Jump to content

Menu

Why is marriage important in America today?


Recommended Posts

I didn't say that. I am just saying that people shouldn't get a transfer of wealth in their favor based just on how they set up housekeeping.

 

If it really is largely about money, don't you think Americans would be more open to gay marriage if it didn't cost them anything? But then, am I hearing that the fight for gay marriage would fizzle without the money aspect?

No. For the vast majority of people against gay marriage it is so not about the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 443
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It does impact you but not the same. If one chooses to live with someone rather than marry many of the same issues apply.

 

People living together are not treated the same, legally, as a married couple.

Depends upon the state. Some states see common law marriage exactly the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are still not legally compelled to agree with John and Steve's marriage, and your views do not become "illegal". That is simply incorrect and not a matter of opinion.

 

As is demonstrated by some of the examples below, there are already people working to use the legal system and other governmentally supported institutions to penalize people for believing as I do and acting on those beliefs. Changing the legal definition of marriage would clearly give them more ammunition.

 

And the change in NO WAY affects the marriage of you and your husband. You are not harmed or affected by the legal definition of marriage being broadened.

 

When miscenegation laws were struck down, would you have accepted the argument from those that believed races should not intermarry that their marriages had now been altered against their will?

 

You simply don't have the right to claim the word marriage. BTW, if we got what "traditional" marriage is and use the Bible as a our basis, the one man/one woman marriage you support wouldn't be the only form of marriage practiced.

 

I think people are entitled to hold whatever opinion they want about their own marriage. I don't have to agree with them. I'm not asking you to agree with me. I wish you would stop demanding that I agree with you.

 

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth. I stated that I would prefer to leave the law as it is, with marriage defined as between a man and a woman. I did not suggest that we change the law to use the Bible as the basis. I think religious freedom must be extended to people of all faiths (and no faith) and US law should not be based on one religion's sacred writings alone.

 

For the record, I also did not state that I would object to a consenting adults being able to form more than one such relationship at a time, even though that is currently not legal here either. But that's a whole other discussion.

 

As someone who has been assigned a legal status called "marriage" I think I actually do have claim to it, both legally and morally. I am certainly not the only one with claim to it, though. And I think that those who are currently affected by a law ought to have some say in whether the law is changed.

 

A large part of this whole debate is, in fact, ABOUT who has a right to claim the word marriage. I don't, of course, singlehandedly have the power to make that decision. Neither do you.

 

When they opened the facility up as a revenue source they forfeited their 1st Amendment rights by making their facility a public accommodation. Very clear cut, and not related to gay marriage. (Note: this involved civil unions, which you allegedly support.)

 

I am aware of the excuses that are being used to justify these travesties. I just don't agree with them. I do support civil unions being able to happen. I do not support religious groups being penalized for not allowing group-owned property to be used for any purposes that conflict with that group's teachings.

 

A bit greyer, but again a public accommodation ruling. I would be interested in the appeal, as generally personal services are not viewed as public accommodations.

 

I am interested in the appeal too, especially considering the fact that my husband, who owns his own company, occasionally turns down jobs based on his personal religious convictions. If a photographer can be sued for not photographing an event that violated her religious convictions, can my husband be sued for not creating a web site for a gay wedding? Or a web site that promotes drinking, or gambling, or promiscuous sex? If personal services are public accommodations, where is the line drawn? If a person can't refuse to provide their personal services for a civil union, I hardly think that calling civil unions "marriages" instead is going to fix the problem. I suspect, in fact, that it will make it more difficult for people who act in accordance with their consciences on things like this.

 

I have no idea why you think this is related to gay marriage. Really? Wow, that blows my mind. Okay, I'll try to dot-to-dot it for you. Gay marriage is a homosexual relationship. This man was fired for explaining the teachings of the Catholic church about homosexual relationships. I am concerned that people who express a religious point of view similar to mine regarding homosexual relationships (such as gay marriage) can be fired from their jobs for explaining their opinions. I think that legalizing gay marriage would exacerbate this problem.

 

Depending on the nature of the counseling program, requiring that students be able to work with people of all backgrounds is reasonable and expected.

 

Christians pay taxes too, and should have equal access to public university programs regardless of their personal religious convictions. They should not be required to change their personal religious beliefs in order to participate in the program.

 

And I don't think counselors should be legally required to provide services in situations that violate their religious convictions any more than photographers, or web designers, or priests should, and I don't think they should face sanctions when they refer clients to a counselor with different beliefs who is able to help them.

 

I find it interesting that the justification for forcing a counselor to conform their personal beliefs to a particular, rigid belief system, is that it is wrong to influence a patient to conform their personal beliefs to a particular belief system. It seems to me the height of hypocrisy. Especially when people are free to shop around and find a counselor that is more in line with their own personal convictions.

 

More of the same. When you offer a service to the public and take public funds (which Catholic Charities did in that case) or work for a private company, you cannot use religious beliefs to justify discrimination or violate company policy.

 

Yes, more of the same. Taxpayers who have religious beliefs can be penalized for expressing and practicing those beliefs if they conflict with the gay rights agenda. Religious organizations can be denied public funding to provide services that are publicly funded for non-religious organizations, if they decline to provide a different service that violates their convictions, even if they do nothing to prevent other organizations from providing that service.

 

Yet you assure me that religious individuals and religious organizations have nothing to worry about, they can go on doing what they've always done.

 

The laws in other nations are not the same as the US, so I have no idea why you would look there.

Because they are frequently brought up as models for US law, and because there is an increasing push for an international "law" that would trump US law. In the Sweden case I gather the man was acquitted based on a provision of the European Convention on Civil Rights even though he was found to have violated Swedish law, for example.

 

I do not know the ins and outs of the laws in other nations, but I do believe free speech laws and discrimination policies can be quite different. I have no idea why you think they bolster your argument in a discussion about the United States.

 

I teach my children that gay marriage should be legal. My personal right to do so has not been infringed by the law saying other wise. Why do you believe your opinions will somehow be deemed illegal when the laws change? Have you seen that occur in states where gay marriage is legal? I noticed you didn't provide any examples from those states.

Your examples were flawed, and again demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of discrimination laws.

 

I also note you never gave an example of how your marriage would be harmed by gay marriage.

 

The fact that you do not understand my position does not make it unsound. I have already stated that my relationship with my husband would be unaffected by gay marriage. That does not mean my concerns about how my religious freedom would be affected (and is already being affected) are irrelevant. The fact that you refuse to see this as a religious discrimination issue does not mean I lack an understanding of discrimination laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article in Slate (hardly a bastion of conservatism) seems to indicate otherwise http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/single_motherhood_worse_for_children_.single.html

 

Aside from the inflamatory title, I found it fascinating. We might consider that educated, affluent families who are less likely to get the tax goodies associated with marriage are the least likely to have children out of wedlock.

 

At the wealthy end of the spectrum, the article speaks of comparing kids whose parents were married and stayed married, vs. kids whose parents divorced. Not kids who were born to (or adopted by) wealthy single moms in the first place. Experiencing parents' divorce is a lot more than just going some years without a dad. Put another way, kids who have never had a dad around deal with this at a much less intense level than kids whose beloved dad has been stripped out of their daily life.

