posted
Apparently, the issue of the sanctity of marriage has become a serious topic for the United States. The problem I have with this sudden increase in "awareness" of the "integrity" of the institution is that it totally ignores the last few decades: divorce (pdf file).
Apparently, breaking up isn't as hard to do as it used to be. Additionally, it's getting easier:
quote:This is the Census Bureau's often-cited "50%" rate, the proportion of marriages taking place right now that will eventually divorce, which has since been revised downward to roughly 43% by the National Center for Health Statistics but was moved back up to around 50% by the Census Bureau in 2002, with even more ifs ands and buts than usual.
It seems the more and more casual approach toward divorce over the years has cause a great deal of damage to the idea of marriage. And it's not just in the US, either.
I mean, consider the implications this increase has had on children of such marriages. Think of the implications the lowered marriage rate as a result of this increase has had on the weakening of the institution of marriage, of single parenthood—I think we can all agree that two parents make for a better childhood. What about the pop-culture idea of the casual approach about fathering or mothering a child? Lines like "she should be having my baby," along with titles like "my baby daddy" and "my baby momma," all with the express purpose of devaluing the institution.
Religious institutions have begun to seriously approach this problem, and for very good reasons:
quote:Among "born-again" Christians, 27 percent currently are divorced or previously have been divorced, compared with 24 percent among adults who are not "born again." ___Surprisingly, the Barna report said, the Christian group whose adherents have the highest likelihood of getting divorced are Baptists. The only group to surpass Baptists were Christians associated with non-denominational Protestant churches.
Another breakdown of the same stats. So, no wonder the more fundementalist of the Protestant Christian groups are so worried about the destruction of the institute of marriage—they're the biggest contributors to the problem! In fact, the "Bible Belt" of the US has a higher rate than the rest of the country (linky):
quote:Aside from the quickie-divorce Mecca of Nevada, no region of the United States has a higher divorce rate than the Bible Belt. Nearly half of all marriages break up, but the divorce rates in these southern states are roughly 50 percent above the national average.
Amazing.
Now, if you haven't figured out where I'm taking this, you're being intentionally obtuse. All this ridiculous talk of homosexual marriage as being damaging to the institution of marriage is a total straw man of the real contributors to the decline of the value of marriage. People are attacking homosexuality as being a danger to marriage, when in reality, it's things like divorce and the constant devaluation of marriage by heterosexuals in pop culture. The way I see it, when looking at the facts of what's really going on in the world, it looks like homosexuality has done nothing to marriage, while these other travesties have done much. The other thing I see is that those who are opposing homosexuality because of religious morality are ignoring the growth of divorce and the devaluing of marriage from people within their own institutions.
It brings to mind that whole "mote" and "plank" statement Jesus himself used. So, why is letting homosexuals such a newsworthy and Constitutional-Amendment-worthy issue, while divorce is not? Since divorce is causing noticable and clear problems, why is Bush not making this a national issue? Why are the groups denouncing homosexual marriage more prominent and vocal than those who are against the growth in divorce rate?
Or are we picking and choosing who we allow to damage the institute of marriage?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't you show me the posts you're talking about instead of trying to start a flame war? Because if you continue to behave indignantly whiney like this, I can assure you that you'll get zero respect from me.
Now, why don't you address the questions in the first post?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Dagonee: Wow, you really are dedicated to seeing the other side, aren't you John?
John L: And gee, you don't think that applies to you, or any of the other bigots?
Dagonee:
quote: Why exactly am I a bigot? Did you take the time to find out my position on this matter, which is available on many threads on this forum?
No. You applied the label "bigot" to someone who probably agrees with you on the merits of the issue but has taken great pains to understand both sides.
You are the one stifling rational discussion on this matter. Not me.
Dagonee
Edit: I think it would be fair to say, and I think most people who have participated in these discussions over the last few months would agree, that I have a more balanced understanding of the arguments on both sides of this issue than most people on the forum.
John L: No response so far.
quote:John L said: Now, why don't you address the questions in the first post?
Because the divorce rate in this country is one of the reasons I don’t think the legal system has anything more to do with maintaining the sanctity of marriage. It’s one of the reasons I support equal civil “marriage” rights for heterosexuals and homosexuals.
