What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Status
Not open for further replies.
joecct said:
Time and the place. If there was a population imbalance then polyamory would be more acceptable. As it is, as long as you don't use the "m" word, you can live in a poly arrangement today.
Click to expand...

One of the best "debates" that occurs in Dr Strangelove, no? :D
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

FreshFish said:
Read several extremely fascinating articles recently on this topic. If this thread gains any traction, I'll post some excerpts.

Basically, two different models which are pretty much incompatible.

One model posits that "marriage" is primarily a social institution whose main purpose is to promote inter-generational stability: love, sex, children, lifetime commitment to the other partner, all are interconnected to form a social unit called the "family" and it is a vehicle by which we bring children from infancy to self-sufficiency and adulthood so that they can then repeat the process and perpetuate a healthy society.

A different model posits that "marriage" is primarily devoted to the pleasure and enjoyment that the partners find in being with each other. The purpose of marriage is to have society recognize that these two people share a special bond between them. Thanks to birth control, you can have plenty of sex without getting married; if you can't find a decent man, you can still have children if you want and raise them on your own. The interconnectedness of the traditional model is all severed; each of the elements that had previously been interconnected now all stand separately, each on its own.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're talking bout marriage and not-marriage, not two incompatible forms of marriage. Having sex without getting married/having children without getting married is not a form of marriage.

Are you trying to distinguish based upon whether the marriage results in natural born children? Both of your "models" involve two adults sharing a special bond, presumably with a lifetime commitment, love, sex and family. In one they raise children together, in the other...people raise children outside of marriage? I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Marriage is that thing people shove in my face to boast my difficulties with the fair sex.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

DisplacedCornellian said:
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make.
Click to expand...

It was a distinction made by other writers that clicked an "aha" kind of lightbulb in my head. I probably just botched up how they presented their ideas, and for that I apologize for the confusion.

What is the societal purpose of marriage?

> it serves a social function by establishing a sociological unit called a "family" in which each person's interests are subsumed to the greater good of the whole, for the primary purpose of raising children to a responsible and productive adulthood.

or

> it serves a social function by asking society to recognize that a special bond exists between two people. The primary focus is on those two people. Children might be involved in some situations, but child-rearing is a secondary function. The self-fulfillment of the spouses is primary.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Gurtholfin said:
So, you're just curious how people feel about this and when it predictably devolves into a right vs. left **** storm you'll be disappointed and shocked? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I won't be shocked or surprised, no. I'd be mildly disappointed but hey what might one expect? I've actually learned a few new things already so far.


It seems to me that this isn't a "right vs left" kind of situation; it's more "rich" vs "poor", and in some cases, "older" vs "younger"

the traditional definition served the poor pretty well by giving their lives stability and focus. for the rich, the "modern" definition is just fine, but when the poor adopt it they wind up screwed even worse than before. Murphy Brown can be a successfull single mother, she can afford the live-in nanny, and make it look glamorous, fun and exciting. Not sure if Molly Brown can "enjoy" the same experience....
 
Last edited:
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

"Marriage is when we admit our parents were right"

 
Last edited:
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

FreshFish said:
It was a distinction made by other writers that clicked an "aha" kind of lightbulb in my head. I probably just botched up how they presented their ideas, and for that I apologize for the confusion.

What is the societal purpose of marriage?

> it serves a social function by establishing a sociological unit called a "family" in which each person's interests are subsumed to the greater good of the whole, for the primary purpose of raising children to a responsible and productive adulthood.

or

> it serves a social function by asking society to recognize that a special bond exists between two people. The primary focus is on those two people. Children might be involved in some situations, but child-rearing is a secondary function. The self-fulfillment of the spouses is primary.
Click to expand...

Any particular reason it has to be either/or and not AND? I think you're creating a false dichotomy.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

DisplacedCornellian said:
With such witty repartee and millionaire friends on your side, I am SHOCKED you have trouble with the ladies.
Click to expand...

It's not so much repelling women as it is getting friend-zoned, which is code for "he's absolutely worthless but I don't want to hurt his feelings". I used to perform in musicals; I understand sub-text.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top