 

And once again, the linked article stressed education as a predictor of stability in the home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article in Slate (hardly a bastion of conservatism) seems to indicate otherwise http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/single_motherhood_worse_for_children_.single.html

 

Aside from the inflamatory title, I found it fascinating. We might consider that educated, affluent families who are less likely to get the tax goodies associated with marriage are the least likely to have children out of wedlock.

From the article.

 

Surprisingly, college-educated Americans are now more likely to attend church than their less-educated fellow citizens, and they have also become more marriage-minded since the 1970s—in their attitudes toward divorce, for instance—whereas less-educated Americans have become less marriage-minded over the same time. These cultural changes are only reinforcing the marriage divide in America, insofar as religious attendance and marriage-minded norms tend to strengthen marriage.

 

I think it is in the best interest of the populous that the government enable marriage to be a stable, thriving, institution. It is the best thing for the population, for the economy, for the country. (again, I am not against civil unions)

 

I read somewhere that Reagan said the one thing he regretted was signing the no fault divorce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never really thought about the topic at hand. But I think I agree with this. Is the state involved in marriage for any reason beyond making that little bit of money per couple for a marriage license?

 

This has been answered before, in this thread. The state is involved in marriage because it is only through legal marriage that you or your children have a right to see your spouse in jail or in the hospital, it is only through legal marriage that you or your children have a right to inherit from your spouse, it is only through legal marriage that you have shared credit or shared debts, it is only through legal marriage that you may make decisions if your spouse goes into a coma or goes crazy, it is only through legal marriage that you have a right to anything from a spouse after divorce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um...marriage has been around for much longer than Christianity, has it not? Marriage exists in many non-Christian places.

 

Well, from a Christian POV, it is still a marker for a natural law/spiritual law/ which would be from God.

 

"C.S. Lewis said that it didn’t bother him that Christianity has links with earlier religions: What would have bothered him was if it didn’t have links with earlier religions. The fact is, you can find echoes and connecting points between Christianity and all the other religions both ancient and modern, and it is this fact which validates rather than invalidates Christianity. If a religion is not only true but more true than all the other religions, then it should connect with all those other religions at the points where they are true." (it's a catholic magazine, I'm just linking for reference of quote)

 

Same with the idea of marriage.

 

Another thing. Is it really any wonder that kids in two-parent families fare better, when two-parent families are favored so much both socially and economically? That's like saying "the people I gave money to ended up wealthier." Well . . . .

 

But, funnily enough, it's that portion that receives the LEAST from the government-and perhaps is the portion paying into the system. (per the slate article)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, from a Christian POV, it is still a marker for a natural law/spiritual law/ which would be from God.

 

"C.S. Lewis said that it didn’t bother him that Christianity has links with earlier religions: What would have bothered him was if it didn’t have links with earlier religions. The fact is, you can find echoes and connecting points between Christianity and all the other religions both ancient and modern, and it is this fact which validates rather than invalidates Christianity. If a religion is not only true but more true than all the other religions, then it should connect with all those other religions at the points where they are true." (it's a catholic magazine, I'm just linking for reference of quote)

 

Same with the idea of marriage.

 

 

But, funnily enough, it's that portion that receives the LEAST from the government-and perhaps is the portion paying into the system. (per the slate article)

 

I cannot figure out how to link that quote to marriage as a religious vs legal construct. Can you clarify?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As is demonstrated by some of the examples below, there are already people working to use the legal system and other governmentally supported institutions to penalize people for believing as I do and acting on those beliefs. Changing the legal definition of marriage would clearly give them more ammunition.

 

No it doesn't. The definition has been changed in several states already and you cannot present one example of what you claim. Your examples did not even remotely prove your case.

 

 

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth. I stated that I would prefer to leave the law as it is, with marriage defined as between a man and a woman. I did not suggest that we change the law to use the Bible as the basis. I think religious freedom must be extended to people of all faiths (and no faith) and US law should not be based on one religion's sacred writings alone.

 

Excellent! So then there really is no argument to deny homosexual couples the right to marry. Glad we have that settled.

 

As someone who has been assigned a legal status called "marriage" I think I actually do have claim to it, both legally and morally. I am certainly not the only one with claim to it, though. And I think that those who are currently affected by a law ought to have some say in whether the law is changed.

 

You were not assigned a legal status - you applied for it. You met the criteria, and therefore have received the legal rights that come along with that status. That does not give you any "right" to claim marriage, just as receiving a drivers' license gives you the right to determine what the eligibility requirements should be for others.

Again, others receiving marriage licenses DO NO AFFECT YOUR MARRIAGE in any way. I have asked you repeatedly to provide an example of how a gay marriage would affect your marriage and you have been unable to do so.

 

A large part of this whole debate is, in fact, ABOUT who has a right to claim the word marriage. I don't, of course, singlehandedly have the power to make that decision. Neither do you.

 

The state has the power to determine what constitutes a legal marriage. Churches have the power to determine what constitutes a religious marriage under their religious beliefs. Individuals can use the term as they choose.

What matters to me is that homosexuals are being denied access to the legal benefits of marriage for no reason other than simple discrimination.

 

 

I am aware of the excuses that are being used to justify these travesties. I just don't agree with them. I do support civil unions being able to happen. I do not support religious groups being penalized for not allowing group-owned property to be used for any purposes that conflict with that group's teachings.

 

As long as the church isn't using their property as a business enterprise, they face no issues. I do not know how to make this any clearer to you.

 

 

I am interested in the appeal too, especially considering the fact that my husband, who owns his own company, occasionally turns down jobs based on his personal religious convictions. If a photographer can be sued for not photographing an event that violated her religious convictions, can my husband be sued for not creating a web site for a gay wedding? Or a web site that promotes drinking, or gambling, or promiscuous sex? If personal services are public accommodations, where is the line drawn? If a person can't refuse to provide their personal services for a civil union, I hardly think that calling civil unions "marriages" instead is going to fix the problem. I suspect, in fact, that it will make it more difficult for people who act in accordance with their consciences on things like this.

 

Generally no, but state laws vary. Of course, none of this has to do with gay marriage and is a red herring on your part.

 

 

Christians pay taxes too, and should have equal access to public university programs regardless of their personal religious convictions. They should not be required to change their personal religious beliefs in order to participate in the program.

 

Incorrect, especially when it comes to health related fields. One can continue to hold whatever belief they choose privately, but they also have to be able to complete the requirements of the program. If someone belongs to a church that doesn't believe in blood transfusions and refuses to participate in them, they would not be able to complete the ER portion of a medical program. Plain and simple.

 

And I don't think counselors should be legally required to provide services in situations that violate their religious convictions any more than photographers, or web designers, or priests should, and I don't think they should face sanctions when they refer clients to a counselor with different beliefs who is able to help them.

 

In private practice, they would not be. When working for a company, the company sets the rules. There is a likelihood there is more at play in this story than what was reported in a couple of paragraphs.