But you didn’t bother to find that out before calling me a bigot, did you?
posted
Do you think the major religions aren't aleady AWARE of the growing problem of divorce, and aren't addressing it?
My church and those I am acquainted with are fighting against divorce as much as they can -- offering counseling, etc. Doing whatever they can to keep a couple together and following Christ. Of course, there are circumstances in some cases where the safety of one partner might make it so divorce seems as an only option; but that isn't the point here. You seem to be saying Christians are hollering about homosexuality without doing anything about divorce. In my arena, I see that they are trying to do whatever they can to help keep couples from divorcing, as well -- that just doesn't get national publicity.
Does YOUR church not help couples having difficulties? Or are you making this blanket statement without any personal church experience?
posted
If you don't think homosexuals deserve equal right to marry, then you are a bigot. If you think they should have a "civil union" that is separate from marriage, you support segregation, and are a bigot.
If you do not believe those things, then you are not a bigot.
If you try to make excuses for refusing homosexuals the right to marry equally, you are a bigot.
And I tell you what: when Geoff apologizes for accusing me of hating religion, I'll apologize to you for calling you a bigot. However, if you fall under one of the qualifiers listed above, then I will continue to call you a bigot.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You didn't bother to find out where I fell when you called me a bigot. It happens that I don't fall into any of them.
You called me a bigot for questioning your desire to have meaningful debate with the other side on this issue. That says a lot more about you than OSC Fan's immature remarks said about her.
quote:Do you think the major religions aren't aleady AWARE of the growing problem of divorce, and aren't addressing it?
Yes, I think that. I think that they are attempting not to stop divorce from happening, but in finding ways to allow it to happen without losing members to "the world."
quote:Does YOUR church not help couples having difficulties? Or are you making this blanket statement without any personal church experience?
I no longer attend a church, as I'm nor agnostic. However, if you wish to assume I have no experience with a church, you're seriously mistaken. In fact, if you wish to assume I have no experience with how a church deals with couples who divorce, you're also mistaken.
My question is: why is there no Constitutional Amendment proposal for something that is really affecting marriage, yet there is one for something that in no way affects marriage in a definable way?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then Dag, if you do not wish to discuss with me, piss off. You're the one who started throwing stones, and you get all insulted when I toss back. Too bad. Prove you are otherwise, and I'll retract. Do you or do you not reject the idea of homosexual marriage?Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: In fact, if you wish to assume I have no experience with how a church deals with couples who divorce, you're also mistaken.
I only said what I said, John L., because I know absolutely nothing about you. I have to see how your viewpoints are shaped by your own life experiences to fully hear what you are trying to say -- in other words -- by what authority you feel you have to make blanket statements -- whether by experience or heresay.
posted
John, can you not see why people are a wee bit upset? You persist in calling bigots people who have expressed heartfelt reasons why they oppose homosexual marriages but do not hate or even dislike homosexuals.
As for the divorce rate, how can you say it doesn't get national attention? Is there anyone here who doesn't know how bad the divorce rate is?
We've had threads before on the sad fact that churchgoers are more likely to divorce than non churchgoers, and I have theories on that I'll offer if anyone wants to seriously discuss this.
Point is, yes, the church is aware of it. Several of the large churches in this area (and I'm in the heart of the bible belt) have ministries set up to support those who've been divorced. Our church sponsors marriage seminars, where the entire focus is on keeping our marriages healthy so they don't end in divorce. The church is well aware of the divorce rate.
As for "the sanctity of marriage" I haven't used that phrase in my arguments even once. Regardless, just because a lot of people aren't upholding the ideal of something is no reason to tell people they shouldn't want to strive for that ideal.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh heh. Glad to know there's something a person can say to John that actually affects him. I thought he could dismiss anything just by calling his opponents names
My religion is very strongly opposed to easy divorce. While it may be very easy to get a civil divorce, getting your temple marriage cancelled is far more difficult. And I definitely consider divorce to be a much more damaging problem to marriage and to the rising generation of youth than homosexual marriage ever could be.
