren't like us it feels like even more rejection. I think maybe the stand for the ability to marry is a stand to say yes we are a valid and important part of society and representative of lots of things as well as marriage.

I also think you can't stop people from using a word....and that a society that tries to do that is not a society I want to be part of. I think you are on the "you are free to do what you like but leave the word 'marriage' for a man and a woman" side?

Why? Would it be as offensive if a gay couple told people they were married even thought they weren't actually legally married? What about if the gay couple are not legally married, and dont tell others they are married, but htink of themselves as married? Is that OK?
 

Ah, commenting twice makes you look fanatical and I don't do long flowing beards and prophetic eyes very well. But yup, I am on the side that wants 'marriage' for a man and a woman but trying to explain why is difficult. It's different being married - things change. Perspectives change, attitudes change. I used to believe in very Liberal viewpoints until I got married, for example.

So why does everybody want to get married? Because of their love for eachother? But they could have that love without being married. Then is it their commitment to eachother? But they could have that commitment without being married as well. (Yeah, maybe fear ... but that doesn't seem like the prime motivator for me) Eventually though that married union creates a child unless through some biological reason the couple cannot have children. And that is ultimately the reason/result of marriage. A family as it has been for thousands and thousands of years. Whilst there are always outliers the majority of families consisting of mother, father and children are the solid building blocks of a community and a healthy society. This is not to say that homosexual couples are inferior. This is not to say that single-parent families are deficient. Nor does it mean that traditional family units are perfect - many cases of them are totally mucked up.

A Russian colleague told me in earlier days bachelors were taxed higher than married couples with children. The reason being that those parents took up the responsibility to raise a child which penalised them financially and socially. At the same time, on a very raw resource level, they were creating something that would be of benefit to the society in tax payments and a variety of other ways. The bachelors had a real easy life, and thus the decision was made to tax them more to put them on equal footing with married with children couples.

I laughed at that, but there is a glimmer of truth in the responsibilities that traditionally married couples take on. Their lives change - you've noticed the selfsame change in your friends. Suddenly life becomes more about another person than about yourself and while it's wonderful you suddenly realise that things like free time to relax, to go watch Narnia or King Kong are simply gone. I can't even remember when the last time was I actually managed to get into a nice restaurant and can't see it happening anytime soon. And that's not even counting the impact financially. It is a sacrifice - one I'm sure all parents would gladly make many times over.

I think most of the people arguing *for* marriage remaining a word for man and woman are arguing for something special for themselves. Maybe a distinguishing feature? (My evil thinking twin says: Mark of the Beast!) But I likened it in this post to the French's use of the word Champagne. Perhaps it is for a a bit of recognition of the work and responsibility going into a marriage / child producing union? I think that is "why". But a more accurate answer would be: "Because it feels right". And that sounds silly, but as you rightly pointed out though, the whole debate is silly because people will think whatever they want to anyway.

Maybe I am just an old, crusty, conservative though, but to me the cornerstone of a society is the family. There is a biological and social balance to it that will generally ensure well adjusted children and thus a future generation for all of us. And I kinda like that idea of white picket fences and happy families.
 

Oh. I think the whole Champagne thing is silly too :)

The creating a child thing is not a factor of marriage either. Lots of marriages don't produce children and lots of non-marriages do. Lots of "traditional" marriages bring their kids up in less than ideal ways. Lots of non traditional relationships bring kids up in really good ways.

A family as it has been for thousands and thousands of years
For some people, in some societies.

families consisting of mother, father and children are the solid building blocks of a community and a healthy society
I disagree - and I think neither of us will convince the other. A nuclear family is seen as the solid building blocks of the type of community you want to live in. A nuclear family is seen as one of several different types of building blocks in the community I want to live in. Community and family are important, but I don't see that it has to be mostly traditional families. Of course, I am not exactly a conservative and I associate with freaks and geeks :)

I think that it is very unlikely that a community based soley on the traditional nuclear family will survive that far into the future. It will have to change or divide. I think that the increase in diversity and freedom (population, communication, travel, healthcare) means that the basic building blocks of society can't remain the same and cater to the majority of people.

Perhaps it is for a a bit of recognition of the work and responsibility going into a marriage / child producing union? I think that is "why"
Raising children is a sacrifice, but it is also a gift - those bachelors were being taxed in more ways than just financially. Although the raising children aspect has nothing to do with the word marriage. Sometimes children and marriage occur together. Sometimes they do not. Perhaps you are arguing for the word marriage to be reserved from those committed heterosexual male and female couples who conceive and raise children together?

the cornerstone of a society is the family. There is a biological and social balance to it that will generally ensure well adjusted children and thus a future generation for all of us
I agree with this. Perhaps our differences come about from our definition of "family".

"a more accurate answer would be: Because it feels right"
That is a good answer :) I suspect that everyone who wants to get married would give the same answer.

BTW...can people own a word?
 

I'd be interested to hear of societies where the majority of families consisted of other social groupings. Particularly if they still existed.

Lots of "traditional" marriages bring their kids up in less than ideal ways. this though might be part of the arguments for moral conservatism. Children used to be the province of marriage, perhaps why marriage and family goes hand in hand when viewed with a certain dictionary. The one results in the other to my mind, because if children are not a factor there is no real point to getting married, is there? Then a de-facto relationship would grant you the same legal status and all that marriage adds onto it is the religious/personal promise to one-another. But that you could have without getting married.
 

BTW...

Microsoft.

I'm pretty sure that's a word, but in some circles you might get your mouth washed out for using it ;)
 

Disregarding what we think of Microsoft :p I don't think you should be able to own words. Of course, with all the law type stuff you probably can.

Re the other societies thing: I have no idea. I could be totally wrong about it, it just feels like I'm not totally wrong. I have a sort of example...I am part Fijian. Nowadays (post missionary fear of God instilling) marriage is VERY important in Fiji. Despite this, the family structure is different - it does not feel like a nuclear family, it feels more like a community/village. I doubt that feeling has changed much since marriage was introduced. Yes there is a Mother and a Father and kids, but there are also grandmothers and aunties and uncles and cousins and there are a lot of them. Children are often "brought up" more by other family members.

The Fijian side of my family feels bigger and different to the Pakeha traditional nuclear Both the Fijian and Pakeha sides of my family involve "marriage." But "family" nd "marriage" feel differemnt on each side...there are different roles, expectations, responsibilities, definitions of who is family. Without a doubt my Fijian family is both more cohesive, inclusive, extensive and unconditionally supportive than my Pakeha family. There are negative and postive aspects to both, but they both work.
 

Ok, that makes sense. I've long gotten the impression that in most British colonies the traditional Pakeha 'families' are isolated from the larger family grouping. There's probably no basis for it, but it does seem that way some days.

If I make a word up though, can I own it? Then I might just step out of this debate and call what me and the wif have "zooplefish". Then everybody else can do with marriage what they will...
 

Zooplefish?! :) A perfect end to this debate because really there is no answet.

Although, I'd run that word past the wif before referring to your marriage as zooplefish...