 

I find it interesting that the justification for forcing a counselor to conform their personal beliefs to a particular, rigid belief system, is that it is wrong to influence a patient to conform their personal beliefs to a particular belief system. It seems to me the height of hypocrisy. Especially when people are free to shop around and find a counselor that is more in line with their own personal convictions.

 

In this case, the issue is that the counselor is not able to provide the services her company was contracted to perform. If she would be constantly referring clients to other counselors, she could be unbalancing the work load or in some way not meeting the requirements of the contract the company had signed. We don't know the details here, and when it comes to providing services on behalf of another party, if you cannot complete your duties as assigned you can be terminated.

 

 

Yes, more of the same. Taxpayers who have religious beliefs can be penalized for expressing and practicing those beliefs if they conflict with the gay rights agenda. Religious organizations can be denied public funding to provide services that are publicly funded for non-religious organizations, if they decline to provide a different service that violates their convictions, even if they do nothing to prevent other organizations from providing that service.

 

You exposed yourself with the bolded portion.

In general, he who pays the piper calls the tune. If you accept taxpayer funding from a city that does not allow discrimination, then you have to follow their rules. If you don't want to follow their rules, you don't receive the funding, and someone who can meet the mission statement will receive them instead.

 

Yet you assure me that religious individuals and religious organizations have nothing to worry about, they can go on doing what they've always done.

 

Yep. As long as they do not ask for public funds or begin to operate as a business.

 

Because they are frequently brought up as models for US law, and because there is an increasing push for an international "law" that would trump US law. In the Sweden case I gather the man was acquitted based on a provision of the European Convention on Civil Rights even though he was found to have violated Swedish law, for example.

 

Frequently? When?

 

 

 

The fact that you do not understand my position does not make it unsound. I have already stated that my relationship with my husband would be unaffected by gay marriage. That does not mean my concerns about how my religious freedom would be affected (and is already being affected) are irrelevant. The fact that you refuse to see this as a religious discrimination issue does not mean I lack an understanding of discrimination laws.

 

Your position is consistently flawed. I understand it perfectly, you are simply wrong about certain facts and definitions.

--You claim that your views on marriage become "illegal" if marriage laws change. That is simply not true, and does display a fundamental lack of understanding of the law. Really, this can't be debated, no matter what you "think".

--You do not fully grasp 1st Amendment protections and how they apply to religious institutions versus public enterprises/businesses.

Shall I go on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree with this. I don't think money plays into the anti-gay-marriage thing very much.

 

It used to be my reason for opposing it. As a taxpayer I don't see a reason why a wealth transfer should accompany a choice of how a couple decides to set up housekeeping. (I used to think said wealth transfer was justifiable where there was a high likelihood that the arragement would lead to procreation, because kids being raised by married parents seems to be a good thing.)

 

Right or wrong, I'd be surprised if I was the only person who ever thought that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, funnily enough, it's that portion that receives the LEAST from the government-and perhaps is the portion paying into the system. (per the slate article)

 

Well, I'll be the first person to agree that if the purpose of the tax breaks is "incentive" to marry, they seem to be missing the mark.

 

That said, most people who make lots of money now didn't always make that much. And the Slate article was talking about rich people, but middle class couples (i.e., the vast majority of married couples) do benefit from the financial marriage benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it doesn't. The definition has been changed in several states already and you cannot present one example of what you claim. Your examples did not even remotely prove your case.

 

 

 

 

Excellent! So then there really is no argument to deny homosexual couples the right to marry. Glad we have that settled.

 

 

 

You were not assigned a legal status - you applied for it. You met the criteria, and therefore have received the legal rights that come along with that status. That does not give you any "right" to claim marriage, just as receiving a drivers' license gives you the right to determine what the eligibility requirements should be for others.

Again, others receiving marriage licenses DO NO AFFECT YOUR MARRIAGE in any way. I have asked you repeatedly to provide an example of how a gay marriage would affect your marriage and you have been unable to do so.

 

 

 

The state has the power to determine what constitutes a legal marriage. Churches have the power to determine what constitutes a religious marriage under their religious beliefs. Individuals can use the term as they choose.

What matters to me is that homosexuals are being denied access to the legal benefits of marriage for no reason other than simple discrimination.

 

 

 

 

As long as the church isn't using their property as a business enterprise, they face no issues. I do not know how to make this any clearer to you.

 

 

 

 

Generally no, but state laws vary. Of course, none of this has to do with gay marriage and is a red herring on your part.

 

 

 

 

Incorrect, especially when it comes to health related fields. One can continue to hold whatever belief they choose privately, but they also have to be able to complete the requirements of the program. If someone belongs to a church that doesn't believe in blood transfusions and refuses to participate in them, they would not be able to complete the ER portion of a medical program. Plain and simple.

 

 

 

In private practice, they would not be. When working for a company, the company sets the rules. There is a likelihood there is more at play in this story than what was reported in a couple of paragraphs.

 

 

 

In this case, the issue is that the counselor is not able to provide the services her company was contracted to perform. If she would be constantly referring clients to other counselors, she could be unbalancing the work load or in some way not meeting the requirements of the contract the company had signed. We don't know the details here, and when it comes to providing services on behalf of another party, if you cannot complete your duties as assigned you can be terminated.

 

 

 

 

You exposed yourself with the bolded portion.

In general, he who pays the piper calls the tune. If you accept taxpayer funding from a city that does not allow discrimination, then you have to follow their rules. If you don't want to follow their rules, you don't receive the funding, and someone who can meet the mission statement will receive them instead.

 

 

 

Yep. As long as they do not ask for public funds or begin to operate as a business.

 

 

 

Frequently? When?

 

 

 

 

 

Your position is consistently flawed. I understand it perfectly, you are simply wrong about certain facts and definitions.

--You claim that your views on marriage become "illegal" if marriage laws change. That is simply not true, and does display a fundamental lack of understanding of the law. Really, this can't be debated, no matter what you "think".

--You do not fully grasp 1st Amendment protections and how they apply to religious institutions versus public enterprises/businesses.

Shall I go on?

 

No, I see no need for either of us to go on repeating ourselves. I understand your position, but I disagree with it. You repeatedly claim not to understand my position, and exhibit no desire to do so. You haven't addressed any of my concerns, just repeated yourself over and over. I'm afraid I've actually got better things to do with my time than listen to you rant. I hope you have a lovely day. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It used to be my reason for opposing it. As a taxpayer I don't see a reason why a wealth transfer should accompany a choice of how a couple decides to set up housekeeping. (I used to think said wealth transfer was justifiable where there was a high likelihood that the arragement would lead to procreation, because kids being raised by married parents seems to be a good thing.)

 

Right or wrong, I'd be surprised if I was the only person who ever thought that way.

 

Oh I'm sure there are some people who feel that way, but I don't think it is as common or widespread as the religious argument. I have an easier time understanding it than the religion/moral argument, but I don't think it's terribly common. I do think that the procreation argument is going to fade, with so many non-procreating couples in general and so many more same-sex parents out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I see no need for either of us to go on repeating ourselves. I understand your position, but I disagree with it. You repeatedly claim not to understand my position, and exhibit no desire to do so. You haven't addressed any of my concerns, just repeated yourself over and over. I'm afraid I've actually got better things to do with my time than listen to you rant. I hope you have a lovely day. :)

 

I understand your position perfectly. You are simply incorrect in regards to the law. It isn't a matter of opinion.