Still doesn't change the fact, however, that in John L's little world, he never has to apologize for making childish, hurtful insults, but he and those he defends are the eternal victims of profound hurtfulness that no amount of apology, tolerance, or concession will ever assuage. What a horrible place No wonder he's so pissed off all the time ...
[ February 26, 2004, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, you know what? I am getting a little gleefully snarky about John ... moreso than I usually let myself get. I'm just so baffled by his refusal to take the slightest step back on what seems to me to be such a clear issue of tolerance, open-mindedness, and freaking listening to what other people actually say. This doesn't seem characteristic of him, and so I'm reacting strongly, and I'm sorry. I've always liked John, and don't want this issue to drive in a permanent wedge.
But I'm asking you, please, John. Listen to me. I don't think this is a clear-cut issue where the Bigots are on one side and the Nice People are on the other. My own people bit the bullet and abandoned a treasured marriage practice over a hundred years ago in order to become a part of a larger society that considered our customs strange and harmful. I don't think that my religious beliefs, my concern about changes in our marriage practices, or my desire for an open discussion and study of homosexuality, free of name-calling and kneejerk offense, make me a bigot. And I still hold out hope that you can open your mind at least enough to see that not all people you disagree with you on this subject deserve to be called a nasty word.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Piss off? Not a chance, buddy boy. You're the one who started throwing stones with your tasteless "darkie remark." What more do I need to say than I support equal civil “marriage” rights for heterosexuals and homosexuals?
You've basically admitted you didn't know my position when you called ME (not some generic set of people) a bigot. You've made no effort to seek the information that's easily available on the matter. And you've acted like the wounded party despite the fact that up until right now, I haven't called you a name: You're an irrational jerk who takes no time to find out the facts of the situation before throwing out epithets.
I do reject the idea of homosexual marriage as I consider marriage - the idea is an impossibility to me. But I do support the right of any consenting, adult couple, male/female, male/male, or female/female, to establish the same exact legal relationship, with the exact same name, that provides all the civil benefits and responsibilities of what we now call marriage.
I'd prefer it if it weren't called marriage, but rather civil union, for everybody, homosexual or heterosexual. That’s equal, not separate. Whether people want to admit it or not, this is a change to most people’s fundamental understanding of marriage; I think applying a new name to it seems appropriate. This new name would represent the legal entity that comes into being when the law recognizes creation of a relationship between two people. This would have all the legal and civil privileges (and responsibilities) currently associated with what we now call “marriage.”
Some people think that there also exists an individual, spiritual, sanctified entity that often coexists with civil marriage. Catholics call it a sacrament, other Christians call it something else, other religions something else again. Some people believe there is a sanctified marriage that is truly individual and with a meaning unique to each couple. All I want is for the government to be 100% out of this side of the mingled entity currently called “marriage.”
As I’ve said in another thread, by this definition we don’t have homosexual civil unions except in a few places, but we have lots of homosexual marriages already. I just want these marriages to have the same civil rights as heterosexual marriages do.
Someone had the idea of reserving "Holy Matrimony" for the “sanctified” marriage, and I’m thinking that’s a fine compromise for the name. Then we can just call the other “civil marriage” and be done with it.
None of this, of course, is new or relevant to your behavior at all. You called me a bigot. Not only did you not bother to seek information to justify this (there was none in that thread that would), you were actually wrong even based on your own definition. That’s very offensive behavior.
posted
Belle, there is a Constitutional Amendment being proposed on the grounds of sanctity of marriage. Are you seriously saying that you don't think this isn't a majority opinion?
Belle, that there is no proposal to amend the Constitution to help "solve" the problem of the devaluing of marriage.
Now, considering the attention and exposure that something that has not been shown to directly affect marriage as things currently stand is getting, why is not something that is seriously and directly getting national attention and a measure of cross-denominational solidarity like the homosexual marriage issue? Why isn't the president making press conferences regarding measures to be taken on a federal level to lower the instances of divorce?
Or does divorce not threaten marriage more than homosexuals marrying? Why or why not?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually USA Today did a front page article today on the major factors contributing to the weakening of marriage: The State of Our Union.
