"my" is a complex word. It implies possession, which implies physical or legal ownership of some thing or some property. Yet, its not that simple at all. My also is just a word to signify a specific relationship to someone or something. When I say "my brothers", or "My mom" , or "My kids" I am not implying they are property to be owned. I am only signifying what MY specific relation with them is.

I bring this up because I have read an opinion that basically we don't 'own' our spouses or our children, that they are not 'ours' to own ... et cetera.

I believe that is true. But also, what is overlooked is, although we don't own them, we do have certain unique LEGAL responsibilities, (and moral, if one believes in those things) to and for them.

The people we love are 'ours', but they are also their own individual, and they are also the world's.

According to the German constitution, parents have the right and the duty, to raise their kids free of harm. So yeah, having kids implies a legal bond.

Well, people who *don't* have kids should have an ethical and loving reason to act decently to one another..feel a sense of loyalty/ attachement to...
One would *hope* by agreeing to be in a relationship with someone, you'd feel those things.

If they are just two people occupying the same space with no emotional ties..then they are no different than co-workers..

I asked my ex how our children were doing, and she said "They're in my possession". That to me was indicative of how she really feels about our children. By our children, I mean the children that were created through us, the ones that we are raising, not possess, but care for and love and are members of our family, not ones we control and have ownership over and use for our own personal gains and purposes.

I agree we don't own or possess people. I don't believe in pet ownership either. My to me is not necessarily possessive in those regards, it's more as in part of me.

MY car is a possession, MY children are people I love and care for and part of me, but they are not my possessions.

Well if you have a SINnumber or social insurance number.... that is a form of identification... or a product number if you wish.. which could apply ownership..
In other words the government owns US..lol.. much like when a Rancher tags an animal with an ID number in doing so he is accepting responsibility for said animal

It always concerned me a tad when I read in my ex' British passport that it remained property of the Queen. Meaning his identity is owned by the Queen?

It prolly says something similar in my Dutch passport, but the w@nkers made the print so small I can not read it anymore.
Hmmm... I find that concerning. I flatly refuse to be owned by our King! ALthough I do wish to claim my rights as a Dutch citizen. I'm entitled to that!
Complicated stuff...

Right? Although, I don't think it's too much for us to ask for really, as citizens of any country.

Dank u wel

Reading your post, I had to check my German passport. Only to find out, it is owned by the German State. Klootzakken

... Now you can start breaking your head whether that means your identity is owned by the German government as well, hihi.
Veel plezier ermee!

I have thought about the fact that it's kinda weird that government forces you to have an ID and then making you pay for that ID. It's mandatory by law to be able to identify yourself -thank you refugees & terrorists.
Also odd to think that without ID you don't exist as you cannot prove who you are. Weird, and a scary thought.
Stuff you see in movie sometimes, someone being robbed, ID & everything nicked, and that immediately labels you're a criminal. Guilty until proven innocent.

Now, it is one of them biometric passports. They have my fingerprints as well. Godverdomme

Germans are as well required by law, to carry their passport all the time. People in Ireland only need photo ID when they go to the dole office or the bank to withdraw money.

This reminds me of a couple of things.

One, is something I learned anew a while back, when one of my children joined the Marines. There is a sort of doctrine or formal statement that each member is taught to repeat when they get their primary weapon, which goes something like
"This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will... My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit... My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my rifle clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will... Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life. So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!"

At the same time as they are being trained to say and think this, they are made very aware that their weapon still belongs to the Marines, and not to them, in a physical sense. They can NOT stop being a Marine, and take it home with them; they may NOT give it to anyone else for any reason.

I am also reminded of a number of "thought experiments" that people I knew growing up, got into, during the "time of rebellion and reflection" that constituted the 1960's and 1970's protest culture. Lots of people questioned the use of terms LIKE "my," just as you have here, and their intent (the more on point, and non-manipulative ones anyway) was to get people to think thoroughly through what they actually DID mean when they used such words.

Basically, I myself came to always be wary and on the look out, for situations where the everyday GRAMMAR of a given word usage, was open to interpretations that I did NOT intend to support.

What I would caution most people about this, is to POLITELY ASK whenever you fear someone is using a word like "my" or "mine," to indicate both connection AND personal dominance or ownership.

Final note: where such things become very clear, I think, is in the use of the label in a sort of reverse situation. Such as, if I refer to "MY EX WIFE," it's very clear that I do NOT consider that person to be a possession of mine, but if I say "MY GIRLFRIEND," that I MIGHT intend to imply possession in some sense. I wouldn't, but I MIGHT.

I agree. I also think SSN are just identification since there can be so many duplicate Proper names and passports physically are the government property(they create and distribute and maintain), not the person the passport belongs to.

having a meaningful life is making room for the ones you love to din with you and play a special roles in your life, Know matter how you think about it or feel about it Love is real ..... always remember that ...and I LOVE ALL.

honey I think you made a point

love is real.... yes but sometimes love have a wings it can be fly or moves.. but love is the greatest gift of all love is great... but staying inlove.. is SPECIAL..

The smallest words are usually the most complex aren't they?
when we say my foot, my hand , my brain, my mind . what is the me that we are speaking of? Awareness perhaps,consciousness, a mental process that is learned sometime when we are a few months old?
Not all cultures use the concept of me/my, and consider themselves part of a group/tribe. possessiveness out side of relationships I think is learned behavior.
pertaining to relationships I think it is an innate process that confers a survival advantage to the human race on a fundamental level. For example would the human race have survived if mothers didn't care for the young and fathers didn't hunt and defend them from sabre tooth tigers and the like.? I rant.

Sneaky posession:
when you sign your baby's birth certificate, you are abandoning ownership of it, and the state claims salvage rights over it under maritime law, and assigns it a number to go with its PERSON name, (in all capital letters), and being intrinsically associated with that paper 'PERSON' the child is then subject to the corporate laws (legislation) of the corporation which salvaged it. Unless you are a free man.
If you have a birth certificate or social security number, there is no 'my' if the state says so.

That's my understanding of it in 'commonwealth' (common theft) countries anyway.

Hmmm. I live in a Commonwealth STATE, and what you've said here certainly doesn't apply to Virginians. Anyone who is born here is legally considered a citizen of the state (if their parents were, at least), regardless of paperwork.

And there is no "abandoning" going on. There is no transfer of ownership.

But perhaps what you are bringing up is the idea of LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES, which in some ways mimic ownership, without actually being ownership.

One of the things that I have always been uncomfortable with, despite understanding it's function, is that although you CAN own land in the United States, if there are taxes to be paid on the land you own, and you don't pay them, your land can be taken away from you by the government. In a sense, there is no REAL ownership of land, therefore. Also, just because you own it, doesn't mean that you can do anything with or on it that you like. There are OBLIGATIONS that accrue with ownership.

The same concept applies with people. If you are married, even in places where marriage is still considered close to being ownership of one spouse by the other, there are still usually OBLIGATIONS involved that again limit the degree and scope of your "ownership."

If someone has access to a Queen's Counsel, they will clarify it, and a Notary Public may know of it, but it is not common knowledge. Look up 'Free Man On The Land'.
The (British) Virginia Company, built on slavery and tobacco, changed its name to The United States of America. Lots of ownership issues going on right there.