Why is marriage important in America today?

[nmoira]

That wasn't part of my dictionary definition, though I do agree that marriage is ordained by God.

 

Why bother? I don't want a secular marriage, as I can't imagine anything emptier...when those times get exceedingly rocky in life, I'm glad my husband is in covenant not only with God but with me.

 

It's the glue, the "threefold cord that is not easily broken" that doesn't exist otherwise. But why "decry" it. People can do what they want and I'm not anyone's Holy Spirit.

 

I'd love to see a study on the differences in longevity and happiness between convenantal marriages and secular marriages though. I'm pretty sure there would be a difference in statistics, just going from observation.

By why not gay people? If my marriage doesn't threaten yours, why would theirs?

[TranquilMind]

By why not gay people? If my marriage doesn't threaten yours, why would theirs?

Sigh. Hasn't this been covered repeatedly in the last 23 pages (and the last bazillion threads on this)?

 

People can do what they want. They can call themselves married. They can call themselves tooth fairies. I don't care.

 

Definitionally, it is something other than marriage because it doesn't meet the definition of marriage, as I have said repeatedly. Civil union would be fine or whatever.

 

I can call myself a man, as I stated above. I'm equal to any man, and superior to some, as I said (jokingly). I can argue vehemently that I am of the scientific class of "man", that I have advanced degrees and many other characteristics that men traditionally have had, that I can do the job of a man, and I can dress like a man. But I'm not a man. I don't meet the criteria. I'm something other than a man, regardless of what I call myself or how I present myself to society.

[AdventureMoms]

Here's a site I came across when I googled your question in which a Harvard Sociologist examines this question.

 

http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/gay-marriage-harms-traditional-marriage

 

Whoops. Can't read that article. I don't know why? Trying to find it.

 

Here are a couple more in which this Sociologist, Pitirim Sorkin, is mentioned.

 

http://www.albertmohler.com/2004/01/15/the-case-against-homosexual-marriage/

 

OK, so there's a sociologist who thinks that regulation of sexuality is the fundamental marker of civilization. That is interesting, but I will have to disagree. I need something more concrete than that.

 

 

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/8/wetzstein-marriage-gays-want-is-altered/

 

OK, that's the first decently sensible thing I've seen all day. According to that one the problem is that marriage has changed, therefore gays want to get married. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but it could be. Either way, according to her, the structure of marriage has already fundamentally changed (probably true) so why do we blame gay marriage for the change?

 

The following one is faith-based, ftr:

 

http://www.crosswalk.com/1241113/

 

 

That is the same as the second link

 

This one is conservative (duh), but has lots of stats:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC04C02

 

That one is ridiculous. You can't compare homosexual RELATIONSHIPS to heterosexual MARRIAGES and call it statistics. What exactly are we calling a relationship? How long do heterosexual relationships last on average?

[Marianne in TX]

And I believe that in the future, people will view the anti-marriage-equality movement in the same light that we now view those who fought against women's voting rights, desegregation, and mixed-race marriage.

 

Jackie

 

How do you think this might affect Catholics, Orthodox, Jews, and Muslims (and others?) who continue to adhere to their Traditions?

 

They can continue to practice their own religion, get married in their own churches, and practice marriage as it applies to them. And others will be allowed to do the same.

 

Jackie

 

But when I think of people fighting against civil rights and mixed-race marriage...I think:001_huh:

 

And I don't want to be lumped together with people who did that. Especially when my Faith is very much multi-ethnic (and pretty much apolitical except for seeking peace).

[AdventureMoms]

Seriously. You jumped on THAT point?? That's pretty funny.

 

The witness will stipulate that Arranged marriages have happened. It probably would be better in many cases today if they still happened, actually. There is this silly show I caught on TV the other day called Parental Control, where Mom and also Dad pick out a new girl to date their son to see if they can do better than the obnoxious girlfriend the son now has (or pick a boy if daughter has obnoxious boyfriend). And they ARE obnoxious, believe me, as they sit there and view the video of the dates.

 

A high percentage of the time, the son or daughter really likes the choice of either Mom or Dad and picks that person over the current girl or boyfriend. I could so TOTALLY pick out good matches for my kids.

 

In the same post, you just ridiculed the part of your post I chose to refute, and used a reality tv show to support your point. I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore.

[Rivka]

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 don't disagree with this at all, although I would also argue that marriage has also traditionally existed for the support and care (not just the gratification) of adult family members. For example, marriage has historically meant that it was not easy for a man to put his aging wife aside in favor of someone younger and sexier.

 

Marriage as an institution that regulates and controls sexual activity is substantially weakened in the modern world. Marriage continues to be a significant and important means of building and protecting families. The benefits of marriage, legally, financially, and psychologically, focus on these areas: stability, financial obligation, inheritance, medical decision making, parental rights, family benefits.

 

To me the question is whether there is a compelling governmental reason to refuse certain people the right to construct stable family units, and to avail themselves of the protections and supports our society offers those units.

 

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.

 

As others have suggested, the word "naturally" is a bit of a red herring. LGBT parents all across America and the world are raising children in families. Should those children's rights to family protections be dependent on the "naturalness" of their parentage? That doesn't make sense to me. Whether you approve of it or not, parenting is decoupled from biological parentage in our society - and not just because of LGBT people, but because of reproductive technology and adoption by heterosexual people. A child's need for a stable family unit to grow up in doesn't melt away because that child was conceived by donor sperm or because the child was adopted. Nor does it melt away because the child's parents are the same sex.

 

There's a little boy in my son's Religious Education class who is six weeks older than my son. His parents have been together about as long as my husband and I have. They've owned their home for a couple years longer than we have. Our families have similar education and economic levels and similar aspirations for our children. We both have loving extended families. We were both married in the church. However, Michael and I have a marriage license registered with the state, and the other parents are forbidden to do so. My son has the protection of legally married parents. The other little boy does not. If we agree that marriage protects and supports children, why does my son deserve those things more than their son?

