Battlecry: Christian kids have lost it

[5stringJeff]

So if we adopt this proposal can we allow gays to marry so long as they accept these conditions?

acludem

No. Marriage is still - and always will be - a covenant between a man and a woman. What my proposition would do is reestablish marriage as more of a legal covenant - something that's harder to get out of just because someone feels like it, which is what no-fault divorce has allowed. IMO, no-fault divorce is currently screwing up marriage more than gay marriage ever could. That doesn't make gay marraige good, it only means no-fault divorce is worse.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No. Marriage is still - and always will be - a covenant between a man and a woman. What my proposition would do is reestablish marriage as more of a legal covenant - something that's harder to get out of just because someone feels like it, which is what no-fault divorce has allowed. IMO, no-fault divorce is currently screwing up marriage more than gay marriage ever could. That doesn't make gay marraige good, it only means no-fault divorce is worse.

Be careful, jeff, you'll confuse him. He only thinks in broad leftist slogans.:teeth:

 

[Nienna]

What kind of steps are you thinking of? You can't make divorce illegal.

I don't advocate making it illegal in all circumstances, but I wouldn't mind seeing no-fault divorce get ditched.

Where does it say that one of the required outcomes of gay marriage is it has to strengthen hetero marriages? What if it has no effect on hetero marriage at all and only serves to strengthen the relationships of half of the gays that enter into it? Why don't you see a benefit to society if a significant percentage of gays leave their life of carousing and enter into a monogamous lifestyle?

I didn't say that gay marriage must strengthen hetero marriage in order to allow it. In fact, that would not be a likely outcome.

Given the examples of other countries, it would have a negative affect on marriage in general, as the overall marriage rate for both heteros and homos fell. Therefore, it does not serve to reduce "carousing" in the general population; "carousing" actually increases. And VERY few homosexuals practice "marriage" as a lifelong commitment.

Is your (or anyone's for that matter) marriage affected by the divorce rate? Would your marriage be better if the divorce rate were lower...worse if it were higher?

People are affected by the examples of others around them. Actually, at one time, I seriously contemplated divorcing my husband. It wasn't because of unfaithfulness or abuse, but simply bc of "unhappiness." I don't think that I would have considered it if divorce wasn't so common.

That being said, legalizing gay marriage is not a personal issue. A law is, by nature, a public thing. So asking what effect it would have on my personal marriage is irrelevant. We must look at its effects on the general culture.

 

[Nienna]

What about people who just hate each other after a while and cause miserable situations for the kids because of it?

They can do that divorced as well as married. The root of that problem is selfishness, and divorce doesn't solve that.

 

[Annie]

...
Is your (or anyone's for that matter) marriage affected by the divorce rate? Would your marriage be better if the divorce rate were lower...worse if it were higher?

Actually I think many marriages would be better if divorce was more rare and not accepted as normal so readily. As others have said, getting rid of 'no fault' would be a good start, I concur.

It seems to me that a lot of people just get married to get married. Perhaps they should have waited longer, but they didn't. Under most circumstances, one can be as happy and content as one chooses to be. Same with families, if you want your spouse and/or children to be happy, be happy too. Make the family a place you want to be. See it as your refuge and strength.

I have friends that have gotten divorced simply because 'they couldn't talk' anymore. is that? Talk, go to marriage counseling, go on a date together, whatever. Others just felt like 'it was time to do what they wanted to do.' How quaint and selfish. I do wonder what it is they want to do that couldn't be done in marriage, other than date?

I have one friend that divorced her husband because he wouldn't quit smoking. Now mind you, he'd been smoking at the time she met him. So did she, but then she quit. She has now been trying to keep the kids away from him, though he doesn't smoke in front of them, in the house or car. For the record, she has no problem being around friends that smoke, none. When we meet in restaurants she'll get a smoking table. So that says a lot. Several of us have warned her that if she keeps up the custody angle, we will testify for her now ex-husband. Still she keeps in contact with us.

Now how do these anecdotal examples impact intact marriages? Well their kids go to school with the kids who haven't suffered all the negative effects of divorce. Many of the children of divorce have been used as pawns to hurt the other spouse. Oftentimes they are neglected emotionally, while mom and/or dad are dating or exploring their own selves. They need more attention from teachers, coaches, other adults, at the expense of the other kids.

