Gay Marriage: Traditional Marriage Predates State and Church

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
501

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The world didn’t end. The shrine of holy marriage didn’t burst in flames and perished. Nothing bad happened.[/quote]

Marriage is a shambles in the current era. When were the seeds of that disintegration planted? Roughly the 1960s. It took decades, but the engineered disintegration occurred on pace.

This idiotic notion that nothing bad could happen on the basis that nothing bad did happen immediately after the enactment is just that - idiotic, and completely illogical. If that were true, traditional marriage should be fine - after all, it didn’t “blow up” right after the cultural assault on it in the 1960s. How has that logic panned out?

This nothing but classic brainless hipster dodge. Unlike things ought not be treated alike. Nothing odd or problematic about that.[/quote]

Quit living in the past. Things weren’t better back then, just less visible. Shit changes, and guess what: shit will continue to change whether you like it or not.

502

And just to have some fun, I had lunch with a gay friend of mine, and I brought up the topic of gay marriage (full disclosure: I knew his opinion before I brought it up, this was not earth-shattering). I’ll paraphrase his take, which is against gay marriage:

Gays don’t need marriage. It is an antiquated institution for breeders. It has nothing to do with us. And gays should stop pretending it does. I don’t need other people to validate my relationship, and gays who do need to work on this insecurity and stop projecting it on everyone else. It isn’t a sign of gay strength to push for marriage; it’s a sign of gay weakness. Look at the people begging for it - they desperately need to “measure up” to some standard created for someone else. I don’t need to measure up to it - I don’t need it. But hey, I’ve been gay a long time, and I don’t need to measure up to anyone else’s expectation of who I should be. There’s nothing wrong with clamoring to be tolerated in the mainstream, but that isn’t what the gay marriage movement is about.

Now, sadly, I had to inform my gay friend that his opinions confirmed that he was, of course, a raging bigot and a homophobe. He was sad to hear that.

503

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Quit living in the past. Things weren’t better back then, just less visible. Shit changes, and guess what: shit will continue to change whether you like it or not.[/quote]

More worthless drivel. The idea isn’t to set the clock back, it’s to set it right.

Civilizations don’t always progress - they also self-destruct and rot. And when a mistake was made in the past, there is nothing odd about course-correcting - there is no wisdom in “driving forward” if the destination is off the side of a cliff.

Never, ever confuse movement with progress.

504

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The world didn’t end. The shrine of holy marriage didn’t burst in flames and perished. Nothing bad happened.[/quote]

Marriage is a shambles in the current era. When were the seeds of that disintegration planted? Roughly the 1960s. It took decades, but the engineered disintegration occurred on pace.

This idiotic notion that nothing bad could happen on the basis that nothing bad did happen immediately after the enactment is just that - idiotic, and completely illogical. If that were true, traditional marriage should be fine - after all, it didn’t “blow up” right after the cultural assault on it in the 1960s. How has that logic panned out?

This nothing but classic brainless hipster dodge. Unlike things ought not be treated alike. Nothing odd or problematic about that.[/quote]

This. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Homosexual marriage hasn’t shattered the institution, it is a symptom of just how wrong-headed we ALREADY are about marriage. It is also a major stumbling block of correcting course. Don’t think marriage is an issue? Wait until you’rre one in a sea of greyheaded lonelies watching the narrow little balancing point of alienated, and socially troubled, youth give out under the weight of programs detached from demographic realities. State recognized marriage should be about ordering life-long committments (outside of abuse) within the smallest biological unit capable of propogating our citizenry, raising it’s OWN children with Both parents present in the household.

505

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I regularly offer quotes from the CDC and other well established data from reliable sources. Did you somehow miss that? [/quote]

You regularly misinterpret data to draw false conclusions. Do you somehow not understand that?

You’re certainly not homophobic, ZEB, that argument we had way back where you defended the “eg-gay” movement and claimed you “just wanted to help them”… must be my imagination.

