Wow...
While I've been on the road and gone for 24 hours - I've been mulling over this thread. I am just now reading the posts after mine.
You guys must be an amalgam of what goes on in the US Congress. Bickering and bickering and posturing for your own agendas...
You know....we could all get together and propose a plan of action here in the US and then Australia may follow.
I came up with these ideas and would like someone to find the "illogic" in my logic.
We could draft it in the form of a petition - get it posted on that website that promotes new ideas and changes in law - and then get it moved to social networks for people to sign.
It goes like this:
1. We get Congress to change the words in all laws from "marriage" to "civil unions".
This would grant equality in civil rights areas including but not limited to: HIPPA/Adoption/Taxes/Discrimination etc.
2. We get Congress to pass a law stating any persons entering into a Civil Union must take Parenting Classes.
In my state the Department of State Health Services provides Evidenced Based Parenting Training classes taught by a social worker to people who are involved with the Women's Infant Children program and Child Protective Services.
This is probably a requirement for all states who accept federal funding. The only people who would be exempt from having to take the classes would be people who provided medical proof they were unable to have children. I absolutely LOVE this idea because it sets precedence for the concept of training people to be better parents. The classes don't teach or preach morals/values/ethics. They teach parents the developmental stages of children - the responsibilities of each parent towards their children during the stages - better communication techniques between the parents and the family in general - and all kinds of information they should have been taught before they became parents. imho - it should be taught to all seniors in high school. Anyway it would show to the citizens that children are a priority. Wouldn't it be awesome to get a chance to teach all people a bit of developmental psychology - whether they have children or not.
3. The word "Marriage" would be reserved for any religious doctrines who wanted to keep it viable among their traditions and rites as they deem appropriate for their religion. Anyone wishing to get "married" must obtain a Civil Union license and they too would have to take the Parenting Classes. This allows groups of people who hold to the same ideals maintain their cultural mores and family traditions. They wouldn't feel threatened by the government forcing them to accept a revision in the definition of the word.
Soooo....what do you think?
In your proposal, thinking about it a little more than my past opinions, I don't think the term "marriage" should be rendered to basically mean some sort of religious thing. Marriage is not a function of some religious beliefs, but rather religions seem to ceremonise, or sacralise marriage, to emphasise its importance/dignity/gravity/etc.
I think an entirely secular culture should also have means of marking the gravity/seriousness of the married state.
Why?
To answer, first of all, I don't want it assumed that I am talking about marriage in terms of two people walking down an aisle and being legally and morally bound to each other. I want to look at the bigger picture - about how marriage fits into human society - and the role it plays not just in the lives of individuals, but in terms of whole peoples. (After all, government legislation isn't about shaping individual's lives, but about maintaining a society, where individuals can function safely and freely).
It is an absurd notion, that ceremonies, or legal status should be afforded to two individuals who promise to love each other for life. You simply don't find a ceremony, or law for the establishment of Best Friends Forever - a BFF service at a courthouse. Nor is there an initiation/service/etc. for establishing a commited sexual relationship - no one goes to a civil celebrant before moving in with someone. What then makes marriage different from life-long best friends, or life-long sex partners? It simply cannot be a ramped-up or more serious version of either of those two things. Nor is it the amalgamation of the two: for it is common for best friend/sex partners deciding to finally marry after several years.
The only reason why there is a more public/official/legal/religionised is because some categories go beyond just the commitment of the partners, and go beyond the level of involvement of the partners. Some relationships are important to the good functioning of a society.
Given the relatively short lifespan of a human and the constant turn-over of the population - the process through which an individual is conceived, born, raised and integrated into a society, or culture is of very great importance to that society/culture. It is also of very great importance to the parents and family of that child - or at least it should be. There is in the raising of any child two factors at play: the significance of that process to the society; and the significance to the parents. You could add a third factor, which is the significance of the process to the child, but until the child reaches the age of majority (ie. no longer a child), the responsibility for determining the best for the child lies both with the state and with the parents/guardians.
When there is a conflict of interests between the state and parents you get either legal enforcement, or emigration - and sometimes, rarely, reform. For example, if parents neglect the education of a child, purposefully or by remiss interest, the state will override their perogative. Conversely, when a state enforces a manner of education contrary to the will of the parents, the parents can take their child elsewhere. Most significantly, however, is the state's interest that parents raise their children well. The first keystone in this expectation, is the expectation that both parents should normally be involved in the raising of children. In terms of state recognition of personal relationships - it seems that the state should only really have an interest in relationships which are ordered towards the conceiving and raising of children.
In terms of the topic of this thread, if there is a problem at present (in my opinion) - it is that among heterosexual couples there is a growing conceptual disconnect between marriage and the raising of a family. If a heterosexual couple want to love each other for ever - they should promise to be BFF. If a heterosexual couple want to have ongoing sexual relations, they should move in together. Marriage, however, imo should be what you do, when you intend to raise a family.
Expanding marriage to include not just those heterosexual couples who really only want to lifelong friends with benefits, but also homosexual couples basically implies that there is no particular interest on the part of the state in how the next generation of society will be raised and integrated into the current one.