And for my final point:

--You failed to provide one example of how gay marriage will affect your marriage

--Gay marriage is legal in several states and churches are not being forced to perform gay marriages and ministers are not being jailed

 

When you argue from emotion and not the facts, a discussion is generally pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fyi here is an article about the risks of cohabitation:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/the-downside-of-cohabiting-before-marriage.html?pagewanted=all

 

Researchers originally attributed the cohabitation effect to selection, or the idea that cohabitors were less conventional about marriage and thus more open to divorce. As cohabitation has become a norm, however, studies have shown that the effect is not entirely explained by individual characteristics like religion, education or politics. Research suggests that at least some of the risks may lie in cohabitation itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just adding this as an example of what is denied gay people when they are denied marriage. Sally Ride, the first woman in space and a national hero, died recently. After her death, it's been revealed that she had a lesbian partner for 27 years. Her partner, however, will not receive her federal benefits because they were not allowed to marry.

 

A couple of useful links explaining: here and here.

 

27 years represents a significant commitment, more than most heterosexual marriage these days. Many federal benefits persist even through divorce, but we don't allow them to people in continuous, committed relationships. It's a disgrace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just adding this as an example of what is denied gay people when they are denied marriage. Sally Ride, the first woman in space and a national hero, died recently. After her death, it's been revealed that she had a lesbian partner for 27 years. Her partner, however, will not receive her federal benefits because they were not allowed to marry.

 

A couple of useful links explaining: here and here.

 

27 years represents a significant commitment, more than most heterosexual marriage these days. Many federal benefits persist even through divorce, but we don't allow them to people in continuous, committed relationships. It's a disgrace.

 

 

It's not a disgrace about the marriage bit, it's a disgrace that a person whose $ it is, isn't allowed to do with it as they see fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As someone who has been assigned a legal status called "marriage" I think I actually do have claim to it, both legally and morally. I am certainly not the only one with claim to it, though. And I think that those who are currently affected by a law ought to have some say in whether the law is changed.

 

 

I understand most of what you have been saying. I may not agree with it, but I understand.

 

I don't understand how I am currently affected by the marriage law. :confused: Changing the law to allow more people to get married doesn't have any effect on me or my marriage. It doesn't say I have to go back and reapply and do something differently. It doesn't say only so many people can be married in a given year so allowing same-gender couples to marry isn't going to suddenly NOT allow some different-gender couples to marry.

 

 

And the Sally Rice situation is a disgrace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious what you base this on.

 

IIRC, 50% of marriages end in divorce, and of those marriages, the average duration of marriage before divorce is about 8 years.

Edited by nmoira
Clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't live in Washington but I was searching around and found this:

 

http://preservemarriagewashington.com/marriage.php

 

I think it describes pretty well why many people are against gay 'marriage', even if they are for civil unions.

 

Yeah, that seems to be a pretty standard argument - basically that marriage is for heterosexual couples because 1) it has always been that way in "virtually every society" and 2) because only "one man one woman" unions create children, and the purpose of marriage is to protect children and 3) children do best in heterosexual marriages, so shouldn't be brought up in homosexual families at all and my favorite (4) because kids might learn in school that it's ok to be gay.

 

This is pretty absurd, however. (1) is just straight up wrong. A pretty common form of marriage has been one man, many women. It's a form of marriage seen quite frequently in the Bible, also.

 

(2) is kind of assuming a lot. My marriage has 3 children. I belong to several groups of gay families. Also, if the sole purpose of marriage is children then all post menopausal women, infertile people, and those who chose to remain childless shouldn't be allowed to marry either. Are you going to tell 60 year old hetero couples that they have to get a domestic partnership because they are too old to get married? If not, then why? Why do they get special marriage status (legally, I don't care about religious status) while child-producing same-sex couples don't?

 

(3) is not supported by the evidence. Children of same-sex couples do fine by every measure. The only problem they face is bullying - a problem caused by homophobia, not by the gay parents themselves.

 

(4) Well. I guess if you're that set on teaching your kids otherwise, you can homeschool them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that seems to be a pretty standard argument - basically that marriage is for heterosexual couples because 1) it has always been that way in "virtually every society" and 2) because only "one man one woman" unions create children, and the purpose of marriage is to protect children and 3) children do best in heterosexual marriages, so shouldn't be brought up in homosexual families at all and my favorite (4) because kids might learn in school that it's ok to be gay.

 

This is pretty absurd, however. (1) is just straight up wrong. A pretty common form of marriage has been one man, many women. It's a form of marriage seen quite frequently in the Bible, also.

 

(2) is kind of assuming a lot. My marriage has 3 children. I belong to several groups of gay families. Also, if the sole purpose of marriage is children then all post menopausal women, infertile people, and those who chose to remain childless shouldn't be allowed to marry either. Are you going to tell 60 year old hetero couples that they have to get a domestic partnership because they are too old to get married? If not, then why? Why do they get special marriage status (legally, I don't care about religious status) while child-producing same-sex couples don't?

 

(3) is not supported by the evidence. Children of same-sex couples do fine by every measure. The only problem they face is bullying - a problem caused by homophobia, not by the gay parents themselves.

 

(4) Well. I guess if you're that set on teaching your kids otherwise, you can homeschool them!

 

I think you are right that the "one" part is historically not particularly accurate.

 

But I do think there is something to the idea of marriage, by definition, was understood to be fundamentally about a particular sort of natural relationship that results (normally) in procreation and child-rearing.

 

I think it is a very alien idea to most moderns because culturally we understand marriage to be about being in love, having a sexual relationship, and living out a life together in some way.

 

That is a pretty new thing though. Being in love has not been a big part of marriage historically, and separating procreation from sex has not been possible in a reliable way until fairly recently, at least on a wide basis.

 

The term or idea of marriage was not used to describe two people who were sexually active together, or in love, even on a long term basis. It was a descriptive term used to describe those who were having children and raising them together. So in most cases even societies with a lot of other types of sexual contact, even if it was long-term and the people were living together, it wasn't seen as a marriage. In a number of cases marriages that were not fruitful were allowed to be annulled.

 

The association between the biological results of sex and a particular sort of pair-bonding is what was meant by marriage. And if that is what it means, it can't be applied to some other sort of relationship.

 

Whether or not there are good reasons to consider marriage in a different way now, I think it is hard to say that it is just an extension of legal rights to others. For at least some religious groups, that older understanding of marriage still holds - it is describing a natural biological aspect of a relationship as well as a willed one and that can't be extended to just any other situation.

 

I would say that most of the West has already made the change in that they do not see marriage as being fundamentally related to procreation, and from that perspective it makes sense to think it could apply to any couple of any sort, or I suppose even non-human individuals (which sounds nutty but it has been suggested/tried by some.)

 

I would say that I am not terribly confident that any legal changes won't have the effect of actually making practicing the older view perilous, legally speaking. There are people who would like to head in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces.html

IIRC, 50% of marriages end in divorce, and of those marriages, the average duration of marriage before divorce is about 8 years.