 

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.

 

I'm curious about how many LGBT families you know. I know a lot of them; it's a common family pattern in my religious denomination and in my social circles more generally. You know what? They are really, really ordinary. For a family raising kids, the child-rearing aspect is so much greater in determining the structure and pattern of the family than the parents' gender!

 

I mean, if you listen to a middle-aged lesbian couple go on and on about their kitchen renovation and all the headaches they have working with contractors, or a gay man anxiously talk through the advantages and disadvantages of various local charter schools, or or a lesbian mom worry because her toddler-aged twins have just discovered the joys of hitting, or a gay man complaining that his partner who works outside the home always gets to be the "fun dad" instead of enforcing rules and chores, or a lesbian couple teasing each other because one loves to take the kids camping and the other wants to vacation at a luxury hotel... it's just parenting. It's just family life. The enormous violations you see in the pattern are just not that evident, close up.

[Corraleno]

I don't want a secular marriage, as I can't imagine anything emptier...when those times get exceedingly rocky in life, I'm glad my husband is in covenant not only with God but with me.

And I'm glad that when things get rocky, my husband stays with me because he loves and respects me, not because he's afraid of burning in he!!. I assure you that my marriage, like most secular marriages, is anything but "empty." :)

 

I'd love to see a study on the differences in longevity and happiness between convenantal marriages and secular marriages though. I'm pretty sure there would be a difference in statistics, just going from observation.

Here are some statistics for you from an article in the Christian Post:

 

Overall divorce rate: 33%

Christian divorce rate: 32%

Atheist/Agnostic divorce rate: 30% (i.e. slightly lower than the Christian rate):D

Catholic divorce rate: 28%

Evangelical divorce rate: 26%

College graduates making >$75K/yr: 22%

Asians 20%

 

So it looks like atheists have a slightly lower divorce rate than Christians, and Asians & middle-class college graduates have even lower divorce rates than Evangelical Christians. (The poll these stats come from was carried out by an Evangelical Christian, BTW, lest anyone suspect "liberal bias.")

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

Sigh. Hasn't this been covered repeatedly in the last 23 pages (and the last bazillion threads on this)?

 

People can do what they want. They can call themselves married. They can call themselves tooth fairies. I don't care.

 

Definitionally, it is something other than marriage because it doesn't meet the definition of marriage, as I have said repeatedly. Civil union would be fine or whatever.

You mean it doesn't meet the conservative Christian definition of marriage. No one has yet explained why conservative Christians should be given exclusive ownership of a word that has — and has always had — extensive civil and secular rights and obligations attached to it.

 

Jackie

[nmoira]

Sigh. Hasn't this been covered repeatedly in the last 23 pages (and the last bazillion threads on this)?

 

People can do what they want. They can call themselves married. They can call themselves tooth fairies. I don't care.

 

Definitionally, it is something other than marriage because it doesn't meet the definition of marriage, as I have said repeatedly. Civil union would be fine or whatever.

Unless we change it (the legal definition). Then definitionally it will meet the definition of marriage.

 

I can call myself a man, as I stated above.

Are you talking gender (i.e. transgender) or chromosomal status? We've had a number of threads here on transgender issues, and I hope your comment isn't merely a flippant dismissal.

[AdventureMoms]

I don't disagree with this at all, although I would also argue that marriage has also traditionally existed for the support and care (not just the gratification) of adult family members. For example, marriage has historically meant that it was not easy for a man to put his aging wife aside in favor of someone younger and sexier.

 

Marriage as an institution that regulates and controls sexual activity is substantially weakened in the modern world. Marriage continues to be a significant and important means of building and protecting families. The benefits of marriage, legally, financially, and psychologically, focus on these areas: stability, financial obligation, inheritance, medical decision making, parental rights, family benefits.

 

To me the question is whether there is a compelling governmental reason to refuse certain people the right to construct stable family units, and to avail themselves of the protections and supports our society offers those units.

 

 

 

As others have suggested, the word "naturally" is a bit of a red herring. LGBT parents all across America and the world are raising children in families. Should those children's rights to family protections be dependent on the "naturalness" of their parentage? That doesn't make sense to me. Whether you approve of it or not, parenting is decoupled from biological parentage in our society - and not just because of LGBT people, but because of reproductive technology and adoption by heterosexual people. A child's need for a stable family unit to grow up in doesn't melt away because that child was conceived by donor sperm or because the child was adopted. Nor does it melt away because the child's parents are the same sex.

 

There's a little boy in my son's Religious Education class who is six weeks older than my son. His parents have been together about as long as my husband and I have. They've owned their home for a couple years longer than we have. Our families have similar education and economic levels and similar aspirations for our children. We both have loving extended families. We were both married in the church. However, Michael and I have a marriage license registered with the state, and the other parents are forbidden to do so. My son has the protection of legally married parents. The other little boy does not. If we agree that marriage protects and supports children, why does my son deserve those things more than their son?

 

 

 

I'm curious about how many LGBT families you know. I know a lot of them; it's a common family pattern in my religious denomination and in my social circles more generally. You know what? They are really, really ordinary. For a family raising kids, the child-rearing aspect is so much greater in determining the structure and pattern of the family than the parents' gender!

 

I mean, if you listen to a middle-aged lesbian couple go on and on about their kitchen renovation and all the headaches they have working with contractors, or a gay man anxiously talk through the advantages and disadvantages of various local charter schools, or or a lesbian mom worry because her toddler-aged twins have just discovered the joys of hitting, or a gay man complaining that his partner who works outside the home always gets to be the "fun dad" instead of enforcing rules and chores, or a lesbian couple teasing each other because one loves to take the kids camping and the other wants to vacation at a luxury hotel... it's just parenting. It's just family life. The enormous violations you see in the pattern are just not that evident, close up.

