Marriage/Family
Jan. 22nd, 2010 09:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueSo the conservatives are plugging 'family values' as part of their electioneering. I can sort of understand, and appreciate where they're coming from. I just think they've got it wrong.
To my mind, a 'family' doesn't actually need to be a matter of blood kin. Nor does it fall neatly into the 'family unit' of husband, wife, 2.4 children.
Giving tax credits to married couples ... well, it's not much of a credit anyway, but it's just not the right approach - lets face it, if the tax credit makes any difference to your decision to get married, then you're getting married for the wrong reason.
The world has changed, and I think for the better - it's no longer scandalous to be an unmarried couple cohabiting. Divorce isn't the end of the world either.
But it also changes the other way, in that 'community groups' in many cases start to break apart a bit - a 'family' which is husband, wife, 2.4 children isn't actually all that good - children are a lot of effort, and if you have no extended family to call upon, are you really giving them the best possible upbringing?
I think not.
Anyway. The irony is, that with marriage becoming shorter term, and less 'pushed' it actually gives an opportunity to strength it. Am I alone in thinking that if you make a promise like _that_ you'd better mean it? I'm not going to say that divorce is a bad thing, but .... well, I'd much rather have couples not getting married in the first place. Don't make a promise you don't know you can keep.
So anyway, I digress. That's why I think the conservatives have it wrong - not that 'forming a family' is bad, but because their scope is too narrow. I actually think we should be looking at forming larger families - that for every 'breeding pair' there should _always_ be other adults who take up part of the responsibility for the children. Once upon a time, that might be aunts, uncles, grandparents, but there's no real reason there needs to be. Why not have 'uncle in law' and 'aunty-in-law', and actively encourage the overlapping support of children?
Because that's what this boils down to really - a couple can get along quite well, on an ad-hoc basis. The reason that 'family' is considered a good thing, is because it gives children stability in their upbringing. I'm not going to dispute that, but I think that a 'family' is something we should be thinking more:
Mother, Father, Children, and another 4 adults who will pick them up from school, take them to the park, and put them to bed from time to time.
And whilst we're at it, lets look a bit more at what it means when you say 'until death do us part' - I don't think we should be making promises that we can't keep. But that doesn't mean it's either 'promise together forever' or 'promise nothing'. Why not have something inbetween? I mean, we see marriages with pre-nuptial clauses already. That just strikes me as nuts - promise to be with someone forever, but just in case you're not, arrange how to divvy it up afterwards.
Why not instead just look at a 1 year 'exclusive relationship, partnership and cohabitation contract'? Include a rolling renewal - each year on your anniversary, ask each other the question - do you still want me - and then off you go. Carry on. OK, maybe more than a year is better suited - perhaps you want one a bit more focussed on a child's upbringing, so you set the term accordingly. I just sort of liked the resonance with 'a year and a day'.
Why not? Make your promise, keep it, and decide each year if this is still the person you want to be with? That way, if you really do say the words 'until death do us part' you get to do it when you really mean it.
To my mind, a 'family' doesn't actually need to be a matter of blood kin. Nor does it fall neatly into the 'family unit' of husband, wife, 2.4 children.
Giving tax credits to married couples ... well, it's not much of a credit anyway, but it's just not the right approach - lets face it, if the tax credit makes any difference to your decision to get married, then you're getting married for the wrong reason.
The world has changed, and I think for the better - it's no longer scandalous to be an unmarried couple cohabiting. Divorce isn't the end of the world either.
But it also changes the other way, in that 'community groups' in many cases start to break apart a bit - a 'family' which is husband, wife, 2.4 children isn't actually all that good - children are a lot of effort, and if you have no extended family to call upon, are you really giving them the best possible upbringing?
I think not.
Anyway. The irony is, that with marriage becoming shorter term, and less 'pushed' it actually gives an opportunity to strength it. Am I alone in thinking that if you make a promise like _that_ you'd better mean it? I'm not going to say that divorce is a bad thing, but .... well, I'd much rather have couples not getting married in the first place. Don't make a promise you don't know you can keep.
So anyway, I digress. That's why I think the conservatives have it wrong - not that 'forming a family' is bad, but because their scope is too narrow. I actually think we should be looking at forming larger families - that for every 'breeding pair' there should _always_ be other adults who take up part of the responsibility for the children. Once upon a time, that might be aunts, uncles, grandparents, but there's no real reason there needs to be. Why not have 'uncle in law' and 'aunty-in-law', and actively encourage the overlapping support of children?
Because that's what this boils down to really - a couple can get along quite well, on an ad-hoc basis. The reason that 'family' is considered a good thing, is because it gives children stability in their upbringing. I'm not going to dispute that, but I think that a 'family' is something we should be thinking more:
Mother, Father, Children, and another 4 adults who will pick them up from school, take them to the park, and put them to bed from time to time.
And whilst we're at it, lets look a bit more at what it means when you say 'until death do us part' - I don't think we should be making promises that we can't keep. But that doesn't mean it's either 'promise together forever' or 'promise nothing'. Why not have something inbetween? I mean, we see marriages with pre-nuptial clauses already. That just strikes me as nuts - promise to be with someone forever, but just in case you're not, arrange how to divvy it up afterwards.
Why not instead just look at a 1 year 'exclusive relationship, partnership and cohabitation contract'? Include a rolling renewal - each year on your anniversary, ask each other the question - do you still want me - and then off you go. Carry on. OK, maybe more than a year is better suited - perhaps you want one a bit more focussed on a child's upbringing, so you set the term accordingly. I just sort of liked the resonance with 'a year and a day'.
Why not? Make your promise, keep it, and decide each year if this is still the person you want to be with? That way, if you really do say the words 'until death do us part' you get to do it when you really mean it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 07:44 pm (UTC)Makes you realise quite how many strands there are to a "simple" relationship and that "hetero-lifemates" (the phrase beloved of Jay and Silent Bob) actually covers more of the bases than one might expect.