I'm for gay marriage. However, I also realize that forcing the issue and accepting nothing less creates massive backlash, more opposition, and more divisiveness. After lots (lots) of long discussions here and elsewhere I've moved back to the civil union area.
Am I a bigot? By your definition, yes. By consider this: in the midst of this brouhaha people who feel threatened by gay marriage are now open to civil unions in a way they never were before. Now would be an excellent time to push for civil unions, state by state, and demand that if a marriage amendment goes through that it include provisions for civil unions for states that want them.
Not the same as marriage? True. But asking for all of it at once is likely to get you none of it, and potential rollbacks of the advances already made. But if civil unions become commonplace, accepted, marriages in everything but name, what do you think will happen in a few generations?
Civil union will become marriage. Eventually the name will stretch to cover it after more people realize that gay bonding won't cause earthquakes. And it'll happen slowly enough, society will be able to adapt to it without as much rancor or rage.
[ February 26, 2004, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
John L, do you really think the amendment will pass? Already, just a few days later, politicians are distancing themselves. No one wants to deal with this in an election year because no matter how you vote you'll make enemies.
There may be enough politicians in favor of this to meet the necessary majority, but I seriously doubt enough will publicly vote for it. You'll see it held up, argued over incessantly, delayed in committee, and ultimately dumped after the election.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My own people bit the bullet and abandoned a treasured marriage practice over a hundred years ago in order to become a part of a larger society that considered our customs strange and harmful. I don't think that my religious beliefs, my concern about changes in our marriage practices, or my desire for an open discussion and study of homosexuality, free of name-calling and kneejerk offense, make me a bigot. And I still hold out hope that you can open your mind at least enough to see that not all people you disagree with you on this subject deserve to be called a nasty word.
I completely agree.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoah. John's departure thread vanished. Hopefully, that means he's sticking around. Let me just quickly reiterate what I said in that thread. I don't agree with the tactics John has used in this debate, for reasons already stated. I think he's going out of his way, not to try and understand, but rather to offend and hurt, his opponents in the debate. But as far as I've seen from him since we've both posted here, this isn't characteristic behavior, and I don't want him to leave over it. So I'm staying out of his way. I think if he continues to insult people, his tactics will begin to work against him without any help from me.
And I'm sorry that my posts elsewhere gave you the impression that I thought you were some grand Enemy of Religion, John. I don't. I thought you were being unaccountably rude about mine in a single thread, but it would take much more than that for me to consider you an enemy.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, I would like to say that, as evidenced by TomD's "white flag" thread, many people took OSC's column the same way, in tone and content, as some have taken John's posts.
I still think that his post was misplaced (as I mentioned at the start). Though why can't John be un-PC if OSC-fan (and OSC) be un-PC as well? Simply because he could expect some feelings hurt? Did OSC-fan or OSC not expect some feelings hurt?
posted
Thanks, Bok (now that I know, I almost want to put a silent e at the end of your nickname, so the o doesn't go all soft...which I guess means you have a silent and *invisible* 'e'...cool)
I had absolutely no idea. I thought John L was some oldtimer from before my time who only shows up every once in a while.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, anytime. Oh, and if you want, I've been trying to get people to humorously call me "Bok-Bok", as in the noise a chicken makes I have a nasty self (and otherly) depracating part of myself I like to occassionally indulge in.
I guess I haven't been sufficiently inflammatory...
posted
I don't know why many of you oppose gay marriage, but I suppose it might have something to do with your religious beliefs. It also might be that marriage is a society's most sacred institution (I'm not about to waste time looking up Bush's exact quote) and that when two gay people marry it is no longer so.
However, I think it's rather ironic that marriage is not as important as it used to be, especially to heterosexuals. Single mothers are increasing, as are couples who raise children together without ever going through the ritual of being married in a church or otherwise.
I think they take for granted that anytime that they could get married if they wished to, and they don't realize that homosexuals are denied what they think should be a fundamental right. People get married, they get divorced, they get married, and the cycle continues (just look at Jennifer Lopez). It is almost being treated as a kind of game, where you just bounce around from person to person. However, I know not to judge them for their choices because I know that I wouldn't want anyone to judge the choices that I make.