 

 

To the bolded:

Rivka, what are you doing in my house? Though the biting is a bigger problem than the hitting. Sigh.

 

To the rest:

Thank you, that was an awesome post.

[SonshineLearner]

Yup, I bet that the statistics are correct, except for then the matter of who marries when....etc. I would suspect that more couples who are not Christians feel living with each other before marriage is ok... than those living Christian lives do.... which skews some of the results. Just a thought....

[TranquilMind]

Corraleno: And I'm glad that when things get rocky, my husband stays with me because he loves and respects me, not because he's afraid of burning in he!!.

 

Laughing out loud. You clearly misunderstand me, but I suspect I won't be able to correct it.

 

Yeah, THAT is the only reason my husband stays married to me...

 

:lol:

 

Here are some statistics for you from an article in the Christian Post:

 

Overall divorce rate: 33%

Christian divorce rate: 32%

Atheist/Agnostic divorce rate: 30% (i.e. slightly lower than the Christian rate):D

Catholic divorce rate: 28%

Evangelical divorce rate: 26%

College graduates making >$75K/yr: 22%

Asians 20%

 

So it looks like atheists have a slightly lower divorce rate than Christians, and Asians & middle-class college graduates have even lower divorce rates than Evangelical Christians. (The poll these stats come from was carried out by an Evangelical Christian, BTW, lest anyone suspect "liberal bias.")

 

Jackie

 

Well, that would make sense to me on a number of levels. Christians are probably quicker to marry rather than just to live together, so more marriages would mean more divorces.

 

I would also like to see the working definition for "evangelical Christian". Almost everyone who isn't a Jew, a Muslim, or another distinct religious tradition would pretty much call himself a Christian. More Christians, more divorces. The more educated divorce at a lower rate than other people. The older divorce at a lower rate than the younger. There are just so many variations.

 

From a Barna survey:

 

One reason for the higher divorce rates in the Bible Belt may be the lower percentage of Roman Catholics in the South. Their denomination does not recognize divorce. Other reasons could be related more to culture than religion:

Couples in the South enter their first marriages at a younger age.

 

Family incomes in the South are lower.

 

Educational attainment is lower in the South: One in three Massachusetts residents have completed college. while only 23% of Texans have.

Edited July 25, 2012 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

Yup, I bet that the statistics are correct, except for then the matter of who marries when....etc. I would suspect that more couples who are not Christians feel living with each other before marriage is ok... than those living Christian lives do.... which skews some of the results. Just a thought....

 

Yes, totally. Christians don't tend to live together before marriage. Obviously, you can't be in the divorced category, no matter how many and how volatile your splits, if you aren't married.

[TranquilMind]

You mean it doesn't meet the conservative Christian definition of marriage. No one has yet explained why conservative Christians should be given exclusive ownership of a word that has — and has always had — extensive civil and secular rights and obligations attached to it.

 

Jackie

 

Last time I looked, it wasn't the conservative Christians creating the culture, or writing the laws or the definitions in the dictionaries. They are more a fringe element, if you haven't noticed. This has always been true, though there once was a larger middle section who at least gave lip service to traditional values.

[Excelsior! Academy]

And I'm glad that when things get rocky, my husband stays with me because he loves and respects me, not because he's afraid of burning in he!!. I assure you that my marriage, like most secular marriages, is anything but "empty." :)

 

 

Here are some statistics for you from an article in the Christian Post:

 

Overall divorce rate: 33%

Christian divorce rate: 32%

Atheist/Agnostic divorce rate: 30% (i.e. slightly lower than the Christian rate):D

Catholic divorce rate: 28%

Evangelical divorce rate: 26%

College graduates making >$75K/yr: 22%

Asians 20%

 

So it looks like atheists have a slightly lower divorce rate than Christians, and Asians & middle-class college graduates have even lower divorce rates than Evangelical Christians. (The poll these stats come from was carried out by an Evangelical Christian, BTW, lest anyone suspect "liberal bias.")

 

Jackie

 

Is it possible that certain groups are not marrying as much? For a Christian you marry for religious reasons, for an atheist the reasons would be different. So the percentages do reflect divorces, but not break ups from cohabitation.

[TranquilMind]

It's not about us being uncomfortable. It's about the concern that taking a foundational pattern to society, and pulling it apart, will be unhealthy to the country as a whole. If all variations are considered part of the norm, there really is no norm or base to the pattern anymore, and so there really would be no pattern. No structure. No base to society. I have no desire to make same sex couples or their children feel hated or like outcasts, but since we have ways of allowing variations with everything else, without calling them the norm, I can't help but wonder why that isn't ok here. Is it not alright to say, this is a variation of the pattern, it's not the basic pattern, but that's ok.

Why in every other part of life is it ok to have variations, and call them that, but with this it isn't?

 

 

That is a very good question. All the rest about the "comfort levels" of straight people and all that is just drivel.

 

You are right. This is one area in which politics disallows common sense labels.

[lea1]

And I'm glad that when things get rocky, my husband stays with me because he loves and respects me, not because he's afraid of burning in he!!. I assure you that my marriage, like most secular marriages, is anything but "empty." :)

 

 

Here are some statistics for you from an article in the Christian Post:

 

Overall divorce rate: 33%

Christian divorce rate: 32%

Atheist/Agnostic divorce rate: 30% (i.e. slightly lower than the Christian rate):D

Catholic divorce rate: 28%

Evangelical divorce rate: 26%

College graduates making >$75K/yr: 22%

Asians 20%

 

So it looks like atheists have a slightly lower divorce rate than Christians, and Asians & middle-class college graduates have even lower divorce rates than Evangelical Christians. (The poll these stats come from was carried out by an Evangelical Christian, BTW, lest anyone suspect "liberal bias.")

