Reframing and Extending the Understanding of Marriage <\/i><\/p>\n
Introduction<\/b><\/p>\n
The understanding of relationships with an “other” is central to highly controversial debate at this time. The debate focuses in particular on “same-sex marriage<\/a>“. This is considered especially questionable by various religions, most explicitly those of Abrahamic tradition and most especially by the Catholic Church.<\/p>\n The question here is whether the nature of relationships with any “other” can be reframed in the light of the variety of understandings of “marriage”. The issue is whether this reframing effectively exists already to a degree, both intuitively and in practice. The “same-sex” controversy could therefore be understood as focused unfruitfully on a very particular understanding of the “other” whom it is possible to marry and the manner in which that marriage is honoured and celebrated.<\/p>\n It is argued here that a person may be variously considered by society to be “married to” a wide variety of “others”, possibly including: a house, a farm, a club, an automobile, a hobby, a garden, a teacher, an occupation, a friend, a pet animal, a cause, etc. A Google search of “married to the ” is indicative (132 million hits). A cause may indeed be “espoused”, for example.<\/p>\n In each case the bond is recognized to have characteristics of “marriage” — and may even be held to be so strong as to compete for fidelity with any conventional marriage, as with a person “married to” an all-absorbing hobby, despite the concerns of any spouse. Within such a context, any controversy regarding conventional marriage derives from what could be named as “definitional game-playing”, selectively adjusting the criteria of marriage to honour (or deprecate) particular forms under particular conditions. As argued here, in practice the bond associated with the sense of being married takes a wider variety of forms in its potential engagement with one or more “others” — and may well be recognized as such already.<\/p>\n This exploration follows from earlier efforts (Transcending Simplistic Binary Contractual Relationships: what is hindering their exploration?<\/i><\/a> 2012; An Approach to Systematic Classification of Interpersonal Relationships<\/i><\/a>, 1978). The last was subtitled as “essential to alternative life styles, social and personal transformation”.<\/p>\n Contents:<\/b><\/p>\n Introduction<\/a>
\nReligious context<\/a>
\nRecognized criteria of marriage<\/a>
\nMarriage more inclusively understood <\/a>
\nQuestionable criteria of marriage<\/a>
\nSubtler insights into the “chemistry” of the marriage bond<\/a>
\nIonic marriage versus Covalent marriage?<\/a>
\nBonding with an “other” articulated through the language of molecular bonding<\/a>
\nComplementary languages required for articulation of human bonding<\/a>
\nExtending understanding of the “other” as a potential partner <\/a>
\nExtending the family of “family values” — wisely<\/a>
\nEnabling the other to be otherwise<\/a>
\nConclusion<\/a>
\nReferences<\/a><\/p>\n