I read the following article on the AOL Welcome page dated May 1, 2010. What I am posting here to add to our wisdom and mutual sharing are the final sentences of her article.

This is the conclusion of the article by Donna Trussell appearing on the AOL Welcome Page on May 1, 2010. She had never become pregnant up to age 35 and had to have a hysterectomy at that age and was unable to have children after that, hence she is now in her 40's and childless. She accepts her motherless fate, and even says she prefers it, but at the end of her article she writes about how the "baby she never had" calls out to her from within the depths of her consciousness. I think this professional writer's view, even though she is a female (not a male like most of us on this website) offers additional insight to the original question posed by Red "Is marriage -- and by implication, having children -- still considered "NORMAL" by society?

What follows are the words of Donna Trussel:


"I'm happy for friends that bring new lives into the world. With any luck, they'll share with me. But I admit the paths I've taken and not taken haunt me a little. To quote from an obscure poem about a daughter never conceived and never born:



I thought she'd fade
but still she calls
in the sleepless night:
give me your darkest winter
it will be spring to me"


With these words she ended her article.

Something to think about, right?

Unfortunately that is not all that marriage entails. I wish that were all that marriage entailed - indeed that has been the thrust of my argument - but it is not all that marriage entails in our society. Marriage entails a legal (and often religious) binding of two individuals.

This isn't just a semantic disagreement, as you seem to be suggesting with your "rose" bit. There is actually a conceptual difference between a nuclear family and a marriage. If you're satisfied with dodging my arguments and agreeing on the point that nuclear families are useful, then fine. But the goal of an argument, at least in the philosophical sense, is not merely to agree. The goal is to find the truth.

There are at least two truths here, two assertions that I have made:

1) Nuclear families are useful.
2) Marriage is an unnecessary and archaic institution.

You can agree with the first statement, but that is entirely independent of the second statement. And if you have no further argument about the second statement, then I must assume that you concede the point.

*This is completely off topic, but I can't help myself. The statement "A rose is a rose is a rose" is actually false. The reason has to do with the fact that nature is dynamic, constantly changing. Not only is every rose in the world physically different, but even the same rose is different from itself from one moment to the next. Quantum theory has shown that even the atoms that compose that rose are different from one moment to the next. If this sounds like mere wordplay, it's not - it is simply an acknowledgment of how reality works. I have recently been studying a field called General Semantics, which teaches you how to think more critically about the world from moment-to-moment. This actually has many practical applications as well. I recommend it. If you're interested, look up a book called Drive Yourself Sane by Kodish and Kodish.

"There are at least two truths here, two assertions that I have made:

1) Nuclear families are useful.
2) Marriage is an unnecessary and archaic institution."

A key word was left out -- whether intentionally or unintentionally -- in the above statement that links the two statements together rather closely --- the word is "committed". It is the purpose and goal of both religion and the state, in relation to "the nuclear family" and/or "marriage" to strengthen the sense of "committment". In the case of religion, the belief that a supreme deity wants the mutual committment to the nuclear family to last is considered by those participants who are religious to be a "strengthening" or "reinforcing" factor. In the case of a civil or legal marriage, the state and its "community property laws" intends to serve as a "strengthening" factor to the couple entering into a committed family relationship. One could argue that this "strengthening factor" -- whether religious or civil -- is unnecessary and unwanted -- but that would not alter the fact that a strong committment to establish and maintain a nuclear family is the primary and overarching goal of religion or the state in this particular instance. The state considers it to be in its(the state's) best interest if committed nuclear families last and endure. Similarly, religious institutions and/or communities consider the durability of the mutual promises to be important for spiritual and moral reasons. Bottom line is: committed nuclear families are seen as "useful paradigms" by both religious institutions and civil institutions, and as such these institutions spend much time and energy establishing, preserving and maintaining nuclear families. If truth is what we all want here, then the truth is this: Committed nuclear families are a useful paradigm, and that means -- they are GOOD -- and the state and religious institutions in society are devoted to striving to preserve and maintain that "useful paradigm" -- they are striving to maintain and preserve something we have already agreed on this forum to be a GOOD thing. That's all Red intended to be asking about when he raised his initial question: Is "marriage" still considered "normal" by society? As has already been said, another forum could pose the question: "Should religious faith, or civil and legal institutions have any role to play when a couple promises fidelity to one another regarding the formation of and nurturing of a nuclear family?" But the "truth" Red is looking for here has little or nothing to do with the role of religion or the state in "marriage" or the "nuclear family": he wants to know what we all think about what "society" considers "normal" for a man and a woman: is it the "single life" or is it becoming a "committed nuclear family". Since both religious institutions and state institutions attempt to insert themselves as "strengthening"
agencies to and for the committed nuclear family, it could easily and convincingly be argued that they offer a helpful and useful service -- and if they offer a "useful service" to something that is considered a "useful paradigm" then they too could readily be considered "useful" or "GOOD". It appears to be self-evident, that if one considers something to be a "useful paradigm" that one would not disdain any social institution or political institution that tries to strengthen that "useful paradigm" - in fact it seems logical that one would consider such institutions as "GOOD". Consider hospitals or nursing homes, for example: If they are "useful" then what possible reason could one have for disdaining churches or political entities like states or municipalities from establishing and maintaining them? If something is "useful" then any social or civil institution that facilitates or promotes that "useful thing" should be seen as providing a helpful and useful service, and hence considered "GOOD". Of course if one has a "beef" for one reason or another with "religion", or the "state", then one quite naturally would wish that those institutions would stay out of any social structure, regardless of whether that structure is seen as "good" or a "useful paradigm" or not.
But such a "beef" is a very tangential issue to the main "truth" being sought after, which has to do with whether "committed nuclear families" are considered "normal".
And there is little value to continuing to debate whether the words "marriage" and "committed nuclear family" are used interchangeably here . . . . they simply are. Note this quote from Wikipedia: "Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding.