 

Jackie

 

There are lots of people who call themselves Christian who are not really Christians. I don't have a reference but I have heard that if stats are used of those who go to church on a regular basis, the numbers are significantly different.

[nmoira]

There are lots of people who call themselves Christian who are not really Christians.

 

:lurk5:

[Joker]

:lurk5:

 

I've written three responses but deleted. Those types of people are why I don't attend church regularly right now, but I am a real Christian even if they don't choose to believe so. It seems the churches in our area now are full of members deciding what makes one a true Christian, and I don't agree with their definitions or judgements.

[Corraleno]

Last time I looked, it wasn't the conservative Christians creating the culture, or writing the laws or the definitions in the dictionaries. They are more a fringe element, if you haven't noticed. This has always been true, though there once was a larger middle section who at least gave lip service to traditional values.

You said that gay marriage doesn't "meet the definition of marriage." In several US states, it actually does meet the legal definition of marriage. So what you really mean is that it doesn't meet your definition of marriage. And I'm asking why you think conservative Christians should have exclusive rights to that word?

 

Jackie

[SKL]

Do most people agree that it's OK for there to be a difference between religious "marriage" and a legal designation as having next-of-kin rights?

 

I can see it to be reasonable for any two people to legally declare each other their next-of-kin with the rights that would entail, e.g., end-of-life decisions, inheritance, and custody of any minor children. You wouldn't even have to be in a sexual relationship for this to make sense; just a human of sound mind and body who decides that you want this person to have precedence over your natural kin in personal matters. Call it something other than marriage, though, because marriage seems to have more of a sentimental meaning.

 

Now as for "marriage," let the churches etc. decide who gets married and how. I mean, we have people in our community whose marriages are respected even though we'd never have married under those circumstances. How about arranged marriages? Shotgun weddings? Nuptials at the Justice of the Peace? Nobody seems to feel that those undermine the meaning of their own marriage. It's already a fact that some folks among us are married homosexuals, and I haven't noticed any heterosexual marriages crumbling as a result.

 

The thing about raising kids - being a single adoptive mom, I just feel that what kids need is love and stability. Whether their parents are homosexual, heterosexual, or asexual, the kids shouldn't have to feel insecure as a result of the adults' self-centered behavior. I believe a gay or lesbian couple "can" provide a healthy environment for children to grow up in. And if they can and have the desire, I think it would be great if they'd take on some kids who are currently denied the benefit of a stable family. Whether they call themselves married or not, the key becomes making sure the child has what she needs until she's 18. I personally don't think you have to be "married" to make that happen, but if some people feel that's best for their kids, who am I to say otherwise?

 

(ETA: I still don't think marriage should come with a transfer of wealth from the taxpayers, though.)

[TranquilMind]

You said that gay marriage doesn't "meet the definition of marriage." In several US states, it actually does meet the legal definition of marriage. So what you really mean is that it doesn't meet your definition of marriage. And I'm asking why you think conservative Christians should have exclusive rights to that word?

 

Jackie

 

Well, NOW it does due to newly rewritten laws in a few locations, after thousands of years of having an established meaning.

 

That doesn't make it mean anything else.

[Corraleno]

There are lots of people who call themselves Christian who are not really Christians. I don't have a reference but I have heard that if stats are used of those who go to church on a regular basis, the numbers are significantly different.

That survey was carried out by an Evangelical Christian, and his definition of that category included regular church attendance, along with many other specific criteria. Asians and college-educated people still have lower divorce rates than Evangelicals who (by the definitions used in that survey) regularly attend church. And it's only a little lower (4%) than atheists.

 

I find it amusing that people insist that statistics will show that Christians are less likely to divorce, then when it turns out that atheists, Asians, and college-educated people actually have lower divorce rates, they come up with reasons why the statistics "don't count" — non-Christians don't get married as often, non-Christians are more likely to live together, the Christians who don't go to church regularly aren't real Christians, etc.

 

So then what's the point here? Evangelical Christians who attend church regularly, who don't cohabit, and who consider divorce a sin, are less likely to divorce? Is that news? How does that relate to gay marriage? Are you saying that because Evangelicals who don't believe in divorce are less likely to divorce that they get to decide what marriage is for everyone else? :confused:

 

Jackie

Edited July 25, 2012 by Corraleno

[zenjenn]

I think we should do away with marriage as a government institution and replace it with various civil contracts people can choose from.

 

Then the "definition of marriage" can evolve socially not legally.

 

For example, my husband and I would have chosen a more ironclad contract than current legal marriage, which allows for no-fault divorce.

[Corraleno]

Well, NOW it does due to newly rewritten laws in a few locations, after thousands of years of having an established meaning. That doesn't make it mean anything else

for Christians. You are arguing in complete circles.

 

First people claim that marriage can only be defined as being between 1 man and 1 woman, because that's how it's been defined in all cultures throughout history.

 

When that is proven false, the argument becomes that marriage must be between 1 man and 1 woman because that's how it's legally defined in our culture.

 

When that's proven false — several states have definitions that include gay marriage — then you argue that changing the legal definition doesn't make it true.

 

Your only real argument is that your religion defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, and that no one can use the word to mean anything else.

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

That is a very good question. All the rest about the "comfort levels" of straight people and all that is just drivel.

 

You are right. This is one area in which politics disallows common sense labels.

People also used to argue that it was "common sense" that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and that blacks and whites shouldn't be allowed to "mix" socially, economically, or maritally. The "common sense" defense is often the fallback position of those who cannot argue their point logically.

 

Jackie

[AdventureMoms]

I think we should do away with marriage as a government institution and replace it with various civil contracts people can choose from.

 

Then the "definition of marriage" can evolve socially not legally.

 

For example, my husband and I would have chosen a more ironclad contract than current legal marriage, which allows for no-fault divorce.

