Quote:

---

Call me crazy, but as a gay man I think I have a better sense of what gay people thought.

---

Your bias is noted, thanks.

Quote:

---

The principal issue with civil unions is they were lip service from politicians of both parties and continue to be parroted by conservatives for reasons I don't understand. They weren't going to happen in a meaningful way (eg across all states) and confer all benefits of marriage, so the approach through Supreme Court was the only avenue.

ETA: The Supreme Court decision doesn't force you to do anything differently than your civil union lip service approach (never gonna happen). We didn't destroy your religion because Court recognized govt marriage of same sex couples.

---

Lip service? Did you read the article? The majority of citizens supported 'gay marriage' only because civil unions were included. Take away civil unions and the majority support goes away. The politicians, by and large, were following the trend, not leading it.

Quote:

---

We didn't destroy your religion because Court recognized govt marriage of same sex couples.

---

Not yet maybe. But you destroyed a sacred word. Words have meaning. When the word's meaning is destroyed, the idea that the word's meaning represents becomes threatened. It is already happening, look at this thread alone. The very idea of what a family is, has inexplicably become a subject of question.

I have never opposed a gay civil union and my posting history will support that. I will never accept the term gay marriage because it is a fallacy.

txags92 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

How about "who can sigh what"? As in for hospitals, banking, etc…..

Lawyers would love the POA work you would generate

---

Create a database column that goes with your driver's license/state ID database where you identify a spouse or POA. You fill it out once at the DMV and update it if your get divorced. State doesn't need to verify anything. It is just a person you identify as having that capability. I get it, it would take some work to untangle, but I am a very hardcore "small federal government" kind of guy, and defining marriage is WAYYY outside of my view for what the federal government ought to be involved in. The federal government should be involved in dealing with issues that the states cannot adequately handle by themselves, such as national defense and border security...and nothing else IMO.

---

You wouldn't need to do all that. An all government forms, do a 'search & replace' taking "married" and replacing it with "unified" and you are done. The state legislatures define what "unified" will mean in their state.

txags92 said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

txags92 said:

---

The only reason the definition of marriage even matters is because governments have decided to confer benefits to people because they are married. If the government didn't need to define who was eligible to get what based on being married, they wouldn't need to define who can be married. Easy solution is to just stop treating people differently in the eyes of government if they are married versus not married.

---

While this is true, the problem isn't just deriving from government benefits. I am quite convinced that gay marriage was much more of an assault on religion and traditional marriage as an institution than it was about governmental status. For example, a 'marriage equivalent' contractual status recognized by the state giving all the same benefits was not acceptable. They wanted the term and they wanted the cake.

---

If you believe it is an attack on your religion, government has no business trying to assist you in repelling that attack or to assist those attacking your religion. Your religion and view of traditional marriage is an idea, and ideas should be defended with intelligent debate and discussion, not federal intervention.

---

I agree entirely. I don't need federal intervention. Don't think I have proposed federal intervention anywhere except perhaps saying that they should just get out of the marriage definition issue.

American Hardwood said:

---

Quote:

---

Call me crazy, but as a gay man I think I have a better sense of what gay people thought.

---

Your bias is noted, thanks.

Quote:

---

The principal issue with civil unions is they were lip service from politicians of both parties and continue to be parroted by conservatives for reasons I don't understand. They weren't going to happen in a meaningful way (eg across all states) and confer all benefits of marriage, so the approach through Supreme Court was the only avenue.

ETA: The Supreme Court decision doesn't force you to do anything differently than your civil union lip service approach (never gonna happen). We didn't destroy your religion because Court recognized govt marriage of same sex couples.

---

Lip service? Did you read the article? The majority of citizens supported 'gay marriage' only because civil unions were included. Take away civil unions and the majority support goes away. The politicians, by and large, were following the trend, not leading it.

Quote:

---

We didn't destroy your religion because Court recognized govt marriage of same sex couples.