 

It is closer to 33%.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/opinion/29wolfers.html

 

I got 33% from looking at the census stats, but the nyt says 17%.

Edited by lionfamily1999
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces.html

 

It is closer to 33%.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/opinion/29wolfers.html

 

I got 33% from looking at the census stats, but the nyt says 17%.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm/

 

If you got the 33% figure from the NCHS report, that's a forecast of 33% within 10 years of the report, 43% within 15 years.

 

From the op-ed piece in the NYT:

 

If the census survey had been conducted six months later, it would have found that a majority of those married in the second half of 1979 were happily moving into their 26th year of marriage. Once these marriages are added to the mix, it turns out that a majority of couples who tied the knot from 1975 to 1979 — about 53 percent — reached their silver anniversary
Assuming this is correct (they don't say where they got their revised numbers), that's still 47% no longer married. As for the rest, divorce rates per thousand may be falling, but so are marriage rates.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm/

 

If you got the 33% figure from the NCHS report, that's a forecast of 33% within 10 years of the report, 43% within 15 years.

 

From the op-ed piece in the NYT:

 

Assuming this is correct (they don't say where they got their revised numbers), that's still 47% no longer married. As for the rest, divorce rates per thousand may be falling, but so are marriage rates.

 

No, I got it from the 2009 Census listing marraige and divorce rates.

 

... marriages occurring between 1975 and 1979 had not made it to their 25th anniversary. This breakup rate is not only alarmingly high, but also represents a rise of about 8 percent when compared with those marriages occurring in the preceding five-year period.

 

But here’s the rub: The census data come from a survey conducted in mid-2004, and at that time, it had not yet been 25 years since the wedding day of around 1 in 10 of those whose marriages they surveyed. And if your wedding was in late 1979, it was simply impossible to have celebrated a 25th anniversary when asked about your marriage in mid-2004.

 

If the census survey had been conducted six months later, it would have found that a majority of those married in the second half of 1979 were happily moving into their 26th year of marriage. Once these marriages are added to the mix, it turns out that a majority of couples who tied the knot from 1975 to 1979 — about 53 percent — reached their silver anniversary.

 

This surveying glitch affected only the most recent data. Still, factoring in an appropriate adjustment yields the conclusion that divorce rates have been falling, not rising. This is not just statistical smoke and mirrors: the Census Bureau warned that the most recent data understate the true stability of recent marriages. But a warning buried in a footnote does not always make the headlines. (Indeed, this newspaper reprinted the table, but omitted the warning.)

 

The narrative of rising divorce is also completely at odds with counts of divorce certificates, which show the divorce rate as having peaked at 22.8 divorces per 1,000 married couples in 1979 and to have fallen by 2005 to 16.7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got 33% from looking at the census stats, but the nyt says 17%.

 

The narrative of rising divorce is also completely at odds with counts of divorce certificates, which show the divorce rate as having peaked at 22.8 divorces per 1,000 married couples in 1979 and to have fallen by 2005 to 16.7.

You're misunderstanding the statistics — the 16.7 is not the % of people who are divorced, it's the number of people per 1000 married people (i.e. 1.67%) who got divorced in 2005, not the % of married people who ever get divorced. And while that does represent a fall in the annual rate of divorce, there was an even larger rise in the number of couples who live together without getting married.

 

ETA: Having looked at other census data & statistics, the numbers quoted in the NYT OpEd piece don't even make sense. The authors don't cite or link to any sources for their stats, so I don't know where they got them from.

 

According to this CDC report, published just a few months ago, "about half of first marriages end in divorce."

 

Jackie

Edited by Corraleno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Number, Timing and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2009

 

Table 6

Marital History for People 15 Years Old and Over by Age and S*x: 2009

Men: 67% ever married, 52.3% married once, 20.8% ever divorced

Women: 72.9% ever married, 57.5% married once, 22.4% ever divorced

 

I can't figure out how to attach the pdf, but if you look for the Census data released in 2011 regarding the 2009 Census, the name of the set is above as well as the table number and title. Note the percentages are from the whole, so not 20% of the 67% married, but 20% of all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2010, in Georgia, a student was threatened with dismissal from the counseling program if she didn't alter her views on homosexual relationships, which she stated were rooted in her religious beliefs. She would be allowed to stay if she completed a remedial "re-education program" and changed her beliefs, but she would not be allowed to complete the program if she maintained her religious convictions on the subject. Another student, Julea Ward, was dismissed from the counseling program at Eastern Michigan University because of her religious convictions about homosexual relationships. Both cases seem to still be in litigation. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ristian-views/

 

Also in Georgia, a licensed counselor was fired after she referred a lesbian client to a different counselor (who was available right away) for advice about her romantic relationship. The counselor felt there was a personal conflict because of her strong personal religious beliefs about homosexual relationships, and that she would not be able to do a good job working with the client, so she helped her find a counselor who could help, and with whom the client was very satisfied. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...hful/?page=all

 

Counselors have codes of ethics that they must test over, and agree to abide by in order to have the license.The ethics include not discriminating due to sexual orientation. They know that. If they can't honor that ~ a standard that the profession embraced ~ they should find another occupational role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are specific statistics, from this census document, for the years 2007-2009:

 

2009 Marriages per 1000: 6.8; divorces per 1000: 3.4

2008 marriages per 1000: 7.1; divorces per 1000: 3.5

2007 marriages per 1000: 7.3; divorces per 1000: 3.6

 

You can see that the divorce rate is almost exactly 50% of the marriage rate.

 

Jackie

Edited by Corraleno
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious what you base this on.

 

From Wikipedia, with sources at the bottom of the page: ""Married adults now [2005] divorce two-and-a-half times as often as adults did 20 years ago and four times as often as they did 50 years ago... between 40% and 60% of new marriages will eventually end in divorce. The probability within... the first five years is 20%, and the probability of its ending within the first 10 years is 33%... Perhaps 25% of children ages 16 and under live with a stepparent."[10] As of 2009, first marriages which ended in divorce lasted a median of 8 years for both men and women. The median time to separation from first marriages was about 7 years."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This answer is completely, totally, and overwhelmingly shaped by my life experience.

 

I think that the terms "married" and even "divorced" are meaningless. I've seen the term "married" used to mean nothing more than "not divorced." As I do not believe that an active, vibrant, healthy marriage is equal to the status of "not divorced", calling them the same thing is an insult.

 

The above paragraph has been shaped by countless discussions (live and forum) about "not believing in divorce" and "staying married". For me, neither are goals/ideals in and of themselves. Or claims that a single person should not date because they are "still married" ~ but the couple has been apart with paperwork in process for months or years and functionally divorced for longer.

 

I believe that culture, business, families, and children benefit from long term, committed, stable, vibrant, affectionate relationships of adults. I'm uncertain whether the human species is meant to mate for life. Research seems to support that if you look at the statistics on children whose parents divorced vs. those that did not. But the research is done in a culture in which marriage is the expected norm.