 

This I would be fine with. If you don't want government defining marriage, then do away with marriage benefits - for everyone. Marriage, including heterosexual marriage, would become a religious thing only, with no civil implications. Other contracts and documents would be put in place to handle certain practical matters.

 

It would complicate taxes for families with two adults and one income-earner, but that could probably be managed.

 

FWIW, though, that does mean ANYONE can declare themselves married, and also ANYONE can declare themselves unmarried, with no legal repercussions at all.

[Rivka]

Your only real argument is that your religion defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, and that no one can use the word to mean anything else.

 

Yep.

[Wheres Toto]

You realize that the same arguments were used to defend slavery, desegregation, laws against mixed-race marriages, etc. — this is the proper social order, this is the way things are meant to be (even "this is how God wants it to be"), and allowing desegregation or interracial marriage will bring the end of society as we know it. The same arguments were used against giving women the right to vote. None of those things were true, society didn't collapse, and in retrospect we can see how those arguments were based on fear and prejudice.

 

I believe the same is true for the arguments against same-sex marriage. The tide is turning, the majority of young people, even many Christian young people, are in favor of marriage equality, and eventually the laws will be changed. And I believe that in the future, people will view the anti-marriage-equality movement in the same light that we now view those who fought against women's voting rights, desegregation, and mixed-race marriage.

 

Jackie

:iagree:

 

If civil marriage is not a human construct, what is it? I'm not talking about religious marriage, nor is the gay marriage movement talking about religious marriage. The various religions can do whatever they want internally about that. We're talking about state-sanctioned, government-issued civil marriage.

 

And I'm using every bit of restraint I have to not scream over the inanimate object comparison (I have two sleeping toddlers or I might actually scream). It's a slippery slope argument, is enormously overused, and it is ABSURD.

 

 

 

OK, how about this for definition: A marriage is a union of two consenting adults who form a family unit.

 

:iagree:

 

It is a wholly human construct — what else would it be? Marriage is a ritual or custom in which two or more humans enter into a social contract, the rights and obligations of which are defined by that culture.

 

If you're saying that the only meaningful definition of marriage is the Biblical one, and that any other definition is meaningless and would "break" marriage, then that's pretty insulting to the billions of humans who do not have Christian marriages. And of course it means you are admitting that you think that everyone in America, Christian or not, must abide by your personal religious beliefs.

 

Jackie

 

:iagree:

What if I, a straight woman, want to enter into a marriage not ordained by a God? Where are the threads about that?

 

And if we come up with another term (not that I'm advocating this), and people choose to say "married" anyway? How does it affect you if they do?

 

:iagree:

 

This is a rewrite of the definition. This is the definition of marriage since the beginning of time:the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

 

It isn't just Biblical. It is the definition of marriage in all cultures throughout time...until the last few years.

 

That's already been shown to be incorrect by a few others.

 

Why does one religious group have the right to "own" a word that also has legal, civil, and secular definitions, rights, obligations, and ramifications?

 

 

They can continue to practice their own religion, get married in their own churches, and practice marriage as it applies to them. And others will be allowed to do the same.

 

Jackie

:iagree:

 

That wasn't part of my dictionary definition, though I do agree that marriage is ordained by God.

 

Why bother? I don't want a secular marriage, as I can't imagine anything emptier...when those times get exceedingly rocky in life, I'm glad my husband is in covenant not only with God but with me.

 

It's the glue, the "threefold cord that is not easily broken" that doesn't exist otherwise. But why "decry" it. People can do what they want and I'm not anyone's Holy Spirit.

 

I'd love to see a study on the differences in longevity and happiness between convenantal marriages and secular marriages though. I'm pretty sure there would be a difference in statistics, just going from observation.

 

That's your choice and no one is making you have a secular marriage. Just like no one should be forcing others to have a Christian marriage, which is essentially the situation now - the Christian definition is the default.

 

And I'm glad that when things get rocky, my husband stays with me because he loves and respects me, not because he's afraid of burning in he!!. I assure you that my marriage, like most secular marriages, is anything but "empty." :)

 

 

Here are some statistics for you from an article in the Christian Post:

 

Overall divorce rate: 33%

Christian divorce rate: 32%

Atheist/Agnostic divorce rate: 30% (i.e. slightly lower than the Christian rate)

Catholic divorce rate: 28%

Evangelical divorce rate: 26%

College graduates making >$75K/yr: 22%

Asians 20%

 

So it looks like atheists have a slightly lower divorce rate than Christians, and Asians & middle-class college graduates have even lower divorce rates than Evangelical Christians. (The poll these stats come from was carried out by an Evangelical Christian, BTW, lest anyone suspect "liberal bias.")

 

Jackie

:iagree:

 

Well, NOW it does due to newly rewritten laws in a few locations, after thousands of years of having an established meaning.

 

That doesn't make it mean anything else.

 

Again, the current definition hasn't been in effect for thousands of years.

 

for Christians. You are arguing in complete circles.

 

First people claim that marriage can only be defined as being between 1 man and 1 woman, because that's how it's been defined in all cultures throughout history.

 

When that is proven false, the argument becomes that marriage must be between 1 man and 1 woman because that's how it's legally defined in our culture.

 

When that's proven false — several states have definitions that include gay marriage — then you argue that changing the legal definition doesn't make it true.

 

Your only real argument is that your religion defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, and that no one can use the word to mean anything else.

 

Jackie

:iagree:

 

People also used to argue that it was "common sense" that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and that blacks and whites shouldn't be allowed to "mix" socially, economically, or maritally. The "common sense" defense is often the fallback position of those who cannot argue their point logically.

 

Jackie

 

One more "I AGREE" but it won't allow me another smiley.

[SKL]

FWIW, though, that does mean ANYONE can declare themselves married, and also ANYONE can declare themselves unmarried, with no legal repercussions at all.

