Welcome to Gaia! ::

Marriage obsolete?

Discuss?

"Three of 5 people said a same-sex couple with children was a family."

"Beginning next year, the Census Bureau will publish new, supplemental poverty figures that move away from the traditional concept of family as a husband and wife with two children. It will broaden the definition to include unmarried couples, such as same-sex partners, as well as foster children who are not related by blood or adoption.

I do think it is about time. I believe that a family is a group of people who love each other. It doesn't always have to be through blood and marriage.
I always viewed the basis of the history of marriage as nothing more than a man trying to ensure the paternity of his children and to build a family line. It is only in the last few centuries that marriage became more about love and emotional support than anything else.

my beef with marriage is that it is religious. It is, and it tramples on Human rights, without marriage you can;t get the same things, i.e. insurance benefits, tax cuts, ect. it's ridiculous.

By that definition, it obviously is. The rate of divorce has indicated that children are either raised by a single parent (usually a mother) or have their time divided amongst two parents (still the primary caregivers are typically women).

The nuclear family hasn't really worked out for a long time.


Marriage as defined by the christian right is obviously fabricated (it existed strictly as an ideal and never really was real, let alone relevant), however I would contend that by all accounts marriage is.

I would say that the institution of marriage has little place, with the rate of extramarital relations being over half the married population, and with a similar rate of divorce. I think our perceptions on relationships are rather naive given these realities.

Frankly, I think any group of people who love each other can qualify as a family.

Anyway, the article also says this about marriage:
"Despite a growing view that marriage may not be necessary, 67 percent of Americans were upbeat about the future of marriage and family. That's higher than their optimism for the nation's educational system (50 percent), economy (46 percent) or its morals and ethics (41 percent)."

Woah, that sucks. In defense of the hospitals, they have to be SO careful these days. If they are not POSITIVE you are LEGALLY next of kin according to their blanket policy that coincides with current legal precedings, they can again be sued for discrimination, breach of doctor-patient confidentiality, even mal-practice if certain key medical facts (like a latex allergy) are omitted by whoever is giving them the family medical history. Also, NoK often have compatible tissue for donation if that's required. Hospitals are really caught in EVERYONE's crossfire. scream

Honestly, I don't think the government has a right to say who gets "married" to whom. Legally speaking, marriage is just a tax union. It just needs to be legally broadened to cover all situations.

i completely agree. >.> it's just ridiculous. It's either religious, and therefore NOT to be governed by the gov't OR it's not, and in that case, the religious reasons for denying people the chance to marry are invalid, not to mention it is a constitutional issue....

the thing about Marriage, is that it has always been an Institution of pairing up for the sake of becoming a Family. if we are to understand Marriage, we have to understand what a Family is, and the Histories behind the definitions of both words.

let's start with Family. a Family originally meant an extended Tribe. the Tribal Unit is the most Instinctual and Sacred of all Human Units. so it can be said that a Family is the Group of people.

Family has since shrunk to define only those related by Blood, and then again to only define a single household. this is where Marriage ties in. in the former case, Marriage was a union meant to unify Families; this gave them political strength. in the latter case, Marriage was meant to pair a Man and Woman off for the sake of Procreation. in either case, the Institution was Religiously Sanctioned, because Religion is what guided the People, both Politically and Ethically.

nowadways, nobody needs to be Married to be a Family. the sad truth is that too many folks still don't recognize this yet, and are too stubborn to adapt to social changes. Marriage as defined by the Church is outdated. it needs redefinition.

second, let's take a look at the History of Marriage. it has for the majority of it's existence been a Religious Institution. but in modern times a considerable minority of Weddings have been officiated by non-religious figures of Authority, or were purposely conducted as Secular Ceremonies or non-ceremoniously. the idea that Marriage and Religion are co-dependent is false, and also outdated. unfortunately, again, too many people refuse to accept this.

and it only hurts the Community. yes, anyone living tgetherfor 10 years can get the legal benefits of Marriage, and in some States same-sex couples can get some of these benefits.... but it's not enough. why can't anyone just get all the benefits as quickly and on-the-spot as two folks of opposite genders? and why can't same-sex couples who WANT a Religious and/or legally recognized Ceremony and Contract (complete with FULL Marriage Benefits) get that, along with all the Respect and Recognition of anyone else? it is unfair, clumsy, and leaves too many cracks for people to fall through.

Marriage as Defined by the Church is outdated, and so is Family as Defined by the Church.