---

Not yet maybe. But you destroyed a sacred word. Words have meaning. When the word's meaning is destroyed, the idea that the word's meaning represents becomes threatened. It is already happening, look at this thread alone. The very idea of what a family is, has inexplicably become a subject of question.

I have never opposed a gay civil union and my posting history will support that. I will never accept the term gay marriage because it is a fallacy.

---

Than get a civil union amendment and get back to me, there was no movement of this nature happening. It's a massive waste to even discuss, similar to the line of discussion that govt should get out of marriage.

American Hardwood said:

---

txags92 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

How about "who can sigh what"? As in for hospitals, banking, etc…..

Lawyers would love the POA work you would generate

---

Create a database column that goes with your driver's license/state ID database where you identify a spouse or POA. You fill it out once at the DMV and update it if your get divorced. State doesn't need to verify anything. It is just a person you identify as having that capability. I get it, it would take some work to untangle, but I am a very hardcore "small federal government" kind of guy, and defining marriage is WAYYY outside of my view for what the federal government ought to be involved in. The federal government should be involved in dealing with issues that the states cannot adequately handle by themselves, such as national defense and border security...and nothing else IMO.

---

You wouldn't need to do all that. An all government forms, do a 'search & replace' taking "married" and replacing it with "unified" and you are done. The state legislatures define what "unified" will mean in their state.

---

I am good with that. Just get it out of the hands of the federal government to decide it. We will never get agreement between the bible belt and the liberal urban areas on the matter, and all it does to keep fighting it out at the federal level is to provide a convenient wedge issue to keep everybody voting for their "team". If we steeply reduced the federal role in a lot of things it would greatly reduce the federal budget and reorient American politics at the same time. A huge number of the issues forming the core of the cultural schism in America are things that just don't belong in federal purview at all.

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

Quote:

---

Call me crazy, but as a gay man I think I have a better sense of what gay people thought.

---

Your bias is noted, thanks.

Quote:

---

The principal issue with civil unions is they were lip service from politicians of both parties and continue to be parroted by conservatives for reasons I don't understand. They weren't going to happen in a meaningful way (eg across all states) and confer all benefits of marriage, so the approach through Supreme Court was the only avenue.

ETA: The Supreme Court decision doesn't force you to do anything differently than your civil union lip service approach (never gonna happen). We didn't destroy your religion because Court recognized govt marriage of same sex couples.

---

Lip service? Did you read the article? The majority of citizens supported 'gay marriage' only because civil unions were included. Take away civil unions and the majority support goes away. The politicians, by and large, were following the trend, not leading it.

Quote:

---

We didn't destroy your religion because Court recognized govt marriage of same sex couples.

---

Not yet maybe. But you destroyed a sacred word. Words have meaning. When the word's meaning is destroyed, the idea that the word's meaning represents becomes threatened. It is already happening, look at this thread alone. The very idea of what a family is, has inexplicably become a subject of question.

I have never opposed a gay civil union and my posting history will support that. I will never accept the term gay marriage because it is a fallacy.

---

Than get a civil union amendment and get back to me, there was no movement of this nature happening. It's a massive waste to even discuss, similar to the line of discussion that govt should get out of marriage.

---

Right. Exactly my point. The gay movement didn't want a civil union amendment. If they did, they would have gotten it eventually. Thay wanted 'marriage'. Thak you for conceding the point to me.

txags92 said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

txags92 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

How about "who can sigh what"? As in for hospitals, banking, etc…..

Lawyers would love the POA work you would generate

---

Create a database column that goes with your driver's license/state ID database where you identify a spouse or POA. You fill it out once at the DMV and update it if your get divorced. State doesn't need to verify anything. It is just a person you identify as having that capability. I get it, it would take some work to untangle, but I am a very hardcore "small federal government" kind of guy, and defining marriage is WAYYY outside of my view for what the federal government ought to be involved in. The federal government should be involved in dealing with issues that the states cannot adequately handle by themselves, such as national defense and border security...and nothing else IMO.

