Definitions of Marriage

[Psychic Missile]

It starts with the revolutionary and controversial observations that sex makes babies, and that children are more likely to thrive when both parents are around. By binding man and woman together as husband and wife, it helps ensure that they will both be present as father and mother respectively to however many children their sexual union produces.

Why wouldn't children thrive with more than two parents, or two people who aren't their parents, or one person who is their parent and one person who isn't, or both parents until they are an adult?

Any time someone ends an account of philosophical history with "for the first time," I die a little inside.

When it comes to marriage, interracial and gay marriage are the first time moral philosophy has come into play. No other redefinition has considered what's best for the two people getting married since its early days in Egypt.

An accident of adoption law, and one that I'm perfectly fine with given that there are currently more couples waiting to adopt than there are infants in need of homes, and given that no one has a right to have children. Foster care is another problem entirely.

An accident? Isn't it as it should be since you think marriage should involve two parents raising a child?

[Spartacus]

Why wouldn't children thrive with more than two parents, or two people who aren't their parents, or one person who is their parent and one person who isn't, or both parents until they are an adult?

Biologically speaking, a child can't have more than two parents. This doesn't, and indeed shouldn't, exclude extended families and communities from the process of child-rearing, but every child, insofar as it is possible, should have the opportunity to be loved by both of their natural parents.

In other words, only a complete moron (or perhaps a radical individualist, but I repeat myself) would suggest that child-rearing should take place in a context other than a wider network of interpersonal connections through which the child develops a sense of self and an understanding of their own talents and the corresponding obligations those talents place on them with respect to the rest of the community. However, the nuclear family plays a key role in this system, and cannot be ignored-- it is not and cannot be an island, but it is a key unit nonetheless.

When it comes to marriage, interracial and gay marriage are the first time moral philosophy has come into play. No other redefinition has considered what's best for the two people getting married since its early days in Egypt.

Anti-miscegenation laws and sentiments were in fact products of race theory in the wake of the enlightenment without strong historical precedent (if Spanish conquistadors thought race-mixing in marriage was wrong, we would not have Mexicans), and institutions like marriage arose independently of Egyptian cultural influence in various parts of the world.

Furthermore, moral philosophers dating back at least as far as Aristotle and not excluding Aquinas wrote at length on marriage. To say that this is the first time moral philosophy has been applied to the institution of marriage is to make it clear that you know even less about the history of moral philosophy than I do... or at the very least that I should be more careful about typing angry rants in the wee hours of the morning.

An accident? Isn't it as it should be since you think marriage should involve two parents raising a child?

If there were more children in need than married couples ready to take them in, I would have no problem with placing children in other family structures and revising the law to facilitate this. That's what I mean by "accident"-- it just so happens that our laws are this way, and it just so happens that changing them is unnecessary at this point.

[Psychic Missile]

Biologically speaking, a child can't have more than two parents. This doesn't, and indeed shouldn't, exclude extended families and communities from the process of child-rearing, but every child, insofar as it is possible, should have the opportunity to be loved by both of their natural parents.

In other words, only a complete moron (or perhaps a radical individualist, but I repeat myself) would suggest that child-rearing should take place in a context other than a wider network of interpersonal connections through which the child develops a sense of self and an understanding of their own talents and the corresponding obligations those talents place on them with respect to the rest of the community. However, the nuclear family plays a key role in this system, and cannot be ignored-- it is not and cannot be an island, but it is a key unit nonetheless.

Why natural parents? Donating DNA doesn't making one any better a parent. My objection defined a parent as a person being the primary individual raising and supporting a child.

Anti-miscegenation laws and sentiments were in fact products of race theory in the wake of the enlightenment without strong historical precedent (if Spanish conquistadors thought race-mixing in marriage was wrong, we would not have Mexicans), and institutions like marriage arose independently of Egyptian cultural influence in various parts of the world.

Furthermore, moral philosophers dating back at least as far as Aristotle and not excluding Aquinas wrote at length on marriage. To say that this is the first time moral philosophy has been applied to the institution of marriage is to make it clear that you know even less about the history of moral philosophy than I do... or at the very least that I should be more careful about typing angry rants in the wee hours of the morning.