But since you dont use slurs, and instead call homosexuals mentally ill, you’re totally off the hook.[/quote]

If someone belonged to a religion where they considered it to be vile to eat animal flesh, and you ate animal flesh and they told you that they considered it to be bad for you and you might want to consider veganism, would it be comparable to a Christian telling a gay person that they consider homosexuality to be immoral? I am just looking for opinions here. [/quote]

Good analogy. I get what you’re saying, and, on the surface, it should be as simple as “My religion says that’s wrong”. But it inevitably goes from “You should consider veganism” to “I dont want my kids to be taught in a classroom by a meat eater” and “We just passed a law making meat illegal”.

506

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Get smarter, I dare you. Instead of low grade sarcasm, make an argument.[/quote]

The marriage habits of heterosexuals are determined by the common perception of it held by the majority. If most saw marriage as a “procreation orderer”, the majority would only get married when kids were involved, or if planning to have kids. Infertile couples would shrug and say “Marriage doesn’t apply to us, we dont need other people to validate our relationship!”. Same with the elderly.

But those couples regularly do marry - because, to most people, marriage is about love, commitment, companionship, and legal issues (estate, etc). Children are often a part of it, but not the driving factor.

That being said, the “assault” you talk about in the 60s (I’d like if you could go into specifics), most likely had to do with things that actually did change the perception of marriage for the majority of heterosexuals. “Hey, I dont have to get married!” and “Hey, I can get a divorce if I want, I’m free!” - when the common perception of marriage changes, the habits do.

Gay marriage would not affect such a change. The majority would still see marriage as love, companionship, estate, etc - just that homosexuals could now participate. Since most heterosexuals dont see marriage as strictly a procreation orderer, allowing a nonprocreative couple to marry would not suddenly cause them to reevaluate or devalue the institution.

507

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Oh, and ZEB keeps harping that I “wished death on a man and his family”. Not quite bright enough to understand the difference between a phrase and actual literal intent.

I’m sure when he hears someone use the phrase “go fuck yourself”, he thinks they literally mean the person should have sexual intercourse with themselves.

I’m tempted to ask if thats the best you can do, ZEB, but I already know it is.[/quote]

Oh sorry I didn’t know that “I wish you and your family would burn in a fire” was now a proper put-down and well ingrained in our lexicon. And since it is not how is anyone to understand intent behind such an original and ugly phrase such as what you posted? You slither and squirm but you never really get away do you?[/quote]

Didn’t another poster in this thread say “I’m sure Capped doesn’t really want the guy to die”?

How the hell did he know?!?!?! I went outside the lexicon for an insult.

lol

508

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Didn’t another poster in this thread say “I’m sure Capped doesn’t really want the guy to die”?

How the hell did he know?!?!?![/quote]

wizard

509

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< Marriage is a shambles in the current era. When were the seeds of that disintegration planted? Roughly the 1960s. It took decades, but the engineered disintegration occurred on pace. >>>[/quote]This is exactly right and yes it was very successfully engineered. I have d=said this myself one thousand times. The 60’s was the beginning of the end. Now their grandchildren have no concept of self control, chastity or even decency. The idea of a faithful marriage flies square in the face of the hedonistic self worship that currently prevails. They’ve learned well and just wait n see what we end up with their children.

Traditional judeo-christian marriage which the common grace of God held more or less in place in this nation until the 60’s embodied self sacrifice, self control, subordinating one’s own interest for the good of the family and it’s future and an environment where children learned what all those things meant. All gone so everybody can get laid at will and engineer the rest of their existence for themselves as well. Children are an inconvenience at best and plainly disposable at worst. Oops pregnant? No problem. Just kill your own offspring if it gets in the way. It’s sick and on her present path this country will not survive much longer in anything vaguely resembling her past greatness. We will go down without a shot being fired on our homeland all in the name of ME ME ME.