---

You wouldn't need to do all that. An all government forms, do a 'search & replace' taking "married" and replacing it with "unified" and you are done. The state legislatures define what "unified" will mean in their state.

---

I am good with that. Just get it out of the hands of the federal government to decide it. We will never get agreement between the bible belt and the liberal urban areas on the matter, and all it does to keep fighting it out at the federal level is to provide a convenient wedge issue to keep everybody voting for their "team". If we steeply reduced the federal role in a lot of things it would greatly reduce the federal budget and reorient American politics at the same time. A huge number of the issues forming the core of the cultural schism in America are things that just don't belong in federal purview at all.

---

Very correct. For all those in the beltway, making social issues federal has been the biggest source of grifting and power grabbing over the course of modern time. Since there is no value in true morality anymore, there is no end in sight for this tragic condition we are in.

American Hardwood said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

Quote:

---

Call me crazy, but as a gay man I think I have a better sense of what gay people thought.

---

Your bias is noted, thanks.

Quote:

---

The principal issue with civil unions is they were lip service from politicians of both parties and continue to be parroted by conservatives for reasons I don't understand. They weren't going to happen in a meaningful way (eg across all states) and confer all benefits of marriage, so the approach through Supreme Court was the only avenue.

ETA: The Supreme Court decision doesn't force you to do anything differently than your civil union lip service approach (never gonna happen). We didn't destroy your religion because Court recognized govt marriage of same sex couples.

---

Lip service? Did you read the article? The majority of citizens supported 'gay marriage' only because civil unions were included. Take away civil unions and the majority support goes away. The politicians, by and large, were following the trend, not leading it.

Quote:

---

We didn't destroy your religion because Court recognized govt marriage of same sex couples.

---

Not yet maybe. But you destroyed a sacred word. Words have meaning. When the word's meaning is destroyed, the idea that the word's meaning represents becomes threatened. It is already happening, look at this thread alone. The very idea of what a family is, has inexplicably become a subject of question.

I have never opposed a gay civil union and my posting history will support that. I will never accept the term gay marriage because it is a fallacy.

---

Than get a civil union amendment and get back to me, there was no movement of this nature happening. It's a massive waste to even discuss, similar to the line of discussion that govt should get out of marriage.

---

Right. Exactly my point. The gay movement didn't want a civil union amendment. If they did, they would have gotten it eventually. Thay wanted 'marriage'. Thak you for conceding the point to me.

---

They wanted the same as straight people re: govt recognition, not your religion, of their partnership and civil unions were never happening. There's no gotcha here.

My friend you used the wood vernacular. I didn't say that place was someone we should listen to, it just happened to be the 5th result on google.

I think we're no on the same page. Obviously to be a family, there needs to procreation, and unless you're talking about something polygamous or clan- or line-marriages, that procreating unit is one man and one woman.

When people talk about the 'nuclear family' they are talking about the unit of father, mother, and kids. When you add to that, you get into 'extended family'.

Quote:

---

If I say a nuclear family can and almost always does exist within a larger social framework and you say that the nuclear family cannot exist by definition within a larger social framework, then we really have nothing to discuss further on the matter because we cannot agree on the terminology. I respect your willingness to debate it though.

---

yeah, somehow talking past each other. both nuclear and extended families and any other structure you can think of exist within a larger social framework. that isn't the point of contention.

We're talking about families living together and how the family unit is constituted. in other words, what is the functional block of family that serves to interact with the social framework and society around it. for most of history that functional block was not limited to the nuclear family. people lived in extended families. that is especially true in the societies of the scriptures. again i direct you to the concept of bet av or bet ab in Israel, or the pater familias in Rome.

https://users.pop.umn.edu/~ruggles/Articles/AHR.pdf

i wasn't talking about the atlantic article, i was talking about the actual research paper that you never read or said was "research" for unnecessary definitions (because they don't match yours).

Quote:

---

The concept that they had other blood family around them to help work the farm or store certainly didn't negate the concept of the "nuclear family" - it enhanced it. They were part of the nuclear family. The "corporate family" moniker was thrown in to try to dilute the core concept.