 

Personally, I will never marry or cohabitate with an adult again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Number, Timing and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2009

 

Table 6

Marital History for People 15 Years Old and Over by Age and S*x: 2009

Men: 67% ever married, 52.3% married once, 20.8% ever divorced

Women: 72.9% ever married, 57.5% married once, 22.4% ever divorced

 

I can't figure out how to attach the pdf, but if you look for the Census data released in 2011 regarding the 2009 Census, the name of the set is above as well as the table number and title. Note the percentages are from the whole, so not 20% of the 67% married, but 20% of all.

But that includes people who have been married for even a day at the time of the survey. You can't use these numbers to day what you're saying. Edited by nmoira
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective, marriage is fundamentally about bearing and raising children, and giving those children a solid support network and a firm place in the world. My degree is in anthropology, and in every society I am aware of there have always been established patterns for the formation of new family units and the specific roles and obligations of each person in the family. Children born to a married couple have a well-defined and understood place in their society, because marriage defines that place and defines their relationship to the rest of society. My instinct is that this is fundamental to a well functioning society and especially to the well being of children.

 

I recognize that having an established pattern does not mean that everyone will conform to that pattern, or that there will not be problems--I don't think there has ever been a society where 100% of marriages were happy and successful, 100% of children well cared for, etc. But it seems to me that the pattern itself is important, and will lead to a higher success rate in terms of family stability than no pattern at all--that sounds like a recipe for chaos. I am bothered when marriage in our modern society is framed primarily by rhetoric surrounding the wants and needs of the adults involved. I am equally bothered when discussion of exclusively heterosexual marriage (the established pattern) versus inclusion of homosexual relationships in the pattern is framed as a matter of adult rights. If we are going to change the pattern, we need to acknowledge that we are changing something fundamental and consider carefully the implications of that. I personally see this as a profound change, specifically because most long-term heterosexual relationships will produce children, regardless of what we call the relationship, and no homosexual relationship will naturally produce children. For better or worse, calling homosexual relationships marriage will change our fundamental conception of what marriage is and why it exists--it will change the pattern. And changing the pattern will change society. I'm not sure we can predict what all those changes will be.

That is the discussion we need to be having. I've barely skimmed this thread, but from what I've seen there is some interesting and thoughtful discussion going on. Carry on! I'm going to bow out and go take care of my family.

Edited by thegardener
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just adding this as an example of what is denied gay people when they are denied marriage. Sally Ride, the first woman in space and a national hero, died recently. After her death, it's been revealed that she had a lesbian partner for 27 years. Her partner, however, will not receive her federal benefits because they were not allowed to marry.

 

A couple of useful links explaining: here and here.

 

27 years represents a significant commitment, more than most heterosexual marriage these days. Many federal benefits persist even through divorce, but we don't allow them to people in continuous, committed relationships. It's a disgrace.

 

That's sad. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective, marriage is fundamentally about bearing and raising children, and giving those children a solid support network and a firm place in the world. My degree is in anthropology, and in every society I am aware of there have always been established patterns for the formation of new family units and the specific roles and obligations of each person in the family. Children born to a married couple have a well-defined and understood place in their society, because marriage defines that place and defines their relationship to the rest of society. My instinct is that this is fundamental to a well functioning society and especially to the well being of children.

 

I recognize that having an established pattern does not mean that everyone will conform to that pattern, or that there will not be problems--I don't think there has ever been a society where 100% of marriages were happy and successful, 100% of children well cared for, etc. But it seems to me that the pattern itself is important, and will lead to a higher success rate in terms of family stability than no pattern at all--that sounds like a recipe for chaos. I am bothered when marriage in our modern society is framed primarily by rhetoric surrounding the wants and needs of the adults involved. I am equally bothered when discussion of exclusively heterosexual marriage (the established pattern) versus inclusion of homosexual relationships in the pattern is framed as a matter of adult rights. If we are going to change the pattern, we need to acknowledge that we are changing something fundamental and consider carefully the implications of that. I personally see this as a profound change, specifically because most long-term heterosexual relationships will produce children, regardless of what we call the relationship, and no homosexual relationship will naturally produce children. For better or worse, calling homosexual relationships marriage will change our fundamental conception of what marriage is and why it exists--it will change the pattern. And changing the pattern will change society. I'm not sure we can predict what all those changes will be.

That is the discussion we need to be having. I've barely skimmed this thread, but from what I've seen there is some interesting and thoughtful discussion going on. Carry on! I'm going to bow out and go take care of my family.

 

While this is true, due to the inclusion of "naturally", does it matter? Many homosexual relationships, especially homosexual marriages, produce or adopt or otherwise care for children. In some (possibly most) cases, those children being cared for are the result of a failed heterosexual marriage. If the purpose of marriage is to care for and protect children (rather than for adult satisfaction) then it seems that we should not leave so many children out because we don't approve of the adult's relationship.

 

Also no relationship between two elderly people is going to produce children. Why, then, do elderly people get married? Historically, have we denied elderly people the rights of marriage? Why not? I don't think you can argue that marriage is only about children, either in our culture, or historically.

 

For government purposes, if marriage is going to be performed at all, I think you need to have a pretty vague LEGAL definition of marriage. Marriage is a cultural construct, and we live in a multi-cultural society. From a legal/governmental standpoint, it makes sense to let consenting adults decide for themselves how they define marriage.

Edited by AdventureMoms
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this is true, due to the inclusion of "naturally", does it matter? Many homosexual relationships, especially homosexual marriages, produce or adopt or otherwise care for children. In some (possibly most) cases, those children being cared for are the result of a failed heterosexual marriage. If the purpose of marriage is to care for and protect children (rather than for adult satisfaction) then it seems that we should not leave so many children out because we don't approve of the adult's relationship.

 

Also no relationship between two elderly people is going to produce children. Why, then, do elderly people get married? Historically, have we denied elderly people the rights of marriage? Why not? I don't think you can argue that marriage is only about children, either in our culture, or historically.

 

For government purposes, if marriage is going to be performed at all, I think you need to have a pretty vague LEGAL definition of marriage. Marriage is a cultural construct, and we live in a multi-cultural society. From a legal/governmental standpoint, it makes sense to let consenting adults decide for themselves how they define marriage.

Not condoning it, but:

There have been times in certain societies and faiths where a marriage may be dissolved due to infertility or inability to consummate. There are also those that do not believe that marriage should be permitted if it is known that conception or even consummation are impossible or near impossible.

 

I don't agree with these idea, but they are out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this is true, do to the inclusion of "naturally", does it matter? Many homosexual relationships, especially homosexual marriages, produce or adopt or otherwise care for children. In some (possibly most) cases, those children being cared for are the result of a failed heterosexual marriage. If the purpose of marriage is to care for and protect children (rather than for adult satisfaction) then it seems that we should not leave so many children out because we don't approve of the adult's relationship.

 

Also no relationship between two elderly people is going to produce children. Why, then, do elderly people get married? Historically, have we denied elderly people the rights of marriage? Why not? I don't think you can argue that marriage is only about children, either in our culture, or historically.