As a rule, intact families tend to be more structured and secure for children. When kids have those benefits, they tend to do better in school and socially. There aren't the mind boggling calls from social workers, teachers, other parents, coaches about how demanding and unprepared the kids are.

On the other hand, your child with structure is interacting and observing all these kids that don't have the benefits they do. What do they see? If you act out, whether through bullying, kissing up, or being needy, you get attention. By 3rd grade at the latest, the behavior of the misfits has been caught like a contagion by kids that haven't had problems previously. The calls start and so does the stress level in an intact family.

Then there are 'friends of the divorced.' I try to explain to my friends that while they realize with my financial straits, they think I've been 'so lucky' to be able to discipline my kids on my own. That I've met some really interesting men, that are 'mature' and ready for a relationship. They seem to think that somebody I meet now is going to be better than the one they've been with for 20-30 years. Why? Cause their 'new'? I've known their husbands for years and listened to their 'problems' during them. You know what? They are not bad, not by a long shot. The excitement of dating pales in comparison by common experiences, families, and values.

Divorce should not be easy, nor for that matter should be marriage or parenthood. I think we could as a society do more to make both divorce and marriage harder to get into. As for parenthood, strengthening marriage would help to give stability from the ground up. How many women insist on working, regardless of 'needs' for fear that to leave the job market could be ruinous if the marriage ends?

I know this is rambling, perhaps some others can take a point or a couple and clarify?

 

[5stringJeff]

Divorce should not be easy.

This really sums it up.

 

[jillian]

This really sums it up.

That's fine in theory. But if someone really wants out of a marriage, they'll say whatever they have to to meet the burden imposed on them. So, the more they have to prove, the nastier things get. It doesn't make people stay together who otherwise wouldn't, but it DOES make the process a more cutting one.

Personally, I wouldn't want someone to stay with me if he didn't want to.

 

[5stringJeff]

That's fine in theory. But if someone really wants out of a marriage, they'll say whatever they have to to meet the burden imposed on them. So, the more they have to prove, the nastier things get. It doesn't make people stay together who otherwise wouldn't, but it DOES make the process a more cutting one.

Personally, I wouldn't want someone to stay with me if he didn't want to.

Ultimately, this would do two things. One, it will make people think harder before committing to marriage. Second, it will cause those contemplating divorce to reconsider how to make their marriage work, instead of choosing simply to bail out.

Like I said, marriages prior to the passage of such a law would be grandfathered in.

 

[Abbey Normal]

With so many people emphasizing a big splash of a wedding, instead of the marriage and the vows, it's no wonder things go haywire. Perhaps the divorce rate would fall somewhat if we were all forced to get married in a non-descript office or religious building, wearing plain clothing, no gifts, and no party afterword.

I don't think we can force people to stay together when at least one doesn't want to, whatever the reason. At the extreme end, they might end up killing each other out of frustration and hopelessness.

 

[Annie]

That's fine in theory. But if someone really wants out of a marriage, they'll say whatever they have to to meet the burden imposed on them. So, the more they have to prove, the nastier things get. It doesn't make people stay together who otherwise wouldn't, but it DOES make the process a more cutting one.

Personally, I wouldn't want someone to stay with me if he didn't want to.

The problem comes when the problems come. Someone loses a job, a kid has a birth defect or personality disorder, someone is drinking too much, the inlaws suck, someone has a bout of depression or anxiety, the car was wrecked, etc. How many times does one wish for 'out'? It shouldn't be so easy.

 

[acludem]

If you are making more of a "legal" covenant then you have to abide by the 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law, thus making it impossible to pass this law without allowing gay people to marry.

Quite the catch-22 isn't it? Now you know why solidly Republican states have never passed such measures.

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

If you are making more of a "legal" covenant then you have to abide by the 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law, thus making it impossible to pass this law without allowing gay people to marry.

Quite the catch-22 isn't it? Now you know why solidly Republican states have never passed such measures.

acludem

This just shows right through your ignorance. The 14th ammendment doesn't apply, as it doesn't say that the law shall allow you what you want, but instead offers equal protection. The law allows gay people to marry the opposite sex, just like everybody else. The fact that they don't want to is irrelevant.

And the reason heavily Republican states haven't passed such measures recently is because their legal code already defined marriage as one man and one woman.