It's my own opinion, but I think that two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together should have the right to get married because it is a personal choice. It is not up to the rest of society, especially those who are morally offended because of their religion or their personal beliefs about something, and certainly not up to a bunch of people in Washington DC to write a law that says two people of the same gender should not be able to marry.
What has/is occurred/occurring (I'm kind of a grammar freak (I blame my sixth grade English teacher)) in San Francisco, is civil disobedience. While it should be viewed as wrong to break a law, I don't think it should be when it treats people unequally. In the 1960s, it was the law the blacks and whites should be segregated. If Rose Parks had not engaged in an act of civil disobedience, the Civil Rights Movement may not have occurred at all, and blacks and whites still would be segregated. Now, we view that segregation was reprehensible (I think the majority anyway, probably some people still wish it were the case). Sometimes it just takes a little civil disobedience to draw our attention to injustices being put upon members of our society. It seems that we here in America pride our selves on everyone having the equal rights and opportunities (The Taliban repressed women, India has a strict and limiting caste system), but how can we say that we value equality when we don't extend the same rights to everyone?
I'm not suggesting that I know everything, but I think that today's young people have had more chances to know people who are gay, and don't really care about whether or not two gay people get married or not. Change is hard, but I think it is much more difficult for older people whose values have already been determined. Many years from now, gay marriage will probably become the norm (well maybe not the norm but certainly not as big of a deal as it is now).
Sorry, I know this thread is about the divorce rate, but I just chose this particular time to express my views and I decided not to go back and search for a gay marriage thread.
quote:Geoff, I would like to say that, as evidenced by TomD's "white flag" thread, many people took OSC's column the same way, in tone and content, as some have taken John's posts.
Bok, that's a great point. Where Card characterized homosexual unions as fakery with his "dress-up" comment, when fakery is not the intention of homosexuals, John also characterizes the intentions of opponents to gay marriage as bigoted, when in many cases (particularly on Hatrack, a rare repository of rigorous, intelligent, honest people), such a characterization is totally unwarranted.
They're both hurting their own cases and losing a lot of support by using these tactics, as we've seen all over these threads. Personally, I think everyone could be less sensitive and less offensive. I certainly got far more upset about John's "kiss my patootie" comment than I needed to, and I've apologized for that. And I think the passive-aggressive tactics that proponents of gay marriage use to prevent certain possibilities from even being addressed in the public discourse are pretty ridiculous.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A fair point of your own Geoff. I don't think it's quite the case with either John or OSC, but I can't textualize it properly. I'll stew on it some more, and hopefully come up with something.
posted
Since the other thread Thor started was destined to go the way of becoming diluted by the many different directions the argument was headed, which I am guilty of taking part in, I figured bringing this original thread back up may be worthwhile. It raises some interesting questions about the relevance of protecting the sanctity of marriage, as is so often used in the anti-homosexual-marriage side of the argument.
It also brings up a very basic and useful retort that pointing out problems of one aspect does not justify potential problems in another aspect. To counter that, I would submit that while bringing up the very high divorce rate among Americans doesn't necessarily justify gay marriage, it does a good job of pointing out that arguments concerning the protection of marriage are misguided at best, wholly disingenuous at worst.
If one assumes the former, then why has there not been a push for an amendment or some similar legislation on a state level to make divorces illegal or at least more difficult? Obviously there would be the problem of dealing with marriages that include abuse of some sort, as the abused parties would still need some sort of protection from the abuser and be able to lead productive and happy lives. Is this the main thrust behind there not being a larger political push to stop the high number of divorces in America? This is a real and present danger to the durability of the institution of marriage as it stands in a legal and cultural sense, and yet we see little to no political punditry on the matter. If the institution of marriage is to be protected on a legislative level like some groups seem to wish, why is the clear and present danger not being addressed while a vague and theoretical one the main thrust?
