Taking Another Look At Marraige *NSFW page 2*
A Little More Ambitious This Way
NEW YORK - "Protection of marriage" is now the watchword for many activists fighting to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying. Some conservatives, however, say marriage in America began unraveling long before the latest gay-rights push and are pleading for a fresh, soul-searching look at the institution."When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor who writes frequently about family issues.
While Christensen doesn't oppose the campaign to enact state and federal bans on gay marriage, he worries it's distracting from immediate threats to marriage's place in society.
"If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated "” if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness "” then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."
Gay-rights supporters, during their recent losing battles against gay-marriage bans in 11 states, often argued that if marriage in America was in fact troubled, it was heterosexuals "” not gays "” who bore the blame.
"That was the best argument same-sex marriage advocates had: 'Where were you when no-fault divorce went through?'" said Allan Carlson, a conservative scholar who runs a family-studies center in Rockford, Ill. "Any thoughtful defender of marriage has to say, 'You're right. We were asleep at the switch in the '60s and '70s.'"
Carlson hopes the same-sex marriage debate will encourage a broader national conversation.
"For the first time in about 50 years we are honestly looking at the state of marriage in America, and what we have allowed to happen to it," he said. "I hope the conservative side will do a little soul-searching and look for ways to rebuild traditional marriage into something stronger."
Carlson decries no-fault divorce, where neither spouse is held responsible for the breakup, but acknowledges that its demise is not imminent. He proposes more modest steps: tax revisions benefiting married couples, a more positive portrayal of marriage in textbooks, policies aiding young college graduates so they could afford to marry sooner.
In several of the states that approved gay-marriage bans on Nov. 2, initiatives are underway to bolster heterosexual marriage. A bill pending in Michigan's legislature would encourage premarital education; Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and his wife have invited 1,000 couples to join them in a Valentine's Day (news - web sites) covenant marriage ceremony in which they would voluntarily reduce their options for a quick divorce.
However, gay-rights supporters say slogans like "protection of marriage" are mostly used as code for anti-gay sentiment to further partisan aims.
"There's clearly a divide about what constitutes a healthy marriage," said Corri Planck of the Family Pride Coalition, which represents gay and lesbian families. "But there are countless gay and lesbian couples who, if they had legal recognition, would hold up their relations as models of good marriage."
Jordan Lorence, a Phoenix-based lawyer with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, has been active fighting same-sex marriage, but he agrees with those who see marriage facing broader challenges.
"For decades, Christians have been guilty for having a weak defense of marriage," he told the Christian Post earlier this year. "Marriage has become a junior high school dating scene where if I am unhappy I could divorce my husband or wife and move on to someone else."
In a telephone interview, Lorence said Americans face a choice of whether to view marriage as primarily an act of individual satisfaction or as an institution serving the communal good.
"That's the big battle line," he said. "I think people's attitudes are shifting, and they're saying the traditional way makes a lot of sense "” that you can't just get divorced at the drop of a hat."
Many of the groups campaigning against same-sex marriage evoke "the sanctity of marriage" yet make little or no mention of the problem of divorce.
One group, the Alliance for Marriage, has focused almost entirely in the past two years on advocating a federal amendment that would ban gay marriage. The alliance's president, Matt Daniels, said the proposed ban is an essential starting point for other initiatives to strengthen heterosexual marriage "” such as promoting family-friendly workplace policies.
"No one in the alliance believes saving the legal status of marriage as between man and woman will alone be sufficient to stem the tide of family disintegration," Daniels said. "But if we lose that legal status, we lose the policy tool we need to pursue our broader agenda."
Stephanie Coontz, a professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and author of a new history of marriage, said passing anti-gay amendments in hopes of returning marriage to some bygone traditional status is futile.
"Heterosexuals changed marriage, not gays and lesbians," she said. "None of these measures is going to change the fact that marriage no longer plays the same central economic and political role that it used to. ... People see it as more optional."
Quote:
Some might choose to pray, some might choose to snooze
But the style that I use is the style that's mine
XBL Tag: Prederick




I don''t disagree with what the article''s saying about the sanctity of marriage, but are they looking at passing laws to make it tougher to get a divorce? I don''t know if I like that. Not that I have any intention of ever getting divorced, but the idea just doesn''t sit right with me. And I still don''t understand what''s wrong with letting gay folks get married. They''re not hurting anybody.