I don't know what race theory has to do with my argument. Egypt's form of marriage, to my knowledge, precedes any other society's form of marriage. I wrote about moral philosophy being applied to marriage redefinition, not marriage period.

If there were more children in need than married couples ready to take them in, I would have no problem with placing children in other family structures and revising the law to facilitate this. That's what I mean by "accident"-- it just so happens that our laws are this way, and it just so happens that changing them is unnecessary at this point.

Why do you think there are more children in need than married couples seeking to adopt? Why do you need a contingency on adoption? Does your ideal of marriage only concern procreation and not child raising? I predict you saying that it concerns both, to which I would ask why children whose parents are unfit to raise them should be raised by an unmarried couple or single individual when the option of a married couple is available.

[Spartacus]

Why natural parents? Donating DNA doesn't making one any better a parent. My objection defined a parent as a person being the primary individual raising and supporting a child.

By default, that primary responsibility should fall to the biological parents.

I don't know what race theory has to do with my argument. Egypt's form of marriage, to my knowledge, precedes any other society's form of marriage. I wrote about moral philosophy being applied to marriage redefinition, not marriage period.

You mentioned interracial marriage. I pointed out that bans on interracial marriage were a historical novelty: Loving, therefore, ought to be understood as a return to the historical norm and not a redefinition.

There have been multiple different philosophical or theological definitions proposed throughout history; as often as one took hold in a society that previously held another view, marriage re-definition took place, and moral philosophy was always involved.

Why do you think there are more children in need than married couples seeking to adopt?

Pretty sure my statement implied the opposite.

It is my impression that social science supports this statement. Show me a study that contradicts it.

I predict you saying that it concerns both, to which I would ask why children whose parents are unfit to raise them should be raised by an unmarried couple or single individual when the option of a married couple is available.

Huh? What exactly are you asking, and why?

[Psychic Missile]

By default, that primary responsibility should fall to the biological parents.

Again, I ask why?

You mentioned interracial marriage. I pointed out that bans on interracial marriage were a historical novelty: Loving, therefore, ought to be understood as a return to the historical norm and not a redefinition.

There have been multiple different philosophical or theological definitions proposed throughout history; as often as one took hold in a society that previously held another view, marriage re-definition took place, and moral philosophy was always involved.

When was love the historical norm for marriage? What I'm saying is that none of those definitions resulted in a culture changing what marriage means. What redefinitions prior to interracial marriage involved moral philosophy?

Pretty sure my statement implied the opposite.

It is my impression that social science supports this statement. Show me a study that contradicts it.

Sorry, yeah, I meant to ask the opposite. I'm under the impression that finding a good home for non-infant children has always been difficult

Huh? What exactly are you asking, and why?

You keep saying that adoption for gay couples is an accident. If that's because you think marriage should not be just about child rearing and must or should include procreation, then I ask why. The rights and privileges that marriage confers would mean that it benefits a couple who is adopting to be married. It makes no sense to me that you think the purpose of marriage is for the children's benefit but you don't iconsider adoption, including adoption by a gay couple, as covered by that purpose

[Spartacus]

Again, I ask why?

In no particular order...

1. Because sex makes babies, and people having sex should be open to the responsibilities associated with raising a child. When a child is born, we know that there is a mother, and that, 9 months ago a father was around, too. The father should be encouraged to continue to contribute positively to the live of his children, and marriage is an institution capable of ensuring that he sticks around to do so.

2.If default responsibility does not lie with the biological parents, then with whom? The federal government? The richest man in town? In my opinion, better to give power to the people than to the plutocrats. Again, as often as a child is born, we know that there were 2 people who played particular roles in creating this child, and it makes sense to give that authority and responsibility to them rather than to someone else.

When was love the historical norm for marriage? What I'm saying is that none of those definitions resulted in a culture changing what marriage means. What redefinitions prior to interracial marriage involved moral philosophy?

