This post does not have a specific point or graphics or images or position to promote. It’s nothing more than some highly portable, mostly obtuse, easily cross-linked research notes. Collecting ingredients for something else.
q=”future of marriage”
“The forces that have strengthened marriage as a personal relationship between freely-consenting adults have weakened marriage as a regulatory social institution.”
“And a well-functioning marriage is still an especially useful and effective method of organizing interpersonal commitments and improving people’s well-being.”
“… Mr. Blankenhorn offers a bold new argument in the debate over same-sex marriage; namely that altering marriage to accommodate same-sex couples will result in denying children their birthright to both a mother and father. ”
Parenting as a human right?
“Advocates of same-sex “marriage” love to ask, “What harm could it possibly do?” Blankenhorn carefully answers this question by spelling out the dangers of “deinstitutionalizing” marriage. Marriage is a “social institution,” defined as “a relatively stable pattern of rules and structures intended to meet basic social needs.” But if the “rules” are intentionally violated and the “structures” are torn down, then the “institution” will cease to fulfill its social purpose—which, in the case of marriage, is to provide every child with both a mother and a father who are committed to him or her, and to each other.”
“Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams set off an international firestorm this month by suggesting that some accommodation of Muslim family law was “unavoidable” in England.
His suggestion, though tentative, has already prompted more than 250 articles in the world press, the vast majority denouncing it. England will be beset by “licensed polygamy,” “barbaric procedures” and “brutal violence” against women and children, his critics argued, all administered by “legally ghettoized” Muslim courts immune from civil appeal or constitutional challenge.
These are quickly becoming “unavoidable” questions for America, too. We already have a lot more marital pluralism than a generation ago —- with a number of legal options now available.”
“Social commentator Edward Luttwak noted several years ago that the West is engaged in an experiment unprecedented in human history: people without families. In 1977 Christopher Lasch found the early evidence discouraging: “It is precisely the separation of love and discipline [associated with communal forms of child-rearing] that encourages…the development of personality traits more compatible with totalitarian regimes than with democracy: a strong attachment to the peer group, a marked fear of being alone, more or less complete alienation from the past…a strong concern with personal ‘authenticity’ in relations with others, unmediated by conventional forms of politeness or even by respect for the other person’s individuality and a lack of introspection and of a highly developed inner life.” The road to Columbine started here.”
“Marriage has left the old school and moved to the new school. Technology and globalization have moved Islamic marriages into an entirely different arena.
Getting married in Saudi Arabia can be done in two different ways through the use of a matchmaker or by using the Internet.
The matchmaker is a centuries-old tradition, but it has received a new official standing. Matchmakers are approached by mothers who give them a picture of their daughters and a list of requirements for a suitable husband. The candidates are then cross-referenced in the matchmaker’s registry to make a match. Some engage in an al-misyar marriage, which is roughly a marriage of convenience. The wife gives up several of her rights, such as living with the husband, rights to housing and money management. The couple continues to live separately from each other, just as before, and see each other to fulfill their needs when they please.
There is abundant historical evidence about the ways in which husbands/fathers in pre-industrial times saw the entire household as a set of assets geared toward market production and engaged in some rather crude calculation about their relative value in the process. As one historian noted, it was much more common for a man to call for help when he had a sick horse than a sick wife. <snip> The sentimentality that we now take for granted as part of the family does not come along until market capitalism had produced enough wealth for us to afford it. It was capitalism that made the love match and the civilized treatment of children possible.
The result? Children are almost completely consumption goods in the 21st century West, and this fits with the hedonic marriage idea, as well as the Maslow perspective: couples have children as a form of consumption rather than production as for most of human history. It’s a form of self-actualization to raise a child the way you think he or she should be raised.
love was lagniappe
q=”function of marriage”
“marriage serves two primary functions: the control of sexual activity and/or reproduction, and as a means of forming socioeconomic alliances”
q=”future of divorce”