Psychotic Foreign Teenage Chicks are so hot. - Legion
I find it ironic anytime a healthy vaccinated person bitches about science...on the internet. - MaverickDago
Things like that make me VERY angry. Casual divorce is not much of a concern of mine as I have no intention of ever getting married, though I do thing divorce should be an option. But cohabitation? deliberate childlessness?
They had better not even THINK about trying to legislate that. I realize this might just be one whacko in the article, but there ARE those Christian''s out there who do follow this line of thought. Hell, my parents do.
Unfortunately, if I slash my wrist with my lightsaber it cauterizes instantly. - PurEvil on emo Star Wars plots.
Libertarianism would be a lot more palatable if Ayn Rand hadn't decided she was the world's greatest living philosopher - Robear
Damn, I missed that part. Agreed 100%. Actions like that I think would definitely turn the majority away from the Republican party.
Psychotic Foreign Teenage Chicks are so hot. - Legion
I find it ironic anytime a healthy vaccinated person bitches about science...on the internet. - MaverickDago
did this whacko really just say ""deliberate childlessness""... to think people listen to this drivel
I believe you''ve just underlined the problem people have with the Evangelical surge in the nation today. Federally Legislating marraige, as suggested in the article, would be putting a band-aid on a bleeding artery. Marraige isn''t the same as it was in 1950, for better and for worse.
Quote:
XBL Tag: Prederick
And therin lies the problem. As a catholic, we sure can''t point fingers on morality, but we could all use a little acts, not not just mouthing the Apostolic creed and professing faith.
Blog: GameFinance
Twitter: justinmwhitaker
This is why, in my opinion, Marriage should be an institution supported and recognized by your church or other religious organization (or lack)... simply a spritual and emotional term.
Here''s how my ideal system would work. Me and my girlfriend (or boyfriend; it would be the same set of rules) are engaged and want to get married. We go to our church and consult our minister (whether it be a church I frequent, or simply a minister there to affirm marriages doesn''t really matter) and, through whatever ceremony that church uses, get Married. We are always Married, regardless of whether or not our specific state or country recognizes us in a legal matter. So, we get the priest to sign a form, and we take it to our Secretary of State, and apply to be recognized as a Civil Union (use your own term there, if you want) by the state and country. By doing so, we can visit each other in the hospital, and claim each other on our taxes, and all the other benefits of all the other people with civil unions. All we have to show is that SOME spiritual guide (rabbi, priest, unitarian minister, non-denominational ""holy-person"") supports our Marriage, and OKs our Civil Union.
I think our problem is that Marriage is both a legal and a spiritual term. And I agree, it IS a big deal, and we should preserve its sanctity, within our own spirital circle. If I choose to go to a church that does not recognize Gay Marriage, then I can be sure that I will never have to, in a religious context, recognize two men as ""Married."" But I can respect that they love each other, and the state agrees that legally they can have a Civil Union. ""Oh, well, they might be able to claim each other on taxes, but they''re not Married... at least in MY denomination, they''re not.""
Now I realize this will NEVER happen, but it''s the way I envision things.
XBox Live Gamertag: Warlockbert
Divorce is also a spiritual term. In New Testaments, if I remember, divorces are recognized as uncool but acceptable.
XBox Live | Twitter | Flickr
The article alludes briefly to 11 state referendums as ""gay-marriage bans"". The reality is much worse. In many of the cases, the referendum also bans granting gay couples legal incidents of marriage, even under the label of civil unions. You know, benefits such as the right to visit each other in the hospital, joint immigration status, mutual protection under personal injury and workers comp laws, joint care of children, etc.
This is not defense of marriage; it''s stripping people of dignity along with legal protection.
I think in general our society is hopelessly devoted to a lack of commitment, which is the fundamental principle that binds marriage together. Marriage has become a joke, a whim, and a temporary arrangement.
I was married, had a child, and divorced by my 24th birthday, and I can honestly say that having a title attached hardly means anything in our society.
