Dear Mr Opinion,

Although the family and marriage institution arose from
our characteristics as a species, we are not merely
biological animals, we are social animals as well.
A full understanding of the universality of the
family and marriage must take into account the functions
that the institution performs.

Firstly the regulation of sexual behaviour. The marriage
and family system provides a means of regulating sexual
behaviour by specifying who may mate with whom and under
what circumstances they may do so.

Secondly the replacement of members - A society cannot
survive unless it has a system for replacing its members
from generation to generation. The family provides a
stable, institutionalized means through which this
replacement can take place with specific individuals
occupying the social roles of mother and father and
assuming defined responsibilities.

Thirdly, socialisation - The primary context for
socialisation is the family, starting at birth. Because
the child is theirs, the parents normally take particular
care to monitor his or her behaviour and to pass on the
language, values, norms, and beliefs of the culture.
Although in modern society many of these socialisation
functions have been taken over by other institutions
such as schools, the churches, or the media - the family
remains the earliest and most significant agency of
socialisation.

We then have things like care and protection, social
placement (birth into a family gives the individual a stable
place in society). Then there's emotional support, The family
is the primary, social context in which emotional needs can be
fulfilled and the deepest personal feelings can be
expressed. The family functions as the place of ultimate
emotional refuge and comfort.

All these functions are necessary and these institutions
(family and marriage) fulfill them so effectively that
they take primary responsibility for these functions in every
human culture.

Dear Foxy,

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. But there is a much bigger picture to the story. But that takes us into anthropological theory e.g., marriage as the 'atom of kinship' and alliance theory. Unfortunately for anthropology all of these wonderful kin-based social systems are rapidly disappearing under the weight of globalisation.

Mr. Opinion "The people who might take most pleasure in using those terms are the ones who could never complete a degree (eg. Andrew Bolt). Those who have a degree will always tell you that they would rather have a degree than not have one."

It seems that those who have degrees never tire of informing others they have them either. For someone with all those degrees Mr. Opinion, I would have thought you would be aware that to be a journalist, one needs to have a degree?

As much as I dislike many of Bolt's views, he is actually meant to be quite bright, and he did complete an Arts degree at Adelaide University. You should have done your homework before making assumptions about Bolt.

Dear Suseonline,

Are you sure Andrew Bolt has a degree? because I read an article some time ago that said he dropped out of first year in Arts at Adelaide Uni to take up a cadetship as a journalist. Can anyone clarify this?

One does not need to have a degree to be a journalist. If one needed a degree to be a journalist half of the profession would be out of a job. Same thing also goes for the engineering profession. When I started work (many years ago) about 70% of engineers did not have a degree. Today I am guessing that the figure is around 50%. And I would say that outside of medicine a large proportion of the professions is manned by members who have not gained a degree in their field.

The following link may clarify things about
Mr Bolt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt

Dear Foxy,

The facts that you state are true,
but the functions you describe are social, including procreation.
Society and its rules is formed on earth, not in heaven.
As such it is not of much value.

Why aggrandise or sanctify biological functions such as the sexual attraction that are not even ours, but imposed by the mechanism of our genes?

Note that everything on earth, including societies, will disappear once the earth itself dissolves.
For example, no permanent bonds between men and women are possible because we will not remain men and women for long.
Why then invest so much in the temporal?