 

Not necessarily. It depends what the mutual agreements (legally) say.

[lea1]

That survey was carried out by an Evangelical Christian, and his definition of that category included regular church attendance, along with many other specific criteria. Asians and college-educated people still have lower divorce rates than Evangelicals who (by the definitions used in that survey) regularly attend church. And it's only a little lower (4%) than atheists.

 

I find it amusing that people insist that statistics will show that Christians are less likely to divorce, then when it turns out that atheists, Asians, and college-educated people actually have lower divorce rates, they come up with reasons why the statistics "don't count" — non-Christians don't get married as often, non-Christians are more likely to live together, the Christians who don't go to church regularly aren't real Christians, etc.

 

So then what's the point here? Evangelical Christians who attend church regularly, who don't cohabit, and who consider divorce a sin, are less likely to divorce? Is that news? How does that relate to gay marriage? Are you saying that because Evangelicals who don't believe in divorce are less likely to divorce that they get to decide what marriage is for everyone else? :confused:

 

Jackie

 

The point here is that I am disagreeing with your stats. To find your original point, I guess you have to go back to why you introduced the stats. I'm not addressing that. I'm just addressing inaccurate stats.

 

http://www.crosswalk.com/family/marriage/divorce-and-remarriage/the-christian-divorce-rate-myth.html

 

"The Take-Away

 

The divorce rates of Christian believers are not identical to the general population -- not even close. Being a committed, faithful believer makes a measurable difference in marriage.

 

Saying you believe something or merely belonging to a church, unsurprisingly, does little for marriage. But the more you are involved in the actual practice of your faith in real ways -- through submitting yourself to a serious body of believers, learning regularly from Scripture, being in communion with God though prayer individually and with your spouse and children, and having friends and family around you who challenge you to take you marriage's seriously -- the greater difference this makes in strengthening both the quality and longevity of our marriages. Faith does matter and the leading sociologists of family and religion tell us so."

[TranquilMind]

for Christians. You are arguing in complete circles.

 

First people claim that marriage can only be defined as being between 1 man and 1 woman, because that's how it's been defined in all cultures throughout history.

 

When that is proven false, the argument becomes that marriage must be between 1 man and 1 woman because that's how it's legally defined in our culture.

 

When that's proven false — several states have definitions that include gay marriage — then you argue that changing the legal definition doesn't make it true.

 

Your only real argument is that your religion defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, and that no one can use the word to mean anything else.

 

Jackie

 

No, this post is arguing in ridiculous circles.

 

No one has "proven" that marriage extended to other sorts of familial/non-familial arrangements in normative cultures.

 

Marriage IS a legal construct in this culture, which some elements are attempting to redefine with some success so far. 6 states, I think. And a few other countries as well.

 

This redefinition has occurred in the last few years only.

 

Marriage is what it is. Attempting to redefine it doesn't change what it is.

 

I'd like to redefine a lot of constructs to be more favorable to my position, but I don't have a huge, well-funded liberal lobby behind me, so I guess I'm stuck.

 

For example, I'm sure some factions would think it could be really cool if we redefine "death" as in "Til death do you part" to mean something else. Then, when our spouse annoys us, we can just declare him/her "dead" and be free to marry someone else.

 

I'm sure I have to wait a few years on that one.

Edited July 25, 2012 by TranquilMind

[justamouse]

People also used to argue that it was "common sense" that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and that blacks and whites shouldn't be allowed to "mix" socially, economically, or maritally. The "common sense" defense is often the fallback position of those who cannot argue their point logically.

 

Jackie

 

Again, As I said in another post, apples and oranges.

 

A serm and a sperm have never a baby made. You wouldn't be here apart from that billions of years old natural law. A sperm and an egg will always make a baby. THAT is why racism is wrong. Simple biology. A man and a woman from the most remote places of this earth will still make a baby when egg and sperm meet, no matter their skin color.

Edited July 25, 2012 by justamouse

[Corraleno]

Do most people agree that it's OK for there to be a difference between religious "marriage" and a legal designation as having next-of-kin rights?

I think it's OK (and obvious) for there to be a difference between civil marriage, which is a legal contract between 2 people and the state, and which comes with a multitude of civil and legal rights and obligations, and religious marriage, which is a spiritual contract between 2 people and the deity (or deities) they believe in. I do not think that a citizen's access to the civil and legal rights and obligations of marriage should be denied on religious grounds. That is precisely why we have separation of church and state — to prevent one religious group from abridging the rights and freedoms of others who believe differently.

 

I would be in favor of completely separating the two forms of marriage, so that anyone could choose whether to have a civil marriage, a religious marriage, or both. That would also benefit those who would like to have a religious ceremony and to be "married in the eyes of God," but who don't want the rights & obligations of a civil marriage (e.g. older couples who want to live together but don't want to combine their estates for legal or financial reasons).

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

Again, As I said in another post, apples and oranges.

 

A serm and a sperm have never a baby made. You wouldn't be here apart from that billions of years old natural law. A sperm and an egg will always make a baby. THAT is why racism is wrong. Simple biology. A man and a woman from the most remote places of this earth will still make a baby when egg and sperm meet, no matter their skin color.

If the only people who are allowed to marry are those who can (or will) produce biological offspring, then infertile couples, older couples, and couples who just don't want children should also be prevented from marrying. Unmarried couples have also been producing babies since long before the invention of marriage ceremonies, and in many many cultures the most "biologically natural" form of marriage is seen as polygamy. The social and cultural contract of marriage has to do with far more than just producing biological offspring — it always has and it always will.

 

Jackie

Edited July 25, 2012 by Corraleno

[Corraleno]

No one has "proven" that marriage extended to other sorts of familial/non-familial arrangements in normative cultures.