Commitment isn''t a piece of paper, it''s a willingness to stick with someone you love through all of life''s ups and downs, without leaving a trail of hurt and broken homes.
XBL/PSN/STEAM
Not really for legislating marriage/divorce, etc.
Not for gay marriage at all - I do NOT think gay marriage would damage the institution of marriage...we''ve f***ed that up quite well as heterosexuals...I''m just not for saying gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage...I''m not for making that distinction and telling my kids that gay relationships and marriage are ok (as Christians...I preach hate the sin/not the sinner, but homosexuality is wrong from a biblical and moral sense in my opinion, and that is my belief and I intent to impart that to my kids --- again...I don''t emphasize hate or war against them...just that their actions from a moral/biblical sense are wrong, and that homosexuality (in my humble opinion) is wrong and unnatural) So that is where my opposition comes from to the concept...keeping the original intent of marriage intact.
I''m for gay civil unions with full rights accorded (again, not a fan...but a realist. No, I don''t support gay couples adopting kids, but I recognize it as a reality, so I shut up and color my coloring book...)
Depressed by the lack of commitment in society today, especially wrt marriage...and yeah, I''m divorced as decided by my ex.
Gorilla, you are correct on New Testament interpretation
Unless you're running out of mana overhealing is the most worthless stat in the game. Underhealing is effectively known as "wiping".
so sayeth the Bear...
Please don''t. Not with the unnatural. It''s a silly, silly argument. The religious reasons, fine, whatever, but ""it''s unnatural"" is such an utterly nonsensical argument in the face of manned space flight, gay lions, bonobos and the bloody keyboards we''re typing on it makes me cry.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
I won''t go further Alien...i respect your opinion. My ''unnatural'' is not something thats defensable from a logical/debate standpoint...just a belief on my part...so you won''t see me preaching about that issue here on the forums... I hope
And you are probably more right than me on the issue...
Although I would put those lions to sleep if it was me...
Unless you're running out of mana overhealing is the most worthless stat in the game. Underhealing is effectively known as "wiping".
so sayeth the Bear...
If we were having this discusson back in the 40''s, the homosexual argument would be completely turned around.
It''s easy to jump on the bandwagon and support same-sex marriages, because it''s taboo to mention anything other than support for it.
Pigpen, I applaud you for taking the road less travelled and not supporting it, as that is your belief. It is not racist, it is not filled with hate, it is simply your opinion. And it takes guts to not follow along with the tide like the rest of the media brainwashed folks.
Supporting gay-rights is not a sign of super-intelligence or liberal enlightenment. It does not all of a sudden make every person who disagrees with you a backwater yokel. It is simply the easiest stance you can take, and is hardly something to be proud of.
As for my stance, hey - there''s no harm done if two people want to live together. Consentual adults can do whatever they want as long as they don''t hurt people. I live just off of the most notoriously gay street in my province, so seeing same-sex couples being affectionate to one another doesn''t bother me one bit.
I think the problem that most people have with same-sex couples, is that they are perceived as being much less commited, and frequenly engaging in many sexual acts with many partners. And yes, HIV is an epidemic, and obviously this isn''t the case for many gay couples. However, I have met more homosexuals who are HIV positive than heterosexuals in my area. (My girlfriend is hair stylus, and yes there are a lot of gay hairdressers - it''s not a stereotype) This is not a blanket statement, this is just my unbiased observation.
But for every promiscuous homosexual, there is an equally promiscious heterosexual.
The problem I have is not with same-sex couples, it''s with the militant group that some are associated with. The gay rights movement has hidden agendas that go beyond simply allowing same-sex marriages, they want to influence much more of society. If my son decides to become a homosexual, I want him to figure that out on his own, not be taught this in school at an early age. Keep this political agenda out of our schools, and away from the fragile minds of our young ones. the great thing about the gay rights movement however, is that they can call it a hate crime the second anyone opposes them. To me that goes against the very freedom of speech they are hiding behind.
So there we have it. Do whatever you want in your own home, because obviously it makes you happy, and life is the pursuit of happiness. Don''t shove your political agenda down my throat like a door to door Jehova''s witness, and call hate crime when I disagree with your opinion.