So, my position is not only that homosexual couples should have a distinct category - say civil unions - but also that marriage be more restrictive for heterosexual couples - so that a significant (probably not large) proportion should actually be categorised in civil unions and not married.
In briefest terms: both heterosexual and homosexual couples should be termed civil unions, and marriage be reserved for family-raising couples.
Homosexuality tarnishes marriage but having affairs or getting divorced or abusing your spouse doesn't?
There is no such thing as the sacred institution of marriage. It is such an unrealistic and impractical idea to expect society to not evolve because it makes you uncomfortable.
Gay marriage WILL be legal. If not in this generation then the next. Support for gay marriage has been rising since the mid 90s.
Keep your own marriage "holy" if that is the concern. And why should you care if other people don't want to be married?
Putting "marriage" on an ivory tower - either seriously - or as a straw man target - isn't helpful. I suspect that it is partly this aspect - the rarefication of marriage - that is fueling the drive for homosexual marriage. You poke at the religious gilding of marriage, calling it the epitome of religious life: 'holy' - I hope you are as gruff with the secular gilding of marriage, making it the epitome of secular life: 'romantic' 'sign of acceptance' 'status' ,etc. I think a nitty-gritty approach, without talk of idealistic portraits of couples with undying love, visiting each other on deathbeds and images of social acceptance and status is best.
My view of marriage is almost farm-like an rural. If you are going to raise children, get married. Why else would you bother?
I think the issue of child rearing and early childhood practice is the most important one for a culture to be aware of and invested in. This is, in no uncertain terms, the basis of our society and our civilisation. Our concepts of relationships, family and child rearing has been constantly changing throughout history and different cultures have vastly diverse ideals.
I did share your views regarding family. I thought that the nuclear family with clear gender role models was the ideal situation for a child to be born in, preferably with lots of love and interaction from grand-parents and extended family as well. In practice this situation rarely occurs in this manner. We all have our idiosyncratic issues and communication problems that we bring into our families, that we pass onto the next generation.
There are many broken homes and unhappy people out there. There are millions of unwanted pregnancies.There are millions and millions of neglected children. There are millions of children in orphanages. There is a lot of domestic violence and abuse against spouses and children. These problems occur because there is a lack of love, self awareness, honesty and ability to communicate. These problems are apparent and capable of occurring in any family dynamic- heterosexual or homosexual relationships. There are also a lot of happy and well adjusted people out there that have secure attachments and know how to love- this can be facilitated in both heterosexual and homosexual families, as long as there is love and willingness to communicate.
I do not think that the state should be able to dictate how humans conduct their most intimate of affairs- relationships and child rearing, aside from providing rules and conditions to prevent abuse and violence, basically the upholding of human rights for all. I think that human rights is a sore issue here, given that most children around the world and even in the minority world do not have full access to human rights. I see this as more of a cultural issue than a legal one. As a culture we do not value love, communication, freedom, responsibility and learning. Rather, we value security, competition, selfish behaviour and instant gratification. These are the issues that create the instability and inherent abuse in our relationships and families. When people are worried about personal security and pleasing themselves rather than caring for their children and their neighbours children.
We need to foster more openness, sharing and honesty in our culture, endeavour to live in a community as opposed to an economy. These are the steps that can heal our families and give children every opportunity to be the best people they can be. Ideally, it takes a village to raise a child, not just a couple. Exposure to many different people, lots of knowledge, sharing, and Love.
One of the cruellest things to do to a child is to isolate them and deprive them of freedom and social interaction. Its through exposure and experience that we learn, particularly children. No one person can raise a well rounded and balanced child by themselves successfully. Nor can a couple achieve this. We need each other, support and interaction from the greater community. Then whatever context we have children in- whether it be in homosexual relationships or heterosexual relationships, the children will have the best chance.
Childcare and education are two areas we need to invest significantly into. Teachers and child care workers should receive the highest esteem to be involved in perhaps the most significant, respectable and honourable work one can do within a community. There are many life skills that are now dying out because parents of the last two generations have not been able to teach their children- cooking, gardening, budgeting, critical thinking, conserving resources. There also needs to be much more emphasis on teaching teenagers not only about sexual health and pregnancy, but about everything that comes afterward- child rearing. This is the most important stage of the life span yet such little emphasis, knowledge and support is available to those most vulnerable- young parents and their children. Raising children is the most difficult and important thing that any human could do in their lifetime, and ideally we should be aware and ready before bringing another life into this world. More often than not, that is not the case however. I believe in complete sexual and fertility freedom, I would never ever support forced sterilisation or compulsory contraceptive use. These are a personal affair at the individual's discretion. If a pregnancy is unplanned, the rest of the community should come together to provide what support and Love is necessary, for the parents and for the child No one can or should have to do this alone. All children are equally worthy of all our love. Our children are the future and they deserve the very best we have to give. This can be achieved through cultural change, not through specific definitions of marriage. As long as the children have love, and access to the greater community and resources, I cannot see how it would make a difference if a child was raised by two men or two women or by a single parent, or any other family dynamic.
Exactly. Although, the child's actual parents have an obligation to raise this or that particular child. Adoptive parents do not.
When there is an obligation, there must also be support to be able to fulfill that obligation.