Are you saying that polygamy and other marital arrangements have never existed? :confused::confused::confused:

 

Or are you saying that every culture, throughout human history, that has not defined marriage in the same way that Christians do, is by definition not "normal" and therefore doesn't count? Because defining "normal" as "just like you" and excluding all other beliefs as abnormal, is about a circular and illogical as you can get. Wow. :blink:

 

Jackie

[Joanne]

The point here is that I am disagreeing with your stats. To find your original point, I guess you have to go back to why you introduced the stats. I'm not addressing that. I'm just addressing inaccurate stats.

 

http://www.crosswalk.com/family/marriage/divorce-and-remarriage/the-christian-divorce-rate-myth.html

 

"The Take-Away

 

The divorce rates of Christian believers are not identical to the general population -- not even close. Being a committed, faithful believer makes a measurable differ."

 

Not convinced. Being a religious conservative might be correlated with not getting divorced, but that says NOTHING about the actual relationship of marriage.

[justamouse]

If the only people who are allowed to marry are those who can (or will) produce biological offspring, then infertile couples, older couples, and couples who just don't want children should also be prevented from marrying. Unmarried couples have also been producing babies since long before the invention of marriage ceremonies, and in many many cultures the most "biologically natural" form of marriage is polygamy.

 

Jackie

 

None of that matters, though. You're still trying to say a non biologically reproducing couple should have the same status as those that can procreate. Look, life isn't fair. We're talking about changing a definition for a *minority*, that we can accommodate in other ways. They are loud, they are proud, and they have a fantastic PR campaign, but they are an infinitesimal portion of the population (1.7%) and you want to take a definition that holds a cultural, spiritual, monetary term and change it? What other minority do we accommodate with such drastic change?

[lea1]

Not convinced. Being a religious conservative might be correlated with not getting divorced, but that says NOTHING about the actual relationship of marriage.

 

I never said anything about the actual relationship of marriage. You introduced the statistics in the first place, trying to prove a point. I am simply showing you that your stats are not accurate.

[justamouse]

Not convinced. Being a religious conservative might be correlated with not getting divorced, but that says NOTHING about the actual relationship of marriage.

 

Well with that logic, we should not have the institution of marriage at all because every couple is a special snowflake.

 

So that doesn't make sense, either. I know it's horrid and unspeakable to say, but there have to be standards.

[Joanne]

I never said anything about the actual relationship of marriage. You introduced the statistics in the first place, trying to prove a point. I am simply showing you that your stats are not accurate.

 

Actually, I did not. I just responded to your post about them. Quantifying quality of marriage OR Christianity is a bit nebuluous and arrogant.

[Corraleno]

The point here is that I am disagreeing with your stats. To find your original point, I guess you have to go back to why you introduced the stats. I'm not addressing that. I'm just addressing inaccurate stats.

 

http://www.crosswalk.com/family/marriage/divorce-and-remarriage/the-christian-divorce-rate-myth.html

That article says that "Of those [Christians] who attend church regularly, 38 percent have been divorced." That is actually much HIGHER than the stats in the article that I quoted! He also lists the divorce rate among Christians who don't attend church as 60%, which is much higher than the overall rate of divorce: "Nominally attending conservative Protestants are 20 percent more likely to divorce, compared to secular Americans."

 

So if you believe that those statistics are more accurate, then the divorce rate among Christians overall, and even among active church-goers, is much higher than in the stats I listed.

 

Jackie

[AdventureMoms]

None of that matters, though. You're still trying to say a non biologically reproducing couple should have the same status as those that can procreate. Look, life isn't fair. We're talking about changing a definition for a *minority*, that we can accommodate in other ways. They are loud, they are proud, and they have a fantastic PR campaign, but they are an infinitesimal portion of the population (1.7%) and you want to take a definition that holds a cultural, spiritual, monetary term and change it? What other minority do we accommodate with such drastic change?

 

No, she's saying that if you're saying gay couples should not get married because they are non-biologically-reproducing, then other couples who are non-biologically-reproducing shouldn't be getting married either.

 

Frankly, I don't see how it is such a drastic change. As you say, there aren't that many of us. Of that 1.7% (I've never seen a good statistic, but I'll go with that one, it seems somewhere around right), maybe half might get married. Less than a percent. The vast VAST majority of married couples will be one man and one woman. Those of us same-sex couples who are married you probably won't even notice. I really can't see how we're going to break down the pattern of society or whatever it is we're supposed to do. Most of us are too busy working our jobs and raising our kids and all those things that everyone else does. In a gazillion pages, no one has been able to give one concrete reason why my marriage should affect else's biblical covenant based super-duper marriage. The only reason that seems to hold water is that it's against your religion.

Edited July 25, 2012 by AdventureMoms

[nmoira]

None of that matters, though. You're still trying to say a non biologically reproducing couple should have the same status as those that can procreate. Look, life isn't fair. We're talking about changing a definition for a *minority*, that we can accommodate in other ways. They are loud, they are proud, and they have a fantastic PR campaign, but they are an infinitesimal portion of the population (1.7%) and you want to take a definition that holds a cultural, spiritual, monetary term and change it? What other minority do we accommodate with such drastic change?

 

Wheelchair ramps... how much money has been poured into these? :tongue_smilie:

 

Life isn't fair, but when a small change can make such a big difference, I think we are well to level the field.

 

Cultural - what do you say if the majority are in favour of gay marriage?

Spiritual - not sure why any church would want to dictate what those outside its membership be permitted to do.. ahem.. :glare:

Financial - such a tiny minority surely couldn't make a significant fiscal impact?

[TranquilMind]

Are you saying that polygamy and other marital arrangements have never existed? :confused::confused::confused:

 

Or are you saying that every culture, throughout human history, that has not defined marriage in the same way that Christians do, is by definition not "normal" and therefore doesn't count? Because defining "normal" as "just like you" and excluding all other beliefs as abnormal, is about a circular and illogical as you can get. Wow. :blink:

 

Jackie

 

Polygamy, sure.

