GalacticCactus Forum
Forums => English & Linguistics => Topic started by: JT on May 10, 2006, 07:43:59 AM
-
http://www.slate.com/id/2141083/ (http://www.slate.com/id/2141083/)
This is pretty interesting. Although I have a feeling that its use as a colloquialism hasn't quite trickled down to the LDS ranks.
-
I've never heard of those words.
-
I've heard them before, but not from anyone I know personally.
-
By the way, someone just used the term on Hatrack (http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=029752;p=4&r=nfx#000151).
-
I heard Queen Latifah say that on the Rosie O'donnell show when Sphere came out. 1996 or 7, I would imagine. Ah, it was 1998. Ironically enough, she was calling Tom Cruise Rosie's Baby-daddy.
-
I am familiar with the terms, and even had a vague notion of their origins. I rather disagree with this statement, though: ". . . are slowly stripping them of their emotional fangs."
While I can usually manage to have no opinion (or at the very least, none I feel the need to express in public) about couples who choose to live together with getting married, that is not true when they have children. IMO, the fact that we not only have these terms in our (general) culture, but they are becoming neutral or even positive is somewhat nauseating. To me, they will ALWAYS have "emotional fangs."
-
IMO, the fact that we not only have these terms in our (general) culture, but they are becoming neutral or even positive is somewhat nauseating. To me, they will ALWAYS have "emotional fangs."
*applauds*
-
According to the link, though, the term isn't about a couple who live together and have kids but aren't married. It's about an ex-couple who presumably don't live together and have kids. That's quite different.
-
Actually, re-reading a bit more closely, it looks like the term also includes current but non-exclusive relationships. I'd still say that's different, though.
-
And the article notes that the term has also been used to describe married or engaged couples with kids.
-
And the article notes that the term has also been used to describe married or engaged couples with kids.
Right. IOW, many people see no difference between those three situations.
That would be precisely the part I have a problem with.
-
Me too.
-
There were four situations mentioned in this thread, though: an ex-couple, a non-exclusive couple, an exclusive but unmarried couple, and a married/engaged couple. To be honest, I don't see much difference between the last two situations except for religious concerns.
-
To be honest, I don't see much difference between the last two situations except for religious concerns.
Because those don't matter, eh? <_<
-
I didn't say that. I'm kind of surprised that you'd put words in my mouth. You don't usually make inferences like that.
I wouldn't say that religious concerns don't matter to those who are religious, but I'd say it's pretty likely that they don't matter in a personal way to most of those who are not religious. But even the non-religious sometimes take religious concerns into consideration because of respect they have for other people.
-
I apologize for making that assumption. I was surprised, as it didn't seem to be in character for you.
-----
Even knowing that you didn't mean it, it still reads as dismissive to "religious concerns". :shrug:
-
Saxon, I think you're missing a "not" in the first sentence of your second paragraph.
-
I don't think he is.
-
Saxon, I think you're missing a "not" in the first sentence of your second paragraph.
What do you think it should say?
-
"I wouldn't say that religious concerns don't matter to those who are not religious."
If that's not what you meant, then I don't understand that sentence at all.
-
That sentence says three things:
1.) Religious concerns matter to religious people.
2.) Religious concerns may not matter to non-religious people.
3.) If religious concerns matter to non-religious people, it's probably not in a personal way.
-
Okay. I think I see it now. Sometimes I have a surprisingly hard time with double negatives.
-
So if marriage is solely a religious concern... why have some insisted it is a civil right?
I will say that Hip hop terminology is not of concern to me since I don't strongly identify as hip hop. I don't agree with the assertions of some (no one here, but someone many of us know of) that it is not music.
-
I didn't say that marriage is solely a religious concern. I wasn't talking about the general institution of marriage. Aside from the fact that marriage does have legal benefits and consequences--things like taxation, power of attorney, survivor rights, and visitation rights--it's quite possible for a person to invest meaning in a symbol without that symbol having a religious basis, and I think it's likely that most non-religious people who are married do exactly that.
-
Then I don't understand why you said that you don't see much difference, aside from religious concerns, between an exclusive non-married couple and a married couple.
-
Because we were talking about couples with children. I don't see much moral or practical difference in child-rearing ability between an exclusive, non-married couple and a married couple. In the broader scope there are certainly practical differences between an exclusive, non-married couple and a married couple.
In a larger sense, though, I'm starting to question my purpose in making that statement at all. I'm not sure what sort of discussion I was trying to engender, or what the goals of such a discussion would be. I'm starting to think that I might not have been trying to discuss at all, but that I was just being argumentative and challenging because I was feeling defensive. That's not something I should do. I apologize.
-
I know I make that same mistake from time to time.
Accepted.
-
To clarify: I was not claiming there is a difference in child-rearing ability between a married couple v. non-married. And I certainly have reason to know that being married is no guarantee that the parents will remain a single parenting unit.
However, IMO, if a couple chooses to have a child, they owe it to the child to do everything possible to give that child stability and acceptance in society. To me, being married is an important component of that.
-
I was using the word "ability" in a more broad sense than solely things like skills and talents. I meant it to include anything that each couple is able to provide for their respective children.
I think it's likely that our difference of opinion comes from differences in some fundamental aspects of our worldviews. I think it was a little combative and tactless of me to bring it up, especially in the way that I did. I apologize for that and I'll quit now. Though if anyone else wants to continue the thread, please don't take my absence as a request not to.
-
I think it's likely that our difference of opinion comes from differences in some fundamental aspects of our worldviews.
Almost certainly. :)
-
I think the main feeling I have for a family where the parents don't see the benefit of getting married is "concern". But a lot of situations cause me concern.