If by love, you mean eroticism, then it's pretty much always been a factor, but economic and social concerns often out-weighed romantic or erotic concerns. Actual love, that is, a mutual commitment between people to recognize and work toward the good of the other, has certainly been an important part of the moral philosophy of marriage, at least in the Christian era, but it's something gradually realized through the marriage, not something fully present at the wedding itself. Love is a virtue, not an emotion, and building a lifelong relationship on emotion alone is building it on sand-- hence the massive divorce rate and all the heartbreak that comes with it.

Sorry, yeah, I meant to ask the opposite. I'm under the impression that finding a good home for non-infant children has always been difficult

Correct, but that's why I said some time ago that the foster care system was another question entirely.

You keep saying that adoption for gay couples is an accident.

No, I said that the high obstacles to same-sex couples adopting are historical accidents, as opposed to moral necessities.

If that's because you think marriage should not be just about child rearing and must or should include procreation, then I ask why. The rights and privileges that marriage confers would mean that it benefits a couple who is adopting to be married. It makes no sense to me that you think the purpose of marriage is for the children's benefit but you don't iconsider adoption, including adoption by a gay couple, as covered by that purpose

Football players wear helmets for the purpose of their own safety. They also wear pads for sake of their own safety. However, to treat pads and helmets as interchangeable is irrational. Just so, calling a same-sex couple or community that is raising a child or children a "marriage" is irrational. It does violence to the English language.

[Psychic Missile]

In no particular order...

1. Because sex makes babies, and people having sex should be open to the responsibilities associated with raising a child. When a child is born, we know that there is a mother, and that, 9 months ago a father was around, too. The father should be encouraged to continue to contribute positively to the live of his children, and marriage is an institution capable of ensuring that he sticks around to do so.

2.If default responsibility does not lie with the biological parents, then with whom? The federal government? The richest man in town? In my opinion, better to give power to the people than to the plutocrats. Again, as often as a child is born, we know that there were 2 people who played particular roles in creating this child, and it makes sense to give that authority and responsibility to them rather than to someone else.

1. This doesn't answer my question. You're saying people should be open to raising a child, and I'm asking why they should raise a child. You say the father should contribute, and I'm asking why.

2. Whoever that culture designates.

If by love, you mean eroticism, then it's pretty much always been a factor, but economic and social concerns often out-weighed romantic or erotic concerns. Actual love, that is, a mutual commitment between people to recognize and work toward the good of the other, has certainly been an important part of the moral philosophy of marriage, at least in the Christian era, but it's something gradually realized through the marriage, not something fully present at the wedding itself. Love is a virtue, not an emotion, and building a lifelong relationship on emotion alone is building it on sand-- hence the massive divorce rate and all the heartbreak that comes with it.

By love I mean romantic love. Two people marrying each other because they love each other.

No, I said that the high obstacles to same-sex couples adopting are historical accidents, as opposed to moral necessities.

How so?

Football players wear helmets for the purpose of their own safety. They also wear pads for sake of their own safety. However, to treat pads and helmets as interchangeable is irrational. Just so, calling a same-sex couple or community that is raising a child or children a "marriage" is irrational. It does violence to the English language.

Nobody is doing that. Marriage is a legal contract.

[Pinoy]

1. This doesn't answer my question. You're saying people should be open to raising a child, and I'm asking why they should raise a child. You say the father should contribute, and I'm asking why.

the father should contribute because he willingly provided the seed for creating the baby. If he force his seed the more he should contribute.

Sperm cell donor is a different case because they provided their seed thinking they could help parents who could not have a baby.

[Spartacus]

1. This doesn't answer my question. You're saying people should be open to raising a child, and I'm asking why they should raise a child. You say the father should contribute, and I'm asking why.

Because human life is a good thing, so it's a good thing to help take care of the next generation of humans in order to make sure that human life continues and so that it is possible for the next generation to thrive.

2. Whoever that culture designates.

And whom would you have our culture designate?

By love I mean romantic love. Two people marrying each other because they love each other.

Do you agree that this means that marriage ought to be easily dissolved, if one partner or the other feels emotionally unfulfilled by the relationship?

How so?

I had no idea I was capable of being so obscure in my writing. Have you tried re-reading my posts?

Nobody is doing that. Marriage is a legal contract.