---

this is just tautology club, nuclear family is nuclear family.

nuclear family = dad mom and kids
extended family = more than that
corporate family = extended family plus hands, servants, workers, in some cases slaves

if people outside the nuclear family are included it isn't the nuclear family any more by definition.\

TexAgs91 said:

---

> What is marriage?

---

Exactly what I thought of when I saw this thread.

Twoooo Wuuuuv...

Zobel said:

---

https://users.pop.umn.edu/~ruggles/Articles/AHR.pdf

i wasn't talking about the atlantic article, i was talking about the actual research paper that you never read or said was "research" for unnecessary definitions (because they don't match yours).

---

And yet you used the Atlantic article to support your nonsensical point about nuclear families not existing until the '20s.

Edit: It took about 5 minutes to read that research and confirm what I said earlier. They simply changed their definition of "nuclear family" to fit the paper.

no, i used the atlantic article because it was a summary of several different papers and ideas, and i linked this paper in particular because it has a source and reference for the idea of a 'stem' family which you objected to.

Stem family comes from Lutz Berkner. Here's another paper you won't read on it.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1868698

https://users.pop.umn.edu/~ruggles/Articles/PDR36.3-Ruggles.pdf

and i didn't say the nuclear family didn't exist, i said it wasn't a thing - meaning it wasn't the dominant form of family structure in the US until the 1920s. the census data reflects this.

Here's an excerpt from the last link that maybe will clear things up on the definition of terms that seem to be confusing everyone.

Quote:

---

Formal spatiotemporal analysis of family types began with Frederic Le Play's massive empirical studies in the mid-nineteenth century, which set the terms of theoretical debates that persist today (Le Play 1855, 1884). Le Play wrote that there were three basic types of families in all parts of the world and all ages of history. What he called the famille patriarcale - now termed the joint family - was one in which all sons remained with or near their parents upon reaching adulthood, and worked together on the family farm. Eventually, when the family got too large to support on a single farm it would split apart, with some sons receiving movable property such as livestock. Le Play said that patriarchal families could be found among "Eastern Nomads, Russian Peasants, and the Slavs of Central Europe" (Silver 1982: 259).

Le Play's second family type was the famille souche or stem family. In stem families, according to Le Play's definition, the father selected one child to remain near the parental homestead to work on the farm and eventually inherit it, thus continuing the family line. All other children left the parental family to form their own nuclear households. Le Play argued that the stem family was the dominant form of peasant household in most parts of Europe.

Le Play deplored the rise of the third type, the famille instable - now called the nuclear family - and said it was beginning to take over "among the working class populations subject to the new manufacturing system of Western Europe" (Silver 1982: 260). With commercial and industrial growth in the nineteenth century, fewer families had property to hand down, so nuclear families became common. In these families, all the children left home at an early age and established their own households. Elderly parents were left to fend for themselves, and upon their deaths the family was extinguished.

---

Zobel said:

---

no, i used the atlantic article because it was a summary of several different papers and ideas, and i linked this paper in particular because it has a source and reference for the idea of a 'stem' family which you objected to.

Stem family comes from Lutz Berkner. Here's another paper you won't read on it.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1868698

https://users.pop.umn.edu/~ruggles/Articles/PDR36.3-Ruggles.pdf

and i didn't say the nuclear family didn't exist, i said it wasn't a thing - meaning it wasn't the dominant form of family structure in the US until the 1920s. the census data reflects this.

---

They simply changed the definition of "nuclear family" to fit the research, and created what I would call sub categories. The concept that fewer people over 65 lived with kids in the 1900s vs 1800s is hardly evidence of the nuclear family emerging, it simply means folks were living independently longer. They are still part of a nuclear family.

Question for the board: Do you consider your nuclear family to include your parents, grand parents, brothers, sisters, etc…….?