If it is the latter, can everyone who has made such an argument simply admit the disingenuity of the assertion on the basis that it is specifically homosexual marriage that is being singled out, not the safety or solidarity of marriage that is being protected? Can it be agreed upon that this is not a defensive measure or stance being taken by those against homosexual marriage, but an aggressive one that is aimed at blocking gay marriage at any cost, including the creation of restrictive legislation? I don't see how accepting the reality of it being an aggressive instead of a defensive stance changes the arguments of those against gay marriage, except that it cannot be rhetorically stated in a matter that would place gay marriage as the "predator" and those against it as the "benevolent hero" in the matter. It would have to stand on its own rhetorical merits instead of invoking an emotional response based on mischaracterization.
These are just two of the flaws I see in the argument to defend the supposed sanctity of marriage, and why when I saw it brought up in the other thread it made me immediately think of other times it was brought up, which caused me to find this example that never panned out. And to avoid any more run-on sentences like the previous, I'll wait before expanding on what I said to give it more thought and see what others might say to the contrary.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
it's important to distinguish between the advocates against gay marriage, the politicians exploiting the issue, and the average person who voted for one of the bans.
In the first category, there is huge anti-divorce push along many of the most prominent. For example, Dobson has always pushed against divorce. See http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20127 for more info - they claim to have 20 marriage and family ministries involved since 1999.
In the second category, restricted divorce would likely be too politically unpopular. The compromise position seems to be the civil institution of covenant marriages with toughter divorce crieteria. 4 states have them, I believe.
In the third category, I'd be surprised if even half the people who voted for the restrictions would support tougher divorce laws. I'd guess most would probably support the option of the covenant marriage.
There's also the sense of urgency with respect to gay marriage. There's a sense that if nothing is done, gay marriage will be "imposed" without the majority agreeing to it. In other words, the gay marriage initiatives are seen as maintaining the status quo and opposing change. This means they don't feel like they are controlling the timing. So in one sense you're right - this is an opposition. But in the eyes of the anti-civil-gay-marriage activists, this was pushed into prominence by the opposition.
posted
Well, that does put it in a more illuminating manner, and highlights a fairly decent example of pushes to address a more prevalent threat to marriage through legislation. What I would wonder, though, is whether it would be constitutional to disallow divorces between couples and on what merits such a legislation could be made. The differences may make it seem to not be related to gay marriage as an institution relating to the legal union, but I think that both the solution and dissolution of a marriage play a huge role in establishing the relevance of the institution to begin with, which leads inexorably to who would and who would not be eligible for both. This is important when deciding whether a certain group should be afforded such rights or denied them, as with the homosexual push of today.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I would wonder, though, is whether it would be constitutional to disallow divorces between couples and on what merits such a legislation could be made.
I don't see a Constitutional issue if it was freely offered to all marrying couples and had to be freely chosen. Any requirement for a religious aspect would be right out. Only offering religous counseling to qualify for the enhanced status would be a potential problem as well.
There are significant divorce waiting periods in many states, so I don't think there's an issue with that aspect of it.
Of course, I think this option should have to be offered to same-sex couples, too.
quote:I don't see a Constitutional issue if it was freely offered to all marrying couples and had to be freely chosen. Any requirement for a religious aspect would be right out. Only offering religous counseling to qualify for the enhanced status would be a potential problem as well.
There are significant divorce waiting periods in many states, so I don't think there's an issue with that aspect of it.
Of course, I think this option should have to be offered to same-sex couples, too.
I can agree with that. Stressing the importance of the civil implications behind the marriage and any future intent to dissolve it would seem like a simple enough matter, and would likely bolster the institution itself regardless of what group was getting legally married.
So in the realm of gay marriage or not, does this mean the whole sanctity issue is not really relevant as a restrictive measure? What I mean is does this give relevance to placing legislative restrictions on the ability to marry under the pretense of 'preventive medicine,' so to speak?
quote:No, I found your response insightful, although I kind of worry about how quickly you wondered if you were the target of that comment.
That's very paranoid of you. McCarthy would be proud.
quote:Original poster is a troll, and you were feeding him.