 

No culture has normalized same sex marriage ever until the last few years.

[Corraleno]

None of that matters, though. You're still trying to say a non biologically reproducing couple should have the same status as those that can procreate.

But other couples who can't procreate — infertile couples, older couples, voluntarily sterized couples, etc., — already do have that status. You cannot make the ability to biologically reproduce be the defining criterion for marriage without also excluding them.

 

Look, life isn't fair. We're talking about changing a definition for a *minority*, that we can accommodate in other ways. They are loud, they are proud, and they have a fantastic PR campaign, but they are an infinitesimal portion of the population (1.7%) and you want to take a definition that holds a cultural, spiritual, monetary term and change it? What other minority do we accommodate with such drastic change?

I want to take a legal status that includes numerous financial, legal, and civil rights and obligations and extend it to all Americans. The idea that it's OK for certain people not to have the same rights as everyone else because "they're a minority" is utterly shocking to me.

 

Jackie

Edited July 25, 2012 by Corraleno

[AdventureMoms]

Wheelchair ramps... how much money has been poured into these? :tongue_smilie:

 

Life isn't fair, but when a small change can make such a big difference, I think we are well to level the field.

 

Cultural - what do you say if the majority are in favour of gay marriage?

Spiritual - not sure why any church would want to dictate what those outside its membership be permitted to do.. ahem.. :glare:

Financial - such a tiny minority surely couldn't make a significant fiscal impact?

 

:iagree:The entire ADA could be considered a drastic change (and a much more expensive one than gay marriage, I suspect) for the benefit of a few.

[cdrumm4448]

That's the whole crux of it right there, the insistence upon the co-opting of marriage.

 

It's like me insisting on calling myself a man, instead of a woman. I'm very much equal (and in some ways superior:tongue_smilie:) to any man, but I'm not a man. I'm different. I can call myself one all day long, but that doesn't make it so.

 

:iagree: Same sex couples are different from hetero couples. What is the big deal with calling it something instead of marriage? You can't make an apple an orange, no matter how hard you try (or complain about it).

[Mrs Mungo]

Here's the thing: what if I want to enter into marriage as a union ordained by God. (and to my understanding that is a man and a woman)

 

For me, marriage is a covenant. That makes it extremely important to have with the man I've spent 27 years with. As a person that believes the Bible is the infallible, literal Word of God, I believe that covenant is to be between one man and one woman.

 

(Not reading the 20+ pages, sorry.)

 

If "marriage" is a union/covenant ordained by God, then why is our government in the marriage business, AT ALL? THAT is the problem with this argument. I am a Christian, was married by my Assembly of God preacher uncle, and I still think there is a problem with that argument.

 

I think we should do away with marriage as a government institution and replace it with various civil contracts people can choose from.

 

Then the "definition of marriage" can evolve socially not legally.

 

For example, my husband and I would have chosen a more ironclad contract than current legal marriage, which allows for no-fault divorce.

 

I think it is a great idea to come up with various civil contracts for people to choose from. People could have "civil unions" that are legal agreements that meet with the current standards of a marriage.

 

There could also be a "partnership agreement" maybe, for people like my bachelor uncles. That way, they could agree to legally care for one another and get some benefits from that even though they are related and neither one has ever gotten anywhere close to getting married.

 

If the argument is: you cannot have a legal marriage because my religion says so, then we are on the wrong track.

 

This I would be fine with. If you don't want government defining marriage, then do away with marriage benefits - for everyone. Marriage, including heterosexual marriage, would become a religious thing only, with no civil implications. Other contracts and documents would be put in place to handle certain practical matters.

 

It would complicate taxes for families with two adults and one income-earner, but that could probably be managed.

 

FWIW, though, that does mean ANYONE can declare themselves married, and also ANYONE can declare themselves unmarried, with no legal repercussions at all.

 

I don't think it has to be an either/or situation. I think civil unions could replace "marriage" for everybody. People who want a church wedding after the fact could still do that. That's what happens in Europe already. You do your thing at the courthouse and *then* you go to the church to get married, if you want.

 

No, this post is arguing in ridiculous circles.

 

No one has "proven" that marriage extended to other sorts of familial/non-familial arrangements in normative cultures.

 

Marriage IS a legal construct in this culture, which some elements are attempting to redefine with some success so far. 6 states, I think. And a few other countries as well.

 

This redefinition has occurred in the last few years only.

 

Marriage is what it is. Attempting to redefine it doesn't change what it is.

 

I'd like to redefine a lot of constructs to be more favorable to my position, but I don't have a huge, well-funded liberal lobby behind me, so I guess I'm stuck.

 

For example, I'm sure some factions would think it could be really cool if we redefine "death" as in "Til death do you part" to mean something else. Then, when our spouse annoys us, we can just declare him/her "dead" and be free to marry someone else.

 

I'm sure I have to wait a few years on that one.

 

It's just not true that the legalities that existed before gay marriages were approved everywhere have *always* existed in every culture known to man. That is a silly argument. I cannot even count the ways in which marriage was (and, in fact, is still) different in lots of different cultures.

 

Polygamy, sure.

 

No culture has normalized same sex marriage ever until the last few years.

 

Not true. You just don't know your history. Same sex unions existed in ancient Rome until it was made illegal in 342 BC by a *Christian* emperor who declared anyone at that point who was in a same-sex union should be executed.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[cdrumm4448]

Last time I looked, it wasn't the conservative Christians creating the culture, or writing the laws or the definitions in the dictionaries. They are more a fringe element, if you haven't noticed. This has always been true, though there once was a larger middle section who at least gave lip service to traditional values.

 

Utterly disagree.