Nobody is doing what? Calling the relationship between committed same-sex individuals marriages?

I prefer to think of marriage as involving the exchange of vows and not merely contractual obligations.

[Psychic Missile]

the father should contribute because he willingly provided the seed for creating the baby. If he force his seed the more he should contribute.

Sperm cell donor is a different case because they provided their seed thinking they could help parents who could not have a baby.

How are you getting from progenitor to parent?

Because human life is a good thing, so it's a good thing to help take care of the next generation of humans in order to make sure that human life continues and so that it is possible for the next generation to thrive.

I agree. That doesn't mean the parents have to take care of their biological children.

And whom would you have our culture designate?

It doesn't matter to me, as long as the system seems to work and people are happy.

Do you agree that this means that marriage ought to be easily dissolved, if one partner or the other feels emotionally unfulfilled by the relationship?

Yes, regardless of love.

I had no idea I was capable of being so obscure in my writing. Have you tried re-reading my posts?

Do you think marriage when children are concerned is a moral necessity?

Nobody is doing what? Calling the relationship between committed same-sex individuals marriages?

That's right. They need a marriage license.

[Spartacus]

How are you getting from progenitor to parent?

Universal cultural precedent works for me.

I agree. That doesn't mean the parents have to take care of their biological children.

You have yet to propose a better alternative for our society.

It doesn't matter to me, as long as the system seems to work and people are happy.

I think we could write several books about how my understanding of human happiness is different from yours.

Yes, regardless of love.

So a marriage can be dissolved at any time for any reason by either spouse? That certainly makes it extraordinary among legal contracts.

Do you think marriage when children are concerned is a moral necessity?

Barring extraordinary misconduct, yes: the psychological and social capital given to children raised by their own married parents is not to be underestimated.

That's right. They need a marriage license.

Phank was willing to argue the opposite.

Evidently you see marriage as nothing more than a legal contract. Is this a correct assessment of your view?

[Psychic Missile]

Universal cultural precedent works for me.

It's not universal and that's an argumentum ad populum.

You have yet to propose a better alternative for our society.

I don't know if any alternative is better. I don't see why there's an assumption that because this is the way it is, this is that way it has to be. Could it be that this is the true intent behind gay marriage opposition?

I think we could write several books about how my understanding of human happiness is different from yours.

I don't see how. It seems like a pretty straightforward idea.

So a marriage can be dissolved at any time for any reason by either spouse? That certainly makes it extraordinary among legal contracts.

If you say so.

Barring extraordinary misconduct, yes: the psychological and social capital given to children raised by their own married parents is not to be underestimated.

Doesn't that apply to children raised by non-biological parent's just as well?

Phank was willing to argue the opposite.

Evidently you see marriage as nothing more than a legal contract. Is this a correct assessment of your view?

Yes. What's the alternative?

[Spartacus]

It's not universal and that's an argumentum ad populum.

If the question in front of us is, "which social arrangement is most effective at producing a next generation that is physically and emotionally healthy and suited to participate in that society, including those arrangements directed toward producing the next generation in turn," then by golly we'd better be willing to look at what various cultures have done and to notice when patterns emerge.

I don't know if any alternative is better. I don't see why there's an assumption that because this is the way it is, this is that way it has to be. Could it be that this is the true intent behind gay marriage opposition?

It's certainly a much more important motivation than homophobia. The married relationship between a man and a woman is foundational to our society, and continuing to send the message that marriages as such don't matter is not going to help anybody.

I don't see how. It seems like a pretty straightforward idea.

My ethics are a variation of the Aristotelian school. Yours are I-don't-know-what, but most certainly different and probably a radical individualist. Entire books HAVE been written on how different ethical philosophies have different views of human happiness.

If you say so.

Basically, no-fault divorce makes sense for cases when abuse, neglect, or other extraordinary breaches of the marriage covenant is too difficult to prove (the main argument, I believe, behind its initial legalization), but if there actually is no major fault on either spouse's part involved, divorce is not justifiable.

Doesn't that apply to children raised by non-biological parent's just as well?