510

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

buncha stuff about god…

Traditional judeo-christian marriage which the common grace of God held more or less in place in this nation until the 60’s embodied self sacrifice, self control, subordinating one’s own interest for the good of the family and it’s future and an environment where children learned what all those things meant.
[/quote]

I agree with this. Cept maybe the God part.

[quote]

All gone so everybody can get laid at will and engineer the rest of their existence for themselves as well. Children are an inconvenience at best and plainly disposable at worst. Oops pregnant? No problem. Just kill your own offspring if it gets in the way. It’s sick and on her present path this country will not survive much longer in anything vaguely resembling her past greatness. We will go down without a shot being fired on our homeland all in the name of ME ME ME.[/quote]

I disagree with this. Blame television for the “Happily ever after, find your one true love and marriage is easy” bullshit.

512

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Who really fucking cares about this anymore?

Unbelievable. [/quote]Another stirring contribution from bonzo boy.[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< This. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Homosexual marriage hasn’t shattered the institution, it is a symptom of just how wrong-headed we ALREADY are about marriage. It is also a major stumbling block of correcting course. Don’t think marriage is an issue? Wait until you’rre one in a sea of greyheaded lonelies watching the narrow little balancing point of alienated, and socially troubled, youth give out under the weight of programs detached from demographic realities. State recognized marriage should be about ordering life-long committments (outside of abuse) within the smallest biological unit capable of propogating our citizenry, raising it’s OWN children with Both parents present in the household.
[/quote]Excellent as usual.

513

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

The marriage habits of heterosexuals are determined by the common perception of it held by the majority. If most saw marriage as a “procreation orderer”, the majority would only get married when kids were involved, or if planning to have kids. Infertile couples would shrug and say “Marriage doesn’t apply to us, we dont need other people to validate our relationship!”. Same with the elderly.

But those couples regularly do marry - because, to most people, marriage is about love, commitment, companionship, and legal issues (estate, etc). Children are often a part of it, but not the driving factor.[/quote]

No, no, no - a thousand times, no. What is at issue is the public policy of marriage, not simply what people do in their private lives. Children are the driving force behind the public policy of having a law that promotes permanent coupling of hetersoexuals.

If what you say is right, there’d be no reason to have marriage as a public policy, i.e, a policy that both rewards coupling and reinforces it (it’s not easy to get a divorce). Setting aside the children issue (as you do), Society doesn’t much care how private citziens order their lives in terms of “love, commitment, companionship”. Society doesn’t benefit from encouraging permanent coupling on the grounds of “love, commitment, companionship”. There are no public policy dividends from doing so.

So there would be/is no need to enact a public policy rewarding/reinforcing coupling on the basis of “love, commitment, companionship”. Next to zero. Take children (and the deliberate ordering of child bearing and raising) out of the rationale for the public policy of marriage (not just the private choices of why people want to “get married”), and you…[u]have no reason to have publicly recognized marriage at all. Period.[/u] Society simply derives no benefit from publicly recognizing marriage outside of children.

Now, I get what you are doing. You desperately need to disconnect this crucial aspect of publicly recognized marriage - children - because if you don’t, it’s a concession that gay marriage doesn’t serve the function of publicly recognized marriage. However, and to which you appear to be clueless, when you argue this disconnect - "marriage really is about recognizing ‘love, commitment, companionship’, not children - you aren’t maing the case for gay marriage, you’re making the case for no publicly recognized marriage at ll…

Again, Society doesn’t care. Society At Large generates neglible benefits from establishing a legal institution that both encourages and tries to reinforce permanent coupling absent the issue related to children. It would bem from Society’s point of view, a waste of time and a worthless institution.

That isn’t so, and has never been so. The public policy of marriage - i.e., the reason it is captured in law, and encouraged, and permanence is reinforced in law - is because of the dividends paid out to Society in the area of reproduction and to prevent the social/cultural consequences of not doing so.