 

For government purposes, if marriage is going to be performed at all, I think you need to have a pretty vague LEGAL definition of marriage. Marriage is a cultural construct, and we live in a multi-cultural society. From a legal/governmental standpoint, it makes sense to let consenting adults decide for themselves how they define marriage.

 

Yes, I do think it matters.

 

I believe that a stable society is dependent on the establishment and maintenance of basic underlying patterns and structures. As long as such structures are in place and are generally acknowledged and adhered to, the social structure is able to withstand a certain amount of variation and remain stable. So it is possible for some members to act outside of societal and even biological norms without majorly disrupting the underlying structure. The basic structure remains in place. This happens in every society.

 

I am concerned when I see individuals and groups demanding that the norms themselves be changed to accommodate and sanction these variations. That represents a fundamental restructuring of societal foundations, and is not a move to be taken lightly.

 

In terms of marriage, I believe the basic social and biological basis does revolve around childbearing and rearing. That basic pattern requires the union of male and female, and so marriage in every society I am aware of has some form of officially sanctioned marriage union between men and women. It is true that not all male/female unions will produce children, but the fact remains that all children are the genetic product of a father and a mother. I think that marriage between elderly couples has been easily accommodated because they still represent a union of male and female and therefor a version of the basic societal prototype. A union of two males or two females represents a much more significant variation from the prototype, and so has always been treated differently.

 

I believe the pattern is important. I suspect the pattern is critical. Yes, it sometimes fails, but I fear a much higher failure rate if we try to stretch the pattern to accommodate every desired variation--at some point, that will amount to discarding the pattern altogether. I fear that trying to stretch social structures and norms to the point of not having any established norm will undermine the basic foundation of society.

 

I very much believe in extending courtesy, respect, and kindness to every individual. I have not desire to persecute people in same-sex relationships, to send them to jail, to mock them or their children, etc.. But I am not comfortable with saying "oh well, if you want to change the definition of marriage to accommodate your particular variation go right ahead. Doesn't affect me." I do think it will affect me, my children, my community, and the future of our society. I find it very disturbing that the same-sex marriage lobby habitually dismisses and denies the fact that what they are proposing is in fact a fundamental redefinition and restructuring of the most basic unit of society, the family. We have to acknowledge that fact before we can even start to discuss the possible implications, positive or negative, of such a move. There are valid concerns on the part of those who don't want to jump to redefine marriage, and it is not helpful when, as too often happens, same-sex marriage advocates choose to frame their opponents arguments as nothing more than unfairness and bigotry. The question of what marriage means, what are its effects on society, and how changes in the structure and purposes of marriage may affect society deserve serious consideration by those on all sides of the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective, marriage is fundamentally about bearing and raising children, and giving those children a solid support network and a firm place in the world. .

 

Speaking purely of heterosexuals here -- I have to say that divorce doesn't really bother me as a "worst thing ever" type of scenario, and I also don't know that I agree that marriage is primarily about having children. I think it's great to see old people who get married (including after being widowed, but could be the first time for that matter).

 

I am all for marriage but I think making it this huge deal where if it fails, the world supposedly comes crashing in (I don't mean people's emotions)....is a bit much. Divorce is not fantastic, but it doesn't have to be utterly devastating. The reaction too is cultural. I am just not sure what my feelings are, but I don't think it's the worst thing ever if a marriage doesn't last.

 

Speaking purely of heterosexual relationships, again, there are multiple norms. I would say polygamy (one man, multiple women) is very common worldwide, including in the western world, even if such marriage isn't legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I do think it matters.

 

I believe that a stable society is dependent on the establishment and maintenance of basic underlying patterns and structures. As long as such structures are in place and are generally acknowledged and adhered to, the social structure is able to withstand a certain amount of variation and remain stable. So it is possible for some members to act outside of societal and even biological norms without majorly disrupting the underlying structure. The basic structure remains in place. This happens in every society.

 

I am concerned when I see individuals and groups demanding that the norms themselves be changed to accommodate and sanction these variations. That represents a fundamental restructuring of societal foundations, and is not a move to be taken lightly.

 

In terms of marriage, I believe the basic social and biological basis does revolve around childbearing and rearing. That basic pattern requires the union of male and female, and so marriage in every society I am aware of has some form of officially sanctioned marriage union between men and women. It is true that not all male/female unions will produce children, but the fact remains that all children are the genetic product of a father and a mother. I think that marriage between elderly couples has been easily accommodated because they still represent a union of male and female and therefor a version of the basic societal prototype. A union of two males or two females represents a much more significant variation from the prototype, and so has always been treated differently.

 

I believe the pattern is important. I suspect the pattern is critical. Yes, it sometimes fails, but I fear a much higher failure rate if we try to stretch the pattern to accommodate every desired variation--at some point, that will amount to discarding the pattern altogether. I fear that trying to stretch social structures and norms to the point of not having any established norm will undermine the basic foundation of society.

 

I very much believe in extending courtesy, respect, and kindness to every individual. I have not desire to persecute people in same-sex relationships, to send them to jail, to mock them or their children, etc.. But I am not comfortable with saying "oh well, if you want to change the definition of marriage to accommodate your particular variation go right ahead. Doesn't affect me." I do think it will affect me, my children, my community, and the future of our society. I find it very disturbing that the same-sex marriage lobby habitually dismisses and denies the fact that what they are proposing is in fact a fundamental redefinition and restructuring of the most basic unit of society, the family. We have to acknowledge that fact before we can even start to discuss the possible implications, positive or negative, of such a move. There are valid concerns on the part of those who don't want to jump to redefine marriage, and it is not helpful when, as too often happens, same-sex marriage advocates choose to frame their opponents arguments as nothing more than unfairness and bigotry. The question of what marriage means, what are its effects on society, and how changes in the structure and purposes of marriage may affect society deserve serious consideration by those on all sides of the argument.

 

I dob't see how your argument is valid. You concede that there is room for "variation" when it comes to heterosexuals (such as with people who are infertile, or choose not to procreate or adopt) but slam the door on "variations" that involve same sex couples. This ignores the fact that many same sex couples raise children, either their own through previous marriage or through adoption, surrogacy or other means.

 

You miss the point that many same sex partners desire to be part of the "pattern" of forming a family. Instead of embracing that that you would exclude them, and damage the positives of building stable structures in the gay community. Same sex couples with (or without) children are far more likely to form long-lasting and stable bonds that help build our society when they are accorded their right to marry than when those rights are denied them.

 

Ponder that.

 

Bill

Edited by Spy Car
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um...marriage has been around for much longer than Christianity, has it not? Marriage exists in many non-Christian places.

 

"Marriage" has many names and forms of it have been around since the beginning of time. My point was regarding the church's role in marriage. In America, at least up until recently, marriage was a Christian institution.

 

Counselors have codes of ethics that they must test over, and agree to abide by in order to have the license.The ethics include not discriminating due to sexual orientation. They know that. If they can't honor that ~ a standard that the profession embraced ~ they should find another occupational role.

 

So Christians who believe in the Bible (which says homosexuality is wrong) can't be counselors? I remember that case and (I may be wrong) I believe it wasn't that she refused to see the woman, but the woman being counseled wanted advice about her relationship and the counselor referred her to someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Marriage" has many names and forms of it have been around since the beginning of time. My point was regarding the church's role in marriage. In America, at least up until recently, marriage was a Christian institution.