Even before the child is born, the mother has spent 9 months carrying that child inside of her. At the point of birth, she knows more about the baby's unique temperament and needs than anyone else. Furthermore, numerous (powerful) hormones have already bonded her to the child and her to her husband; all other things being equal no one is better suited to take care of a particular child than that child's mother.

Yes. What's the alternative?

Phank's view. Mine. The Catholic Church's. There are plenty of alternatives, some of which have a great deal in common with each other, and some of which do not.

[Psychic Missile]

If the question in front of us is, "which social arrangement is most effective at producing a next generation that is physically and emotionally healthy and suited to participate in that society, including those arrangements directed toward producing the next generation in turn," then by golly we'd better be willing to look at what various cultures have done and to notice when patterns emerge.

The problem is that societies that differ from the birth parent system are also culturally distinct enough that causation can't be proven. What you say here seems like an appeal to tradition.

It's certainly a much more important motivation than homophobia. The married relationship between a man and a woman is foundational to our society, and continuing to send the message that marriages as such don't matter is not going to help anybody.

It's only foundational by happenstance. Who wants to send the message that marriages between a man and a woman don't matteR?

My ethics are a variation of the Aristotelian school. Yours are I-don't-know-what, but most certainly different and probably a radical individualist. Entire books HAVE been written on how different ethical philosophies have different views of human happiness.

Sure, but we're not dealing with textbook moral quandaries. The happiness of a people is virtually self-reported. I don't think a difference of opinion on methodology, which is hypothetical at this point, constitutes two varying philosophical lenses.

Basically, no-fault divorce makes sense for cases when abuse, neglect, or other extraordinary breaches of the marriage covenant is too difficult to prove (the main argument, I believe, behind its initial legalization), but if there actually is no major fault on either spouse's part involved, divorce is not justifiable.

I think that if someone is in a marriage only because of legal necessity, that's not going to be a fruitful marriage.

Even before the child is born, the mother has spent 9 months carrying that child inside of her. At the point of birth, she knows more about the baby's unique temperament and needs than anyone else. Furthermore, numerous (powerful) hormones have already bonded her to the child and her to her husband; all other things being equal no one is better suited to take care of a particular child than that child's mother.

That first part is nonsense. What special knowledge does the mother have? How fussy the infant is? At that point, the child's personality and temperament are but a drop of water on the tip of an iceberg. You can learn more about a child when they are two years old than when they are not even born. I do agree that hormones provide a good argument. Maybe they alone justify a mother as a caregiver by default, all things being equal.

Phank's view. Mine. The Catholic Church's. There are plenty of alternatives, some of which have a great deal in common with each other, and some of which do not.

Do those all happen to be religious views?

[Spartacus]

The problem is that societies that differ from the birth parent system are also culturally distinct enough that causation can't be proven. What you say here seems like an appeal to tradition.

It's a tradition that works for explicable reasons.

It's only foundational by happenstance. Who wants to send the message that marriages between a man and a woman don't matteR?

That's precisely the message that a further redefinition of the civil institution will send.

Sure, but we're not dealing with textbook moral quandaries. The happiness of a people is virtually self-reported. I don't think a difference of opinion on methodology, which is hypothetical at this point, constitutes two varying philosophical lenses.

Let's set aside this equivocation and get back to the issues at hand.

I think that if someone is in a marriage only because of legal necessity, that's not going to be a fruitful marriage.

No one can be forced by law to enter into a marriage. Period. But once they have entered into a marriage, they take on certain obligations.

That first part is nonsense. What special knowledge does the mother have? How fussy the infant is? At that point, the child's personality and temperament are but a drop of water on the tip of an iceberg. You can learn more about a child when they are two years old than when they are not even born

Apparently I've spent more time around mothers of infants recently than you have.

I do agree that hormones provide a good argument. Maybe they alone justify a mother as a caregiver by default, all things being equal.

Do you see an argument for the father taking on obligations as caregiver as well?

Do those all happen to be religious views?

All of them, especially phank's, are religious.

I believe I've explained several times why the Catholic Church's view is not inherently a religious one. Its argument is that marriage is knowable by human reason and does not require divine revelation to understand and accept. People may accept it for religious reasons, but it's not inherently religious.