That’s it. Your argument fails. Their might be other reasons to enact gay marriage, but the idea of simply and primarily rewarding people for their private choices in the realm of “love, commitment, companionship” with no discernible benefit to Society is illogical - it serves no social purpose, because Society doesn’t much care of two (or more) people commit to permanent relationships. Publicly recognized traditional marriage is not in place for those reasons, and nor should any other form of marriage. It’d serve no purpose to Society.

Period.

514

I have not read this very far , but what I have read is about Moral Superiority . I Bible Thumpers , would not care what Jesus thought , When I grew up , and i know it is different now , but people that got caught up in all the rules were called Pharisees .

It is a chance to assert your will on others .

515

[quote]Sloth wrote:

This. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Homosexual marriage hasn’t shattered the institution, it is a symptom of just how wrong-headed we ALREADY are about marriage. It is also a major stumbling block of correcting course. Don’t think marriage is an issue? Wait until you’rre one in a sea of greyheaded lonelies watching the narrow little balancing point of alienated, and socially troubled, youth give out under the weight of programs detached from demographic realities. State recognized marriage should be about ordering life-long committments (outside of abuse) within the smallest biological unit capable of propogating our citizenry, raising it’s OWN children with Both parents present in the household.
[/quote]

Yes, and I’d throw this out for discussion - how is that the Left, with its witch hunt of traditional marriage since the 1960s and its active participation in trying to undermine the institution, now thinks it, as a movement, has any credibility to argue what is and isn’t marriage and good for society viz-a-viz marriage?

On one hand, for decades, the Left has denigrated marriage. It’s archaic. It’s oppressive. It’s patriarchal. It’s unnecessary.

And, over decades, we’ve seen the ravages - high divorce rates, astronomical births out-of-wedlock, the disintegration of families, lost kids being raised by television, troubled youth with shattered families, flakey parents more interested in self-indulgence of their earthly appetites than raising their child responsibly, and so forth.

Now, now, the Left comes marching in with a lecture on the importance of marriage as institution, how it so central to the health of relationships and (alternative) families, how it is central to people memorializing their love…

Where was this high devotion to marriage for the past 50 years? Where was this since the 1960s that marriage needs to be reinforced, reinvigorated, re-established?

It’s only now, with a new fad, that suddenly marriage is “cool” again. Prior to this, the Left was happy to set fire to the institution of marriage and walk away.

So, a larger discussion of marriage generally is probably warranted, but at a minimum, it’s safe to say the Left siply has no credibility to opine on teh values and virtues of marriage.

*That said, the Left’s attack on marriage is the only reason for marriage’s decline, but the full-throated assault on it led the charge

516

This is of course a perfectly valid point. The leftists of the world are about… well “left-ism” and whatever promotes their libertine vision of reality. It ain’t about rights or even justice or fairness. It’s about the rejection of anything perceived as a boundary. In my view even that’s merely a tool for some toward a further aim.

There are documents from the 60’s clearly spelling out the promotion of promiscuity and the erosion of the traditional family unit as absolutely vital to the downfall of this society as founded. Quite wisely so and they have been very successful. The whole gay marriage deal is not about marriage at all except it’s further destruction. Once it’s defined widely enough it’s lost any definition altogether.

517

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

That’s it. Your argument fails. There might be other reasons to enact gay marriage, but the idea of simply and primarily rewarding people for their private choices in the realm of “love, commitment, companionship” with no discernible benefit to Society is illogical - it serves no social purpose, because Society doesn’t much care of two (or more) people commit to permanent relationships. Publicly recognized traditional marriage is not in place for those reasons, and nor should any other form of marriage. It’d serve no purpose to Society.

[/quote]

Except this isn’t my argument at all. I never said the public policy of marriage is about “love, commitment, companionship” - I said those are the commonly held perceptions of marriage and thus what dictates the habits of the population w/r/t marriage (and, folowing that, since gay marriage would not alter those perceptions, it would not alter those habits)

Now, read that sentence again until you understand it, then we can continue. Its really irritating that the person who calls me stupid all the time cant seem to understand what I say properly.

