Toward a gender inclusive definition of marriage

Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism 19 (2):99-104 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

My purpose in this paper is to set forth a case for inclusion, without any restriction whatsoever, of gays and lesbians in the legal definition of marriage within the various jurisdictions within the United States of America. Historical and cross cultural definitions of marriage are usually based on two basic premises or components, structure and function. Structural definitions of marriage, with which most people and jurisdictions identify, are based on exclusion and inclusion, i.e. on who is eligible for inclusion and who must be excluded. Ordinarily the restrictions exclude those not having reached the age of majority, those who are not judged mentally competent, and those of the same gender. Functional definitions of marriage are based on the willingness of the partners to engage in the duties and responsibilities to each other and to all offspring regardless of their physical or mental fitness. I intend to defend the proposition that legal marriage for gays and lesbians is better defined and defended when based on function rather than structure. Specifically, this means that marriage is the union of those who 1.) without mental equivocation embrace their mutual commitment to support and care for each other; 2.) are of legal age; 3.) are of sound mind; and 4.) affirm their commitment to fulfill, to the best of their ability, the following functions as they pertain to the natural birth, legal adoption, or foster care of any and all children included in the marital union: These functions include but are not limited to: protection , economic, affect-giving, socialization, acculturation, education, and sexual access between the conjugal partners. Historically, there is no record throughout the history of humankind, of any state or body politic that does not profess a vested interest in the mate selection patterns of its young. This is not generally for the edification of the married, but rather for the assurance of the socialization and acculturation of the ascending generation

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,709

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Reforming Marriage: A Comparative Approach.Laurie Shrage - 2013 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (2):107-121.
Transsexualism and Christian Marriage.Oliver O'Donovan - 1983 - Journal of Religious Ethics 11 (1):135 - 162.
Abba, Father: Inclusive Language and Theological Salience.H. E. Baber - 1999 - Faith and Philosophy 16 (3):423-432.
Gender, property and power: Mahr and marriage in a Palestinian village.Annelies Moors - 1991 - In Kathy Davis, Monique Leijenaar & Jantine Oldersma (eds.), The Gender of Power. Sage Publications. pp. 111--128.
Brief Refutations of Some Common Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage.Benjamin A. Gorman - 2004 - American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues 4 (1):13-15.
Hume's Definition of Miracles Revised.Steve Clarke - 1999 - American Philosophical Quarterly 36 (1):49 - 57.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-12-17

Downloads
45 (#352,002)

6 months
6 (#510,793)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John Crosby
University of Central Florida

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references