 

[jillian]

This just shows right through your ignorance. The 14th ammendment doesn't apply, as it doesn't say that the law shall allow you what you want, but instead offers equal protection. The law allows gay people to marry the opposite sex, just like everybody else. The fact that they don't want to is irrelevant.

And the reason heavily Republican states haven't passed such measures recently is because their legal code already defined marriage as one man and one woman.

Ummmmmm....actually, the law allows people to marry the other consenting adult of their choice. And the same arguments used to be made with respect to inter-racial marriage, hence many of us not taking them too seriously.

I think it's clear that a religious group couldn't be forced to perform such marriages, but a civil marriage or union is something else.

 

[Hobbit]

Ummmmmm....actually, the law allows people to marry the other consenting adult of their choice. And the same arguments used to be made with respect to inter-racial marriage, hence many of us not taking them too seriously.

I think it's clear that a religious group couldn't be forced to perform such marriages, but a civil marriage or union is something else.

Compare it to interracial marriage all you want, but it's a proven fact that a man/woman marriage is beneficial force in society in all respects, while homosexual relationships are disasterous and harmful. There's justification for government endorsement of heterosexuality. Not so for homosexuality.

 

[5stringJeff]

If you are making more of a "legal" covenant then you have to abide by the 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law, thus making it impossible to pass this law without allowing gay people to marry.

Quite the catch-22 isn't it? Now you know why solidly Republican states have never passed such measures.

acludem

Since marriage is already a legal contractual agreement, and gay marriage is illegal, then your argument fails.

 

[jillian]

Compare it to interracial marriage all you want, but it's a proven fact that a man/woman marriage is beneficial force in society in all respects, while homosexual relationships are disasterous and harmful. There's justification for government endorsement of heterosexuality. Not so for homosexuality.

All of the above being your opinion, based on a religious value-judgment and having absolutely no basis in fact. You're entitled to your opinion, certainly, but shouldn't expect society to get in line with it. Personally, I've known some really valuable homosexual couples and some really low-life useless heterosexual ones.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

All of the above being your opinion, based on a religious value-judgment and having absolutely no basis in fact. You're entitled to your opinion, certainly, but shouldn't expect society to get in line with it. Personally, I've known some really valuable homosexual couples and some really low-life useless heterosexual ones.

Jillian, anecdotal evidence does not disprove a valid generalization. You've exhibited this mental deficiency previously.

 

[jillian]

Jillian, anecdotal evidence does not disprove a valid generalization. You've exhibited this mental deficiency previously.

And generalizations are garbage when they're disproven, hence your hating anecdotal evidence.

 

[MissileMan]

I don't advocate making it illegal in all circumstances, but I wouldn't mind seeing no-fault divorce get ditched.

All this would do is force someone to commit a divorceable offense to achieve their goal...it might even cause someone not normally abusive to become so to qualify for a divorce. If two people reach a mutual agreement that they can't live together anymore, then dissolve the marriage. The idea should be to establish and maintain good marriages, not every marriage.

I didn't say that gay marriage must strengthen hetero marriage in order to allow it. In fact, that would not be a likely outcome.

Given the examples of other countries, it would have a negative affect on marriage in general, as the overall marriage rate for both heteros and homos fell.

It seems that it's possible that allowing gay marriage had no effect on hetero marriage at all.

Comment: Equality doesn't harm 'family values'

By Joop Garssen and M.V. Lee Badgett
National Post (Canada)
Wednesday, August 11, 2004

Three years ago, the Netherlands opened up a new era of equality by giving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. After some initial fanfare, same-sex marriages have blended into the Dutch social landscape. In the first three years, almost 6,000 same-sex couples married, representing about one in 40 weddings. On this side of the Atlantic, same-sex couples can tie the legal knot in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, the Yukon, and Massachusetts. But as the debate has moved to the federal level in Canada and the United States, doomsayers have argued that even a small number of gay couples have the power to topple the institution of marriage.

Now, a few Dutch scholars have issued what might at first appear to be a serious warning to Canada and the rest of the world: Learn from the Dutch mistake and stop gay marriage before it undermines traditional marriage, as it did in the Netherlands.

These scholars are out of step with their countrymen and countrywomen: A majority of the public in the Netherlands has supported same-sex marriage since the mid-1990s. In a poll last year, 80% of Dutch respondents agreed that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry anywhere in Europe. This was not something foisted on the society: The Dutch Parliament simply went along with its constituents' desire to give same-sex couples the same option that different-sex couples have. Even the current conservative government has made no effort to take marriage away from gay couples.

