We have heard a lot of discussion about family and protecting the institution of marriage. Some oppose gay marriage saying it harms the institution of heterosexual marriage and destroys the traditional image of "family".

Many women are now having children via sperm donation and choose not to get married. We see families where the parents have had many partners. Many people are adopting children from other countries and cultures.

I propose that the definition of family is changing and along with it the definition of marriage. There seems to be a trend toward families consisting of people and children who chose to live together and are not necessarily blood related. Is this harmful or is it an "open arms" attitude? Is this possibly a trend toward a more loving attitude toward our fellow human beings?

Where do you see family headed and what is your definition of family?

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

I rather like one of the American Heritage definitions:

A group of persons sharing common ancestry.

I tend to think this way. All Cherokees are family as far as I'm concerned, though this isn't a specific definition, like it would be if I was talking about my mother, father, brother, and sisters, or my wife and children.

How does that definition apply to adopted children? Or to marriage for that matter?

__________________
A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe,
a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself,
his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest
a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. -- Albert Einstein

It could apply to adopted children if their background was the same, but doesn't necessarily need to include marriage. There is a couple I've known for about 25 years now that I consider dear friends. They've actually been together a couple years longer than my wife and I have been, but they aren't married, and I suspect that they never will get married. But they are definitely a family.

Sorry, still confused. Are you saying that adopted children are not family unless their background is the same as the parents?

__________________
A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe,
a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself,
his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest
a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. -- Albert Einstein

I think, for kids' sake, that the definition of family needs to change. In my school, I have kids raised by Grandparents, mother and live-in, mother and grandmother, both parents married, single dad and live-in, and some by single parents no live-in. They need to feel that their family is recognized by others, because it is a family to them! Whenever I talk about showing something to someone at home or someone coming to school for something, I usually give all the examples of choices. With the statistics of marriages becoming so grim, and the rising number of granparents taking over child rearing duties of their grandkids, we need to be more flexible in these views. The kids do not choose their family situation, and not too long ago, they were looked down upon when they didn't fit the mom-dad mold. We have even had same sex couple come to parent conferences, and I am proud to say my fellow teachers have handled it. To me, it's all about the kids.

Hey, Bea, I'm adopted, and my birth certificate shows that my parents are x and x...no mention of adoption. It looks like anyone else's. I think since there is legal status there, it isn't such a biggie. Those live-ins and steps have a harder time, when it comes to confidentiality, medical permissions, etc.

I think the problem in our society is that too many people want to define family for everyone, based on their own experience. And I feel a lot of people suffer a bit of prejudice from others, if their family doesn't meet the criteria.

As mentioned, there are many types of families today.

The typical husband-wife-children (together forever) type families.

You also have the whole divorce equation. Either parents separate, never to remarry, and both pitch in to raise the children.

You have families where one parent has past on, and the children are now raised by one parent.

You have families where parents have divorced, remarried, and now there are step-brothers and sisters, half siblings, etc.

You have families where a man or woman is considered the soul parent, and the other was a donor of some type.

You have families where both parents are of the same sex and either adopted, have a child by a previous heterosexual marriage, or used a donor to conceive.

You also have situations where people have no blood relation, but have been close for many many years, and consider a tight knit group of friends to be their family.

Unfortunately, we also see many families where there is a biological tie, but that's where it ends. Siblings never speak or see each other, have lost touch with parents, etc.

A family is what you make of it. It boggles my mind that we have a group in the US called "Focus on the family" who ONLY wants to spread the word of the typical mother-father-children type family.

I do feel that family is important. It gives us the strength and backing we need to get through life. It is our support system. So why do we need to put families into certain buckets, and support one type but not another?