People marry for many reasons, most often including one or more of the following: legal, social, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of love."

Even Wikipedia agrees that THE LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY UNIT is one of the reasons marriages exist. My contention is it is not only one of the reasons,but it is for the vast majority of individuals, the PRIMARY reason, especially in countries like the USA where marriages are not arranged to pay back family obligations.

It just occurred to me that Red has used a "key" word in his question that needs clarification before we can fully give him an answer: that word is "normal". It can have at least two different meanings as it is being used here. The first meaning is "usual" or "commonly occuring" or "commonplace". The other meaning is "normative", which carries a sense of "rightness" or "what ought to be". A behavior pattern can be "normal" and not "normative" and it can also be "normative" and not "normal". To use a home spun example: it is "normative" for a child using crayons not to color outside the lines, but it would be unusual or "not normal" to find a child that never ever colored outside the lines. A more adult example: it is "normative" for all liscenced automobile drivers to always obey the speed limit, but it would be "unusual" and therefore not "normal" to find a driver who never ever disobeyed the speed limit. The opposite of "normative" would be "inappropriate", but the opposite of "normal" would be "the exception". Exceptions are not necessarily "inappropriate", as when one goes over the speed limit for a good reason like rushing an injured person to the hospital. OK Red, this clarification can prove to be very useful in this forum. I know that it helps me resolve two seemingly conflicting views on this subject which I have already expressed here: 1) one that Mother Theresa and Thomas Edison both did not marry and still lived extraordinary and praiseworthy lives and 2) that commited nuclear families are a useful paradigm (this is really Arcadian's phrase, but I am totally in agreement with it). These two views, at first glance, make me appear to be contradicting myself and I worried about that. Now I realize one can have it both ways and not be contradicting oneself. "Marriage" or "Committed Nuclear Families" are "Normal" but not "Normative" That means they are the most commonly occuring social pattern in society, but they are not necessarily the only "appropriate" way to live, i.e., they are not "normative". Yes, most people are born in social units called "the nuclear family", but "No" not all people must seek to establish, promote and nurture such social units (i.e, it is not inappropriate not to do so). I only came to this conclusion today (May 4) so if my earlier posts on this forum seem like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, I apologize. Somehow deep down, I sensed that Mother Theresa and Thomas Edison, and so many others less famous who are like them, were not doing something inappropriate with their lives by not marrying and having children. So, the TRUTH (since Arcadian feels that is what this forum should be in quest of) as I see it is: "marriage" -- which we take to mean a male and a female in a committed nuclear family relationship -- is "normal" (meaning usual) but is not "normative" (meaning
the only appropriate social pattern). By answering the question this way, we allow for many exceptions to the norm, and that's GOOD, and That's the TRUTH.

By the way, Red, this issue you provided gave us all a very facinating exchange of ideas. I myself learned a lot, and even grew a lot, in my knowledge and understanding as it went along. Thanks a lot, really, thanks a lot. Paulpicks11

I don't have time right now to say very much, but everybody interested in this topic should READ the current issue of TIME magazine (November 29, 2010). The cover story asks the same question we are discussing here and they have surveys and statistics to back up the points they make. It's very, very interesting. Check it out, everybody. Incidently, the fact that nearly a year after Red brought up this issue, TIME decides it's worth a cover story just shows what an inciteful and brilliant leader of us all Red is. Way to go, RED!!!

I myself am in an unconventional relationship which I doubt will end in marriage. For those who read what I wrote that I live with my sister, I should clarify. I'm in a long-distance relationship with a woman who lives on the other side of the world. I'm not in a relationship with my own sister.

Thanks, Morkos, for visiting this forum and reopening this very lively and informative discussion. It's interesting that you say you are in a long-distance relationship with a woman who lives on the other side of the world, and as you say, you doubt it will end in marriage. But I'm not sure what you are saying to the rest of us about whether you believe it is normal for people NOT to get married? Even if your present long-distance relationship does not end in marriage, you still might find someone else later on who wants to get married, and so RED'S original question still is asking for your opinion. Would you get married if someone came along whom you wanted to marry? and as a derivative comment, do you think it's normal for people not to get married? Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with us.

Well, as a Filipino and a Catholic, I think marriage should be the norm. My girlfriend and I re still hoping it could be for us.