marriage is set up to foster procreation in a family environment, that's one of the main "non religious" reasons for its establishment...that was basically the point I was trying to cull from JV's post. Its a very valid argument. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing, but someone was looking for a good reason against it. I don't know how open minded they were to being "close minded" but whatever...
[Kipnis argues] that marriage is an insidious social construct, harnessed by capitalism to get us to have kids and work harder to support them. Her quasi-Marxist argument sees desire as inevitably subordinated to economics. And the price of this subordination is immense: Domestic cohabitation is a “gulag”; marriage is the rough equivalent of a credit card with zero percent APR that, upon first misstep, zooms to a punishing 30 percent and compounds daily. You feel you owe something, or you’re afraid of being alone, and so you “work” at your relationship, like a prisoner in Siberia ice-picking away at the erotic permafrost. snipet from laura kipnis just throwing this out there
And yet again, you ignore the counter to that argument. In your world, infertile couples have no business marrying because they cannot procreate. Argument invalidated.
this sounds like someone who: a. desparately wanted to get married, but can't find anyone to marry her; or b. married a real jackass. seriously, i actually feel sorry for this woman. i have no idea who she is. but this is absolutely pitiful in every sense of the world. how incredibly bleak.
Awesome. Leonard Cohen song quoted here (and a good one, not one of those craptastic '70s ones from Don't Go Home with Your Hard-on). I don't know if this thread was really meant to make arguments for or against gay marriage. It started, at least, as an inquiry as to what the Christian/Biblical objection is. Since the argument Lil Pun wanted me to explain came up again, I'll give it another twirl. It has nothing at all to with the Bible though. My feeling is that there is something that marriage is -- a Platonic (in the Plato sense, not in the no-sex sense) marriage. Different people have disparate ideas on what exactly the Platonic Marriage is. Fundamentalist Christians usually understand it as a spiritual bond between 2 people (flesh of one flesh) and a covenant between them and God. Cynics may go to the other extreme and say it is simply a contractual agreement between two people and recognized by the government and institutions. Many people would include the idea of love as essential to the definition (to the point of villifying marriages of convenience or prearranged marriages or, on the other hand, endorsing gay marriages as long as they love one another). Others have seen it simply as a tool for social advantage. Some would also include the idea of child rearing in the Platonic Ideal of Marriage. Some of these points you may agree with; others you won't. The point is that there is something that Marriage is, it has a definition and an ideal. Ok, so what? Many -- in fact, all -- marriages fall short of the ideal. It's not possible to have a Platonic Marriage; it is an ideal. But the ideal casts a reflection on one's own marriage. What if the Platonic Marriage requires love, for example, and you're in a loveless marriage. Then, your marriage is 'bad' and you've somehow failed in marriage, even if love was perhaps not the intent in your marriage in the first place. So, what we decide to think about Marriage generally, which is reflected in our opinions of other people's marriages, has an effect on how one's own marriage is perceived. But why, you ask, should one force one's own ideas of what marriage is on others? In public policy, when we make something legal or illegal or government-endorsed or publically-funded or create a department to manage a thing, that puts the democratic will-of-the-people stamp of approval on the thing. That means, this is the thing that we as the people have decided is the legitimate thing. The government's attitude toward a thing will even be cited as evidence of its worthiness (drugs are bad because they're illegal; what's wrong with licentiousness, there's no law against it). So, consenting to a change in the legal nature of marriage shifts the whole public discourse and thought on the subject. It, in effect, shifts the definitions we use. So, when the right to a no-fault divorce was granted, the definition shifted. We took a big step from covenant to contract thinking when it comes to marriage. In fact, it became weaker than a standard business contract, which can at least assure payment for damages if the contract is broken. Most people, even religious people, think of it in different terms now because of the actions the government took. They think of their own marriages differently and see divorce as a more realistic option. And, because it reflects the love-is-essential-for-marriage paradigm, it encourages people to subscribe to that defintion. I won't say if that is right or wrong, just different, and different because of public policy. It'll be the same thing for some people with gay marriages. Ideas that marriages are covenantal, or tools of gain, or for child-rearing, or straight-out heterosexual are brushed aside by the swelling contingent that say as long as two people love each other nothing else matters. Marriage is being defined more wholly and singly on the basis of love between two people, neglecting pretty much any other factor that had once been associated with it. So, for the Christian who says his marriage is coventantal, he's on an island stranded with the others in his Christian ghetto. His marriage doesn't mean what it thinks it means and he'll get no support from the wide world in having his marriage his own way -- none except what he gets in his own church (and the church is far from immune to succumbing to the national will either). So, what we see in the gay marriage debate between the Christians and the activist is a culture shock like tectonic plates colliding. There is an element of whether homosexual behavior is a sin, but that's old. The new element is you have Christians pulling on one side for marriage being a sacred bond and the secular side pulling for marriage being an accord between two people who love each other. I think this is why civil union has decent support among heterosexuals -- because they want the gays to be able to do their thing but don't want to mess with the defintion of marriage. That's also why gays won't be happy with civil unions, imo -- because they want to change what it means to be married. I don't think I have as much at stake. I feel like I'm already operating at odds with the conventional understanding of marriage; another change won't kill me. I don't take a covenantal approach, not believing in God. I'm more mechanistic and I think of marriage more as a tool for child rearing. Gay marriage won't destroy it's ability to raise up children, so I'm not worried about that. But, I can definitely feel the struggle over definition here and I do take some offense (a little) over the attempt to push children out of the definition. It makes the proposed definition of marriage look like an imposter. So, I'm not too crazy about it. But then, the people will get what they want, whether they really want it or not, and life will go on and pretty much at the same level of quality. So, I'm opposed but not much so.
