Among the institutions and opinions of mankind, marriage has been, for millennia, acknowledged as a natural arrangement that is beneficial and productive.
When a man and women hook up and thereby create new life, society itself would do well to encourage and enable the parents to act responsibly toward their offspring, lest the burden and expense of child-raising fall upon society as a whole. When a father and mother commit themselves to each other and to their children–to love, teach, and discipline those children–this is better for the child, for the parents, and for society in general than what otherwise might happen if the father and mother were to just do their own thing apart from the family they have created.
Sure, it takes a village to raise a child. But that’s the big picture. At the heart of a healthy, progressive society is a child who is nurtured and trained in the love, discipline, and education of mother and father. This is why marriage, in its original naturally-occurring state, needs to make a comeback in the modern world. Otherwise, all hell could break loose. And I’m not kidding.
A resurgence of marital commitments between fathers and mothers would actually solve a lot of societal problems. Think about it.
There are many ways, of course, to think about this enduring cultural arrangement called marriage. But lets just choose one analytical approach, to define what marriage actually is. A logical analysis, for instance, may demonstrate that:
if A+B=M, where A is man, B is woman, and M is marriage,
can A+A=M, or B+B=M ?
A+A is not the same as A+B; nor is B+B the same as A+B.
A+A is something else. B+B is something else. These two collaborations, being qualitatively different from A+B, require their own definitions.
Therefore, let us say:
A+A= P (partnership), and B+B=P (partnership.)
There is, in the real world, empirical evidence for the validity of this reasoning.
When you observe A and B in their natural habitat, it can be seen that A and B fit together in a certain way, somewhat like a screw and a nut fit together, and that they can be threaded together as one integral unit. Furthermore, the combination of A and B has biological potential to yield newborn A’s and B’s.
This procreative manifestation cannot happen when A and A are combined, nor can species reproduction occur naturally between B and B.
Therefore, A+B remains as it has been for so many thousands of years: marriage.
A+A we will name “partnership.” Likewise, B+B we will call “partnership.”
This is the way we in North Carolina, or at least 61% of us, think about this. It very simple, really. Some may say its simple-minded, or too simplistic.
Whatever. Down here in the state of North Carolina, we prefer this arrangement, as has recently been seen in the voting booths. Speaking of “state,” let me remind you that we do have fifty of them. And they are all different for a reason. Let each state decide for itself how it wants to live and reinforce certain familial arrangements. We don’t need the Feds making these determinations for everybody. What works in North Carolina may not play out the same way in Oregon, or Maryland.
For more about the state of North Carolina, listen to this song I wrote about our state:
CR, with new novel, Smoke, in progress