F16 vote won't change the the working definition that historians or sociologists have been using since the 1800s. see post above.

nuclear families by definition are when the son moves off with his wife and has kids apart from his parents. if a son lives with his father after marrying that isn't a nuclear family.

brothers and sisters are part of the nuclear family of their parents until they move out and form their own nuclear family when they get married or live independently as the case may be.

To answer OP:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm

Zobel said:

---

My friend you used the wood vernacular. I didn't say that place was someone we should listen to, it just happened to be the 5th result on google.

I think we're no on the same page. Obviously to be a family, there needs to procreation, and unless you're talking about something polygamous or clan- or line-marriages, that procreating unit is one man and one woman.

When people talk about the 'nuclear family' they are talking about the unit of father, mother, and kids. When you add to that, you get into 'extended family'.

Quote:

---

If I say a nuclear family can and almost always does exist within a larger social framework and you say that the nuclear family cannot exist by definition within a larger social framework, then we really have nothing to discuss further on the matter because we cannot agree on the terminology. I respect your willingness to debate it though.

---

yeah, somehow talking past each other. both nuclear and extended families and any other structure you can think of exist within a larger social framework. that isn't the point of contention.

We're talking about families living together and how the family unit is constituted. in other words, what is the functional block of family that serves to interact with the social framework and society around it. for most of history that functional block was not limited to the nuclear family. people lived in extended families. that is especially true in the societies of the scriptures. again i direct you to the concept of bet av or bet ab in Israel, or the pater familias in Rome.

---

This is where I think you went off track with those like me might have been arguing, apparently, the same side of the coin. You earlier stated that the 'nuclear family' didn't really exist before 1920, which is pretty patently not true and essentially state that in the paragraphs above, particularly the bolded part.

However, I think the point you are really trying to make is that it's not that nuclear families didn't exist nor that they functioned, but that larger family structures were the predominant cultural force for much of history, whereas in modern western civilization it has dissolved away from extended family into first, isolated nuclear family units, and then ultimately into alt-families or non-family relationships based on compatible individual interests of whatever nature.

A 'basic unit' is the unit with the smallest number of parts to be functional. The primary functional purpose of family is procreation. That makes a man and a woman the most basic unit of social order. The kids are thrown in by extension because they cannot exist on their own for many years. Therefore, I don't like the idea of any extended family structure being used as a 'basic unit' despite it's historical predominance.

American Hardwood said:

---

Zobel said:

---

My friend you used the wood vernacular. I didn't say that place was someone we should listen to, it just happened to be the 5th result on google.

I think we're no on the same page. Obviously to be a family, there needs to procreation, and unless you're talking about something polygamous or clan- or line-marriages, that procreating unit is one man and one woman.

When people talk about the 'nuclear family' they are talking about the unit of father, mother, and kids. When you add to that, you get into 'extended family'.

Quote:

---

If I say a nuclear family can and almost always does exist within a larger social framework and you say that the nuclear family cannot exist by definition within a larger social framework, then we really have nothing to discuss further on the matter because we cannot agree on the terminology. I respect your willingness to debate it though.

---

yeah, somehow talking past each other. both nuclear and extended families and any other structure you can think of exist within a larger social framework. that isn't the point of contention.

We're talking about families living together and how the family unit is constituted. in other words, what is the functional block of family that serves to interact with the social framework and society around it. for most of history that functional block was not limited to the nuclear family. people lived in extended families. that is especially true in the societies of the scriptures. again i direct you to the concept of bet av or bet ab in Israel, or the pater familias in Rome.

---

This is where I think you went off track with those like me might have been arguing, apparently, the same side of the coin. You earlier stated that the 'nuclear family' didn't really exist before 1920, which is pretty patently not true and essentially state that in the paragraphs above, particularly the bolded part.

However, I think the point you are really trying to make is that it's not that nuclear families didn't exist nor that they functioned, but that larger family structures were the predominant cultural force for much of history, whereas in modern western civilization it has dissolved away from extended family into first, isolated nuclear family units, and then ultimately into alt-families or non-family relationships based on compatible individual interests of whatever nature.