(Also, I''m sure this thread will become very heated, but I know that everyone who reads GWJ is awesome - don''t let this get you angry towards any particular person - this is a good debate and discussion, don''t take it personally)
XBL/PSN/STEAM
I don''t think that being ""for"" gay marriage is the ""easy way out"". Look at how much opposition there is to it. Standing up for what you believe is someone''s right should''nt be called a cop out...it takes guts and is NOT always an easy stance to take, especially when the MAJORITY of America is against it.
Thing is, I''d still be up in arms about it even if there were no gay lions, because...well, look around you. How much of what you see is ''natural''? Dying disgusting deaths from various diseases is natural. Treating them with penicillin and antibiotics isn''t. Computers are about as unnatural as you get, and I don''t think anyone here''s going to start speaking out against them because of that. The nuclear family is an unnatural construct. It''d be an impossible to maintain were we still ''natural'' hunter-gatherers. There''s nothing wrong with being unnatural. And where the hell do you draw the line between the two states anyway? Tools? Fire? Man-made materials? Or just anything new or different that makes people uncomfortable? Bah. If ''unnatural'' is the only argument you have against something, you have nothing.
(I know you''ve other objections, Pigpen. I''m afraid this moved into the territory of general rants long ago.)
Edited for much quotage.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
You have a point, here on the West Coast, if you''re not an extreme Liberal thinker you''re horribly old fashioned - I can assume it''s much different here than southern US.
If you even mention that you don''t agree with gay marriages you will be laughed at, shunned, called a hater, and much worse names. And if you even mention the war in Iraq or Bush you will be torn a new asshole.
And there''s no denying that the media has a tremendous influence on the way the mass population thinks, and that most people refuse to think on their own and would rather sail along with popular opinion - and that goes both ways.
XBL/PSN/STEAM
hahaha...Alien...got a good laugh out of me with the ''general rants'' comment. Brought a tear to my eye...
That said, I love debate and the open society. I think society is strengthened by opposing viewpoints...but weakened what i often see happening happens...which is as Swat says, i.e, that its fine for the gay rights movement to shove tolerance and acceptance of their lifestyle down our throats, but to disagree with them for ''any'' reason is bigotry and should be put down.
I won''t go to the ''unnatural'' state of things...I can just go that from my religious viewpoint, and trust me, I''m no right wing religious nut (I often condemn them as much as i do the left...because Christianity is tolerance, and acceptance, and trying to show the world to do as I do...not just as I or the Bible says) - but...I find the gay movement offensive at how they want to enforce my acceptance of their lifestyle...which I will not do. Its not bigotry...its just my opinion. Bigotry would be racially motivated, while in my opinion (and I know their are hundreds of studies to the contrary, so no need to dig them up...haha) that being gay is not the same as being born of a certain race. To me (in my opinion) it is a choice (obviously heavily influenced by genes...)
I''m willing to turn the other cheek to what I find their offensive lifestyle, and give the live and let live mantra a chance, if the ''movement'' would stop shoving gay lifestyles as an acceptable and perfectly ''normal'' lifestyle choice. The majority of America feels the same way...let them live their life as they choose in private...but cross that line and try to march down my street in a parade proclaiming how great the lifestyle is, and how they should be able to be married as they choose, and you cross the line to what I want to teach my kids about morals, and virtue and the such.
And yes, I think the gay lifestyle by its ''underground'' image has led to see it as a promiscuous lifestyle...but in reality, its probably not more than the heterosexual lifestyle of many (I was a slut for many years myself...)...I think its just the image many of us grew up to believe and have seen through our ''colored spectacles''.
Unless you're running out of mana overhealing is the most worthless stat in the game. Underhealing is effectively known as "wiping".
so sayeth the Bear...
Arghhhhhhh - from gay marriage to lifestyles...and now you enter into a bisexual debate...
Will the madness never end!!!
Unless you're running out of mana overhealing is the most worthless stat in the game. Underhealing is effectively known as "wiping".
so sayeth the Bear...