I thought I might throw in this quote as something to think about. It's not a direct response to JuanValdez's post, but it's the view of a lesbian who seems interested in having children: Children also are a trigger for people choosing to marry. Some still feel the stigma of a "b*stard" child. However, society is much more forgiving these days about the transgressions of the parents. There have been changes in schools, health systems, and financial systems so that marital status is less controlling than in previous generations. However, for stability, for commitment, for security, for assurance of parental influence, getting married remains the standard precursor to a "family with children." As more and more gay and lesbian couples decide to have children - adopted, foster, or biological - new challenges are dealt with on a state-by-state basis. Yet the most basic, missing link is a legally sanctioned protection for the property, inheritance and offspring of the non-traditional family. Because of this, there is no automatic protection for any of the members of the "family" structure, meaning that every aspect of social protection must be created artificially. (This quote comes from Margarethe Cammerymeyer's website, www.cammermeyer.com. The actual URL for thjis quote is: http://www.cammermeyer.com/issues.htm?cat=2) Margarethe Cammermeyer is the highest-ranking military officer ever to challenge the military's ban of homosexuals from service. The book Serving In Silence by Chris Fisher recounts her life and struggles, while a movie of the same name (with award winning-performances by Glenn Close and Judy Davis) has brought her to the forefront of gay and lesbian issues. I highly recommend checking out the movie... it says a lot of good things without being preachy.
My wife and I got married, and we aren't infertile, but we don't want children either. We got married because we love each other, and wanted to be a family. We wanted to make our commitment in a church, before God our friends and family. Like I said before, if people who believe marriage is set up for procreation then they don't have to participate in a gay marriage, but it doesn't mean that others who have a different opinion should be kept from marrying. Contrary to Juan Valdez's intial statement I don't feel like my marriage is a horse with only three legs, or anyway incomplete because we don't want children. Love was an important factor, but celebrating that love and dedicating it to God, in a church performed by a clergy member, was important as well. We are heterosexual, and don't in any way feel threatened by gay marriage, or anyone else's idea of what a marriage is and isn't. Sometimes I get sad when I hear people who treat marriage lightly, and like it's not that important to them, or saying it's just a piece of paper etc. I feed differently about my own marriage. But despite the fact it makes me sad to hear some people's view on marriage, I don't believe in preventing a segment of the population who believes differently than I do from getting married. I certainly don't believe in changing our constitution to make that the law of the land. As I said before gay marriage is a win/win situation. Those that don't like it don't have to participate, those that do like it are free to participate. Nobody is put out or forced to do anything against their will.
juan, i do appreciate your candor. i may appear flippant but i do care about this issue. i am married and have two children, this IS what marriage is for me. i will defend this institution with my blood and my soul but i will not, ever, deny alternate views. i am just built like that, i have a tremedous capacity for tolerance but am absolutely not religious in any shape or form. love is a choice.