A 'basic unit' is the unit with the smallest number of parts to be functional. The primary functional purpose of family is procreation. That makes a man and a woman the most basic unit of social order. The kids are thrown in by extension because they cannot exist on their own for many years. Therefore, I don't like the idea of any extended family structure being used as a 'basic unit' despite it's historical predominance.

---

Winner!!!!! Smaller "nuclei".

I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it wasn't really a thing in the US until the 1920s - offhand way of saying it wasn't the dominant form of family. This is a fact supported by census data. The simplest explanation is economic - agrarian societies are much more compatible with extended family structures.

Again, I believe there is a general confusion over what you think "nuclear family" means. The definition of it is when people get married and go off and start their own family apart from their parents and siblings. If people live with their relations - on one farm, in a large multi-family dwelling, in large tents like Abraham's family would have - that's not a nuclear family.

Quote:

---

A 'basic unit' is the unit with the smallest number of parts to be functional. The primary functional purpose of family is procreation. That makes a man and a woman the most basic unit of social order. The kids are thrown in by extension because they cannot exist on their own for many years. Therefore, I don't like the idea of any extended family structure being used as a 'basic unit' despite it's historical predominance.

---

you are conflating social order with procreation. i believe that is an error, they are related but not the same.

the building block of Roman society - or ancient near eastern societies for that matter - was not individual nuclear families but large patriarchal families.

Athanasius said:

---

To answer OP:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm

---

Love your name. It's my son's middle name.

Zobel said:

---

I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it wasn't really a thing in the US until the 1920s - offhand way of saying it wasn't the dominant form of family. This is a fact supported by census data. The simplest explanation is economic - agrarian societies are much more compatible with extended family structures.

Again, I believe there is a general confusion over what you think "nuclear family" means. The definition of it is when people get married and go off and start their own family apart from their parents and siblings. If people live with their relations - on one farm, in a large multi-family dwelling, in large tents like Abraham's family would have - that's not a nuclear family.

Quote:

---

A 'basic unit' is the unit with the smallest number of parts to be functional. The primary functional purpose of family is procreation. That makes a man and a woman the most basic unit of social order. The kids are thrown in by extension because they cannot exist on their own for many years. Therefore, I don't like the idea of any extended family structure being used as a 'basic unit' despite it's historical predominance.

---

you are conflating social order with procreation. i believe that is an error, they are related but not the same.

---

You repeated yourself here in the first paragraph, but I realize posting lag is at play here....

Quote:

---

If people live with their relations - on one farm, in a large multi-family dwelling, in large tents like Abraham's family would have - that's not a nuclear family.

---

No it's not. It's a nuclear family existing within a larger family structure. You can take the extended family away and you still have a nuclear family. You can take the nuclear family away and you still have a family. But it isn't nuclear.

Quote:

---

you are conflating social order with procreation. i believe that is an error, they are related but not the same.

---

Perhaps, but I would contend that the purpose of social order is to provide the maximum environment for proliferation of the species. I think natural history backs me up on this. Therefore, procreation may not be the same as social order, but they are much more interconnected than just being 'related'.

These points about biological survivability and extended family social order converge again historically speaking, I believe, when you account for high mortality in more primitive times. People died a lot, and they died young. Extended family structure helped minimize the impact of death.

In modern times, this is less of a factor and further reason that extended families do not live under the same roof.

Quote:

---

No it's not. It's a nuclear family existing within a larger family structure. You can take the extended family away and you still have a nuclear family. You can take the nuclear family away and you still have a family. But it isn't nuclear.

---

yeah, you are just using a term differently than how it is used by the people who study these things. in this post there are the definitions from the guy who basically started the field.

a patriarchal family is not a nuclear family, and it is not comprised of smaller of nuclear families. it is a different thing altogether.

Quote:

---

These points about biological survivability and extended family social order converge again historically speaking, I believe, when you account for high mortality in more primitive times. People died a lot, and they died young. Extended family structure helped minimize the impact of death.