I can easily see homosexuals as being more promiscious, think about it. It''s a well known fact that males have a much higher sexual, physical drive than a female. Combine that with a gay coupling, and that''s double the fsking at any one time. So I think there is something to be said about gay males and a heightened promiscuity. And yes, before I hear the counter-point to my comments, there are exceptions to the rule, as there are horny females out there as well. But there''s no denying the incredible male sexual drive.
I always wondered why gay males are always glowing with a massive smile. If I was getting that kind of action everyday with my girlfriend, you''d need sunglasses to look at me.
And yes I''m saying this all with my tongue planted in cheek. Damn, scratch that comment..
XBL/PSN/STEAM
Here is why I''m for gay marraige and not ""civil unions"". If you believe, like I do, that people are born gay and it is not a choice, then they gain protection as citizens of the United States. I also think gay people should be able to serve openly in the military and adopt kids.
Steam: Ulairi
That''s the funny thing about being born gay. There''s no way to prove that, yet it''s the most commonly used argument (Yet I''m sure you can dig up some statistic or junk science to prove differently). And that doesn''t explain how people can ""switch"" sides throughout their life.
Of course, everyone''s been told this by the media millions of times, so of course you will believe this as the truth.
XBL/PSN/STEAM
Can you prove you were born heterosexual?
Unfortunately, if I slash my wrist with my lightsaber it cauterizes instantly. - PurEvil on emo Star Wars plots.
Libertarianism would be a lot more palatable if Ayn Rand hadn't decided she was the world's greatest living philosopher - Robear
I don''t understand why anyone would choose to be gay. It isn''t like being gay gets you an easy route through life.
Steam: Ulairi
Absolutely not, but I''m not going to argue that nature has given me genitals that are perfectly paired with an opposite set of genitals.
If I choose to become gay tomorrow, it is my choice, I am hardly a victim to some cosmic inbalance.
Not to lump the two together as it''s not fair, but if I have a penchant for sex with willing animals, can I also argue that I am born that way? (again, not a direct analogy so don''t take it that way).
XBL/PSN/STEAM
Take a trip to Vancouver or San Fransisco some time..
XBL/PSN/STEAM
I grew up in Northern California and have been to San Fran more times than I can count. It isn''t vouge in San Fran.
Steam: Ulairi
Now, that''s what I like to see! Concrete arguments instead knee-jerk cries on unnaturalness!
To which I could now respond with either sympathy, because I''m not overly fond of people rubbing their sexuality in my face, be they alpha-male or über-fairy, or by calling you an oversensitive ninny if the obnoxiousness is slight. If I lived were you live that is. I don''t, so it''s rather difficult to argue either way.
On the other two points: I really don''t think a bunch of parading strangers are going to be much of an influence compared to a child''s parents. As for marriage, that ought to be up to the individual churches, right? As long as the various legal rights are in place, I''ll happily leave the spiritual bit to the private institutions that worry about it.
So, there are only male homosexuals then? You *are* aware that there is such a thing as lesbians right?
It''s a funny thing how the fuss about homosexuals tends focus on the men.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
Really? Up here homosexuality is all the rage, and for once I''m the minority in my neighborhood. Plus, if you are a homosexual up here it''s considered uber-cool, and you get into clubs a lot quicker, plus - ironically enough, girls absolutely adore you.
I know many people who go to clubs and pretend they are gay to pick up chicks - yes that''s messed up, but it works quite well for them. Women love gay males.
The annual ""Pride-Day"" parade is one of the cities biggest events, and yes I attended with my girlfriend and friends last year. I will post pictures later, it was actually quite a colorful event.
I don''t mind the festivities, and the celibrations and what not, but when it''s taken over the edge with a passion that''s usually reserved for religious zealots, then I have a big fscking problem.
Anyway, even though I may sound adamant about this subject I''m really not, I''m just in a debateful mood and I like doing the point/counter-point thing. There''s some great responses, that''s what I like about GWJ, there''s a lot of respectful and smart people on this board.
XBL/PSN/STEAM
To chime in briefly, my ultimate motivation is happiness. I am happily married with a young daughter, and the product of 15 years of private, Catholic education. And I personally am all-for gay marriage...who cares who is involved as long as you are happy? If it has no impact on me, and you cause no troubles for me and mine, knock yourselves out...
"When will then be now?"
GWJ FF 2004 CHAMPION!