How was the original a troll? The post made some good points that I agree with, even if the delivery was less than perfect. Are you referring instead to him being banned? Didn't that argument already run in its ridiculous circles? Can you instead address the argument and not the person? That seems to be what killed the thread initially and removed an otherwise good discussion possibility.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, fwiw, while I am not for gay marriage, I'm not for a constitutional amendment either. And I don't think we need tougher divorce laws -- I think we need tougher marriage laws. That you can't get a marriage license without pre-marital counselling. That you must wait a period of time to get married. And you must get at least three friends to agree to keep you accountable for keeping the marriage together. Well, maybe not that last part, though I do think it's a good idea. Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't there some groups who already do the marriage counseling before marriage, jeniwren? They are not related to government, but could you explain why you think it should be required legally to do so?
Additionally, are you against gay marriage because you think it threatens the institution of marriage? If so, why? I don't see how opposing it can be looked at defensively when honestly addressed, which is why I resurrected the topic to begin with. If you have no problem with the stance as an aggressive one, then that makes for a whole different discussion.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, someone complained I wasn't on AIM! Exciting!
Jeniwren, what kind of pre-marital counseling? Are we talking a few sessions of making sure the couple mostly agrees on how to handle money, how many kids they want, etc.? Or something more intensive?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Justa, to get married in a church, it's customary for many churches to require premarital counselling. My current husband and I got lots of it before we got married -- we're both on our second marriage and neither of us want a second divorce, so it seemed like a good idea.
My first marriage, the only requirement was a marriage license. In Alaska, anyone can get a temporary license to perform a marriage ceremony, so we were married by a friend on a ski slope. No church, no premarital counselling requirement.
In premarital counselling, I learned that more than anything, the counselling was to make me sure I'd asked all the right questions to make sure I was making the right decision. I also learned that it is a frequent misunderstanding that premarital counselling is for the person performing the ceremony to decide whehter or not they should let the two people get married. So lots of people don't get it.
As for being against gay marriage, it's less about defending marriage and more about not wanting to conduct social experiments on an unwary public. Truth is, we don't know what effect gay marriage will have on society. Easy divorce has had consequences far more outreaching than was originally conceived, I think, and society is far poorer for it. I'm on the conservative side, and think we should watch and see what happens in other countries first before we jump right in.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
John was definitely not a troll - he has a posting style that rubs many the wrong way. It's exactly the way he talks in person, minus the nonverbal cues - which makes a big difference in this case.
In any way, there is no way we can feed him on this forum, as he was banned from Hatrack. Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shi, I'm a fan of Engaged Encounter, but I don't think that pre-marital counselling needs to be quite that intense. We did it, and I'm glad we did. As I understand it, quite a few of the couples who go through the program break up and never marry. Personally, I think that speaks well of it.
Mostly, I'd like to see that people at least question their compatibility out of bed (I watched at least one couple get married mainly because the sex was so good...it didn't last long)in a structured format that requires them to look at the main aspects of a successful marriage. Kids, money, religion, politics, family of origin, etc.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, to start with, from the part where he started calling Dagonee a bigot within the first 10 posts of a gay marriage thread.
Adam, John and I have pretty much made up since this was posted. I think there's mutual respect and an understanding that our styles can clash at a moment's notice. This thread was a long time ago, and John has since been banned for unrelated behavior, so he can't defend himself here.
I do appreciate the defense, and you didn't know he was banned. In this case things have been overtaken by subsequent events not evinced in the thread.
quote:As for being against gay marriage, it's less about defending marriage and more about not wanting to conduct social experiments on an unwary public. Truth is, we don't know what effect gay marriage will have on society. Easy divorce has had consequences far more outreaching than was originally conceived, I think, and society is far poorer for it. I'm on the conservative side, and think we should watch and see what happens in other countries first before we jump right in.
Well, that's an understandable wait-and-see approach, but how would you address the people who are right now being disallowed because of that, might I ask? Is it more of a "deal with it and hope for the best" kind of way to look at it? Should the government get involved in disallowing it in the meantime?
I am mostly concerned with the government's right to step in and dictate to the citizens what manner they should be allowed to conduct such an institution. I don't personally see divorce being the bad thing it can be argued, with the exception that it has been misused by many people. However, this doesn't make the option to dissolve marriage bad, it makes the attitude toward it and ease of it so.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
That's interesting.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