---

its more complicated than any one thing, but it has something to do with it. the need for labor does as well. also consider the time lag between marriage, rearing, and children being contributors. there is a long time (~15 years) where more children are actually detrimental to survival in an agrarian society - mouths to feed that don't contribute work. on the flip side in older years those same children become a huge boon. so a nuclear family may not even have been possible in many cases. larger family structures even out these temporal gaps between marriage and productive labor capacity in children.

Quote:

---

In modern times, this is less of a factor and further reason that extended families do not live under the same roof.

---

ironically in the US you actually have a rise in multigenerational families in the late 1800s before they fall off precisely because of the myriad health benefits of industrialization. and in some places multigenerational families are less common because of mortality. so here intuition is not always in line with what the historical data shows.

Quote:

---

ironically in the US you actually have a rise in multigenerational families in the late 1800s before they fall off precisely because of the myriad health benefits of industrialization. and in some places multigenerational families are less common because of mortality. so here intuition is not always in line with what the historical data shows.

---

Do you suppose that there is possibly a lag effect in play? Industrialization came on pretty fast in some places like the US and Europe. I can see it taking a generation or two before the rapid impact of health care advances affecting the extended family structure. Thus, the rise before the fall.

Could be, I'm an engineer not a sociologist. I saw in one of those papers a regression analysis that showed the strongest effect was from the shift in agricultural labor.

Quote:

---

yeah, you are just using a term differently than how it is used by the people who study these things. in this post there are the definitions from the guy who basically started the field.

a patriarchal family is not a nuclear family, and it is not comprised of smaller of nuclear families. it is a different thing altogether.

---

I care less about the terminology than the actual structure. The context of this debate stemming from the OP is about marriage. All three forms referenced still have at their foundation, a man and a woman marrying and procreating. Come up with whatever labels you want for various alignments of extended family members or lack thereof it doesn't really change this fact.

Let's cut to the chase if I may, the reason this is even a discussion is because there is a significant amount of force in play to redefine, and thereby destroy, what a family means because those behind such force find themselves at a disadvantage or disenfranchised because of the existence of a biologically viable family unit in the contemporary context.

We've seen the threatening pattern before, famously quoted:

1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.

Fitch said:

---

Whole bunch of pagans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Confucians, Hindus, Jains, Shintoists, Sikhs, etc. out there who are or have been married the last, say, 5000 years or so (milage may vary). Assuming these folks are included in the consideration.

OP does sort of overlook the whole surrogate or sperm donor option for same sex couples, or the work in progress to utilize bone marrow to create sperm by which two female parters could (conceivably) become pregnant.

---

If you're going to look at historical marriage… it's a contract, and historically, not necessarily between the two people getting married.
+ A father marries off a daughter because he doesn't want to feed and clothe her any longer. Who to matters only in that she's no longer his responsibility.
+ Two families put their kids together to form a bond between the families. The kids weren't interested in each other? Too bad, suck it up and give us grandkids.
+ A father essentially 'sells' his daughter to someone who will give him something… money, land, influence, whatever… in return.
+ And so on.

Religion has nothing to do with the 'arrangements' listed other than being brought in typically, the purpose to solemnize and provide an air of respectability. In the past that list was pretty common. In other parts of the world it still is, and it hasn't disappeared entirely in this country among the minority that still considers women more as secondary to men, if not actually property.

In this and other countries that have realized that no one is secondary to anyone else in terms of worthiness and consideration, marriage has become a Union to two people who want to make a lifetime commitment to each other. We've always thought of it as a man and woman who most often want to have kids and raise a family. These days it has come to include same-sex marriages where the couple obviously can't conceive children of their own, though they can and sometimes do adopt. Is that sort of Union right or wrong? Or just different from what we're grown to expect? I've been married to a wonderful woman for 51 years and we love our kids and grandkids and while I can be pretty opinionated, I've seen, heard, and been around enough to learn tolerance. Just because it's not my way doesn't mean it's wrong.

I was originally just responding to someone who said the nuclear family was the basis of community. That's an anachronistic view of history.