Won't say I love you babe Won't say I need you babe But, I'm gonna get you babe And I will not do you wrong Livin's mostly wastin' time I waste my share of mine But it never feels too good So let's don't take too long You're soft as glass And I'm a gentle man We got the sky to talk about And the world to lie upon. Days up and down they come Like rain on a conga drum Forget most, remember some But don't turn none away Everything is not enough Nothin' is to much to bear Where you been is good and gone All you keep is the gettin' there To live is to fly Low and high So shake the dust off of your wings And the sleep out of your eyes It's goodbye to all my friends It's time to go again Think on all the poetry And the pickin' down the line I'll miss the system here The bottom's low and the treble's clear But it don't pay to think to much On things you leave behind I may be gone But it won't be long I will be a-bringin' back the melody And the rhythm that I find We all got holes to fill Them holes are all that's real Some fall on you like a storm Sometimes you dig your own But choice is yours to make And time is yours to take Some dive into the sea Some toil upon the stone To live is to fly Low and high, So shake the dust off of your wings And the sleep out of your eyes So shake the dust off of your wings And the tears out of your eyes
I'd like to see some numbers on this but I wouldn't know where to look and I wonder if anyone has actually done a study. I have lived in three different time zones in the last five years, just moving around meeting different people from different backgrounds. From my conversations with people from all over this country it is my opinion that bisexuality is becoming far less taboo especially among the younger generation. As I said this is my opinion. As for the opinion that marriage exists for the sake of procreation. I'm sure someone can find some numbers for how many kids are born out of wedlock (or not born thanks to abortions but that's another discussion). I just cannot believe that people get married for the sake of having kids. IMO, you get married because you love someone and you want to show that love to your beloved with a pact that proves you want only that one person forever. And to the world, showing that you are satisfied with this one other person and proud. Forget the legal, the biblical, the procreation. Marriage is about love why deny it to gays?
Even if I didn't have to participate in it, I don't have to agree with it. One day, I'll have children, and I won't want them to be in the same schools as children from gay couples. Hey, you don't agree with me? You don't have to participate in it! But that's what I want for MY children. So in a way, what gay couples are doing is affecting MY life, unless we seperate the gay-couple kids from the rest. But noooooooooooo, we can't have that, there must be equal rights. So what do you do? As if kids are not messed up enough these days without adding a parent and throwing in homosexuality to boot. You need someone to either give you sperm or carry the baby, and then you have to raise the kid either without a female or without a male. It's just unfair to put that kind of pressure on kids to understand. If you want to commit to someone from the same sex, and don't want children... Then just buy a ring, and make that commitment between yourselves. If you really believe in what you're doing, why do you need the government to validate you? Personally, I don't understand why heterosexual couples who DON'T want kids get married, but I haven't crossed that bridge yet and I don't really have an argument against it. If you love each other, I really don't understand how your life would change if the Government simply removed the "married" tag from you.. What does it change really? You still have each other, you're not worried about having children out of wedlock, you still have the commitment.. You're the same couple with or without the tag. So it's perfectly fine, I think, to have that kind of relationship, but I don't see why the legal issues make any difference to your relationship.
Again basically the argument you make against gay marriage is that you are uncomfortable with it. You've listed no harm to anyone that comes from gay marriage. The only affect gay marriage has on you, is that you aren't comfortable with it. That's not a reason to amend the constitution. I can tell you how heterosexual couples who don't want children want to get married. I fall into that category. The reason is that we want to be a family. We have a belief in God. We wanted to go to a church and make a commitment before God, before our family and friends. We want to be a family that has taken vows before God, and receives the benefits and stature given to families in our society. We wanted to have a family with our family name, united before God, family, and friends.
may i ask why exactly? maybe you should send your kids to a private school or better yet homeschool them.
so why do you need the government to validate your relationship? you don't need to be married to have/raise kids with someone. so why do you need to make it legal?
Exactly, send them to a place where everybody hs the same ideas, thoughts, and perceptions as everybody else around them that way they can get a view of what the outside world is NOT like. That paragraph by Sane sounds a lot like speechs from white parents whenh segregation was ending.
Just do a Google search for "teen bisexuals." I'm sure you'll get some hits with statistics. Does no one actually appreciate that Sane was doing a sort of parody of FranchiseBlade? I'm not saying he didn't mean it, but he's applying the same logic of "if you don't like it you don't have to participate." In other words, those who don't appreciate the imposition of gay marriage are as annoyed as you are when confronted with "I don't want my kids hanging out with the kids of gay marriages." The if-you-don't-like-it logic can be applied to both, and are as annoying and offensive. I thought that was obvious but all the responses seem oblivious, so I'm just asking.