 

 

Really? So Jews and atheists could not marry? All marriages had to be approved by a church?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I do think it matters.

 

I believe that a stable society is dependent on the establishment and maintenance of basic underlying patterns and structures. As long as such structures are in place and are generally acknowledged and adhered to, the social structure is able to withstand a certain amount of variation and remain stable. So it is possible for some members to act outside of societal and even biological norms without majorly disrupting the underlying structure. The basic structure remains in place. This happens in every society.

 

I am concerned when I see individuals and groups demanding that the norms themselves be changed to accommodate and sanction these variations. That represents a fundamental restructuring of societal foundations, and is not a move to be taken lightly.

 

In terms of marriage, I believe the basic social and biological basis does revolve around childbearing and rearing. That basic pattern requires the union of male and female, and so marriage in every society I am aware of has some form of officially sanctioned marriage union between men and women. It is true that not all male/female unions will produce children, but the fact remains that all children are the genetic product of a father and a mother. I think that marriage between elderly couples has been easily accommodated because they still represent a union of male and female and therefor a version of the basic societal prototype. A union of two males or two females represents a much more significant variation from the prototype, and so has always been treated differently.

 

I believe the pattern is important. I suspect the pattern is critical. Yes, it sometimes fails, but I fear a much higher failure rate if we try to stretch the pattern to accommodate every desired variation--at some point, that will amount to discarding the pattern altogether. I fear that trying to stretch social structures and norms to the point of not having any established norm will undermine the basic foundation of society.

 

I very much believe in extending courtesy, respect, and kindness to every individual. I have not desire to persecute people in same-sex relationships, to send them to jail, to mock them or their children, etc.. But I am not comfortable with saying "oh well, if you want to change the definition of marriage to accommodate your particular variation go right ahead. Doesn't affect me." I do think it will affect me, my children, my community, and the future of our society. I find it very disturbing that the same-sex marriage lobby habitually dismisses and denies the fact that what they are proposing is in fact a fundamental redefinition and restructuring of the most basic unit of society, the family. We have to acknowledge that fact before we can even start to discuss the possible implications, positive or negative, of such a move. There are valid concerns on the part of those who don't want to jump to redefine marriage, and it is not helpful when, as too often happens, same-sex marriage advocates choose to frame their opponents arguments as nothing more than unfairness and bigotry. The question of what marriage means, what are its effects on society, and how changes in the structure and purposes of marriage may affect society deserve serious consideration by those on all sides of the argument.

 

So, same-sex couples who wish to be a part of this pattern of society...we and our children are just shut out? That does not seem terribly kind. And I don't understand why the variation of infertility and age seems to be fine and doesn't mess with the pattern, but the variation of a spouse's gender does.

 

I do understand that it is a stretch for some people. However, I'm not willing to cede my family's rights so that no one has to be uncomfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Marriage" has many names and forms of it have been around since the beginning of time. My point was regarding the church's role in marriage. In America, at least up until recently, marriage was a Christian institution.

 

 

 

So Christians who believe in the Bible (which says homosexuality is wrong) can't be counselors? I remember that case and (I may be wrong) I believe it wasn't that she refused to see the woman, but the woman being counseled wanted advice about her relationship and the counselor referred her to someone else.

Marriage existed here prior to the Pilgrims and Puritans landing. In fact, prior to the Catholics and Jews landing. Marriage has been here much longer. In America, Marriage has been an institution. I has never been just or even primarily a Christian institution. To think such is to deny the existence of others that have existed during the entire history of this nation and those that have existed prior to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dob't see how your argument is valid. You concede that there is room for "variation" when it comes to heterosexuals (such as with people who are infertile, or choose not to procreate or adopt) but slam the door on "variations" that involve same sex couples. This ignores the fact that many same sex couples raise children, either their own through previous marriage or through adoption, surrogacy or other means.

 

You miss the point that many same sex partners desire to be part of the "pattern" of forming a family. Instead of embracing that that you would exclude them, and damage the positives of building stable structures in the gay community. Same sex couples with (or without) children are far more likely to form long-lasting and stable bonds that help build our society when they are accords their right to marry than when those rights are denied them.

 

Ponder that.

 

Bill

 

Or I could have just said :iagree:. Thanks Bill, I'm not having an articulate day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Marriage" has many names and forms of it have been around since the beginning of time. My point was regarding the church's role in marriage. In America, at least up until recently, marriage was a Christian institution.

 

 

That is not even remotely true. Non-Christians have been getting married in America since before there was an America, and through the entire history of the continent. And of the US, for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I do think it matters.

 

I believe that a stable society is dependent on the establishment and maintenance of basic underlying patterns and structures. As long as such structures are in place and are generally acknowledged and adhered to, the social structure is able to withstand a certain amount of variation and remain stable. So it is possible for some members to act outside of societal and even biological norms without majorly disrupting the underlying structure. The basic structure remains in place. This happens in every society.

 

I am concerned when I see individuals and groups demanding that the norms themselves be changed to accommodate and sanction these variations. That represents a fundamental restructuring of societal foundations, and is not a move to be taken lightly.

 

In terms of marriage, I believe the basic social and biological basis does revolve around childbearing and rearing. That basic pattern requires the union of male and female, and so marriage in every society I am aware of has some form of officially sanctioned marriage union between men and women. It is true that not all male/female unions will produce children, but the fact remains that all children are the genetic product of a father and a mother. I think that marriage between elderly couples has been easily accommodated because they still represent a union of male and female and therefor a version of the basic societal prototype. A union of two males or two females represents a much more significant variation from the prototype, and so has always been treated differently.

 

I believe the pattern is important. I suspect the pattern is critical. Yes, it sometimes fails, but I fear a much higher failure rate if we try to stretch the pattern to accommodate every desired variation--at some point, that will amount to discarding the pattern altogether. I fear that trying to stretch social structures and norms to the point of not having any established norm will undermine the basic foundation of society.

 

I very much believe in extending courtesy, respect, and kindness to every individual. I have not desire to persecute people in same-sex relationships, to send them to jail, to mock them or their children, etc.. But I am not comfortable with saying "oh well, if you want to change the definition of marriage to accommodate your particular variation go right ahead. Doesn't affect me." I do think it will affect me, my children, my community, and the future of our society. I find it very disturbing that the same-sex marriage lobby habitually dismisses and denies the fact that what they are proposing is in fact a fundamental redefinition and restructuring of the most basic unit of society, the family. We have to acknowledge that fact before we can even start to discuss the possible implications, positive or negative, of such a move. There are valid concerns on the part of those who don't want to jump to redefine marriage, and it is not helpful when, as too often happens, same-sex marriage advocates choose to frame their opponents arguments as nothing more than unfairness and bigotry. The question of what marriage means, what are its effects on society, and how changes in the structure and purposes of marriage may affect society deserve serious consideration by those on all sides of the argument.

 

 

So...seeing gay couples marry and live happily will somehow make heterosexuals not want to get married and raise children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...