I agree that in the end there's a biological fact that you gotta have a man and a woman to make a kid. The only reason I think the nuclear family aspect is important is because of the way that family structure has become both idealized and normative in our societal conscience.

The idea of the nuclear family and the gay marriage debate are inextricably linked. As you say

Quote:

---

there is a significant amount of force in play to redefine, and thereby destroy, what a family means because those behind such force find themselves at a disadvantage or disenfranchised because of the existence of a biologically viable family unit in the contemporary context.

---

yes! But this sentence is only true if you implicitly understand "family" to be "nuclear family"!!!

In a large extended family or joint family there is no reason whatever that those people are as you say disadvantaged or disenfranchised. You have cut to the quick with remarkable perceptiveness.

If the problem is that in the current milieu where the nuclear family is seen as the societal unit, people who cannot participate in that are at a disadvantage, there aren't too many options.

One is you can fight tooth and nail to defend the nuclear family as the best and highest thing, as the ideal. Let the chips fall where they may, there are going to be people in the in group and people on the out group. That's what most conservatives choose to do. The problem is when there are more people on the out group than the in group, or when people in the in group side with those on the out, this will fail. <-- you are here

Another is you can modify the category to accommodate more. You say, hey well nuclear family used to mean mom and dad and kids, but now it can mean mom and mom and kids, or dad and dad and dog-babies. Voila, problem solved. <--- most progressives are here.

A third is you can say - we don't need to change the category, we need to reject the nuclear family as ideal as well as invent new categories to accommodate everyone (alt-families, queer families, whatever). <--- post modern intersectionality theory is here

And finally you can say - the nuclear family as supreme over and against extended family structures (which include the family structure of the church) is a blip on the radar of history and isn't worth defending, and decouple the whole thing from the marriage argument. <--- i am here

if you remove the societal pressure to conform to a normative nuclear family structure, i think a lot of this discussion vanishes.

So what is a marriage? Should we even care to define the term?

If a traditional marriage wherein a man and a women unite for the good of each other and any children that result from their union is not marriage, then what is it exactly?

Is it just 2 people who enjoy each other's company?

ETA: I don't think it's intolerant to acknowledge that there are inherent differences in the kinds of relationships that are naturally ordered toward procreation, and those that aren't.

If you can succinctly define what a marriage is without leaving anyone or any proclivity out of the definition, then it's totally meaningless anyway. Why even have a word for it? It would be nothing at all.

An antiquated and unnecessary relationship.

They should allow flexibility in marriage contracts so each partner can negotiate their own terms like all other contracts.

Neehau said:

---

An antiquated and unnecessary relationship.

They should allow flexibility in marriage contracts so each partner can negotiate their own terms like all other contracts.

---

Everything this board has come to expect from you, and that's not a good thing.

i think you gotta step back one place further and even grapple with the idea of why marriage should be lifelong and monogamous to begin with. as neehau made clear.

and when you do that there's really only two reasons for the lifelong and monogamous ideas in tandem: Christian beliefs and / or the stability benefits those two things afford for society...polygamy is bad because it leads to lots of disaffected young men = instability and dissoluble marriage is bad because it's crap for raising kids = instability.

Lotta words spilled on 'does nuclear family mean dad, mom, and kids?'

Some of y'all imagine the nuclear family as uranium. All 238 of your closest relatives are one giant family.

Some of y'all would like us to all be more aware of hydrogen atom families. Just a single proton trying to raise their hyperactive electron in this tough world.

B-1 83 said:

---

Neehau said:

---

An antiquated and unnecessary relationship.

They should allow flexibility in marriage contracts so each partner can negotiate their own terms like all other contracts.

---

Everything this board has come to expect from you, and that's not a good thing.

---

We appear to disagree.

When you have children, you always will have a family. They will always be your priority, your responsibility. And a man, a man provides. And he does it even when he's not appreciated or respected or even loved. He simply bears up and does it. Because he's a man.

Nowhere is there a necessity to have this biological imperative encumbered by a marriage contract.