A minority warns that heterosexuals are now voting against marriage with their feet. Falling numbers of marriages and rising numbers of children born out of wedlock since 1990 supposedly confirm a serious crisis in marriage in the Netherlands that began as gay marriage was debated in Parliament. But these alarmist claims are based on the selective use of statistics. In fact, the annual number of marriages fluctuates. In their open letter, the Dutch scholars point to a decline from 95,000 marriages in 1990 to 82,000 in 2003. But one might just as well point to an increase over the past two decades from 78,000 in 1983 to 82,000 in 2003.

In fact, the propensity to get married declined steeply in the 1970s and early 1980s, but stabilized thereafter. The likelihood that a Dutch person would ever marry fell from nearly 100% round 1970 to about 60% around 1980, and has remained fairly stable since then. This demographic change obviously occurred long before the public discussion on same-sex marriage.

The Dutch have become more likely to have children before marrying, but that shift also started before gay couples got partnership or marriage rights. It's true that the non-marital birth rate rose from 11% in 1990 to 31% in 2003. However, a similar increase in non-marital births occurred in Ireland, Luxembourg, Hungary and Lithuania, all countries that do not give same-sex couples partnership or marriage rights. We obviously can't blame the rise in non-marital births in those countries on gay marriage, so why should we think that's what happened in the Netherlands?

The focus on parents' marital status when a child is born is also, in itself, misleading. For most of these child-bearing couples, the wedding is simply postponed, not cancelled. Although about a third of Dutch children are now born out of wedlock, only 11% live with unmarried parents by age five. As a result, 79% of Dutch families with children (up to age 16) are headed by married parents, and 91% are headed by a couple, either married or unmarried. Marriage remains relevant for Dutch couples because it is still the easiest way to arrange the financial and legal aspects of a family's life once children are in the picture.

These data do not describe a crisis in family stability that will hurt children: The large majority of Dutch children live with two parents, so the research on the possible dangers of single parenthood is irrelevant. One in 12 young children (up to the age of four) live without a father in the household, a share that is well below the European average.

It is also important to remember that the gay marriage campaign actually strengthened the tie between marriage and parenthood in at least one way. In the late 1990s, members of the Dutch parliament considered and, in 2000 passed, two bills at the same time, one giving gay couples marriage rights and the other adoption rights. These changes recognized that many gay and lesbian couples need the right to secure their family ties as parents and as marriage partners. Overall, as the dissenting Dutch scholars whose article appears on this page have themselves admitted, there is no definitive evidence that the debate over gay marriage contributed to recent trends in marriage and births. Our interpretation of the Dutch figures is that they reflect the continuation of long-term trends, not an effect of allowing gay couples to marry. These trends may be rooted in increasing pragmatism with respect to marriage. But they have little, if anything, to do with a decline in family values, let alone a lack of responsibility toward children. The Dutch experience confirms common sense: Equality for gay and lesbian couples does not harm either heterosexual couples or their children.

Therefore, it does not serve to reduce "carousing" in the general population; "carousing" actually increases.

You can't seriously be blaming the conduct of heterosexuals on the conduct of homosexuals...people are responsible for their own conduct. Besides, I argued that gay marriage would reduce the carousing in the gay population, it would take a leap of illogic to deduce that gay marriage would have any effect at all on hetero-carousing.

And VERY few homosexuals practice "marriage" as a lifelong commitment

I would say the jury is still out on this...on what data do you base this statement?

People are affected by the examples of others around them. Actually, at one time, I seriously contemplated divorcing my husband. It wasn't because of unfaithfulness or abuse, but simply bc of "unhappiness." I don't think that I would have considered it if divorce wasn't so common.

That being said, legalizing gay marriage is not a personal issue. A law is, by nature, a public thing. So asking what effect it would have on my personal marriage is irrelevant. We must look at its effects on the general culture.

The accusation is that gay marriage will cause the ruin of hetero-sexual marriages...the question IS relevant. If you can't explain how it would affect YOUR marriage, then logic dictates that it won't affect ANY marriage.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And generalizations are garbage when they're disproven, hence your hating anecdotal evidence.

Generalizations are not proven false by a couple stories of "people you know".

You aren't this stupid, quite acting stupid.