518

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Except this isn’t my argument at all. I never said the public policy of marriage is about “love, commitment, companionship”- I said those are the commonly held perceptions of marriage and thus what dictates the habits of the population w/r/t marriage (and, folowing that, since gay marriage would not alter those perceptions, it would not alter those habits)[/quote]

No, I get what you are saying just fine - what I’m saying is that if what you say is true - that marriage is really, really about “love, commitment, companionship”, and not really about the children - then I’m telling you that there exists no public policy issue necessitating the need for publicly recognized marriage.

Whether gay marriage “alters those habits or perceptions” is irrelevant to the point - if what you say is true about marriage, then we don’t have any need for publicly recognized marriage. It ceases to exist. It’s a waste. Public recognition accomplishes no social goal.

That is the logical conclusion to your point about marriage being really about “love, commitment, companionship”, and not about children. That’s it.

519

Perhaps this is another thread entirely, but some notes:

The CDC says that the percent of all births to unmarried women is 41%.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm

It is estimated that 40% of all marriages have ended in divorce as of 2008.

The cultural shift away from marriage and the idea that raising children through marriage is the preferred means of doing so continues to cause problems for society. The exact problem marriage was primarily supposed to ameliorate - illegitimate children with no core family - has gotten worse over time. The consequences should be obvious to anyone paying attention.

Where has the Left been during the decades of this downfall? Suddenly, the Left are the new champions of marriage and all its benefits - but during the real crisis, there was no such championing of the institution.

No talk of preservation, no talk of recommitting to it. Only claims that marriage was outdated and harmful, only charges for easier divorce and silencing any cultural shame attached to having kids out of wedlock.

What’s left of this mission? A sad state of affairs, but I certainly hear no wailing or gnashing of teeth from the Left over this sad end result. I wonder how come?

520

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

No, I get what you are saying just fine - what I’m saying is that if what you say is true - that marriage is really, really about “love, commitment, companionship”, and not really about the children [/quote]

Thats not what I’m saying.

You’re being really frustrating. I’ll try again.

I’m NOT SAYING that the public policy of marriage is about “love, commitment, companionship”. Ok? Got that so far?

I’m saying the commonly held perception of marriage by the vast majority of our society is about “love, commitment, companionship”. Still with me?

You made two seperate but related claims. (A) That gay marriage falls outside of the scope of the intent of the public policy of marriage - and (B) That enacting gay marriage laws poses a direct risk to the marriage habits of heterosexuals.

My point about the commonly held perception of marriage is related to point B. Point 2. The second one. The one after the first one. The risk one, not the scope one.

Do you understand, now? This was really the best I can do to explain and if you’re going to keep misreading me, I give up.

521

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Perhaps this is another thread entirely, but some notes:

The CDC says that the percent of all births to unmarried women is 41%.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm

It is estimated that 40% of all marriages have ended in divorce as of 2008.

The cultural shift away from marriage and the idea that raising children through marriage is the preferred means of doing so continues to cause problems for society. The exact problem marriage was primarily supposed to ameliorate - illegitimate children with no core family - has gotten worse over time. The consequences should be obvious to anyone paying attention.

Where has the Left been during the decades of this downfall? Suddenly, the Left are the new champions of marriage and all its benefits - but during the real crisis, there was no such championing of the institution.

No talk of preservation, no talk of recommitting to it. Only claims that marriage was outdated and harmful, only charges for easier divorce and silencing any cultural shame attached to having kids out of wedlock.

What’s left of this mission? A sad state of affairs, but I certainly hear no wailing or gnashing of teeth from the Left over this sad end result. I wonder how come?[/quote]

“Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.”

Yup. Its all those damn liberals.

What has destroyed marriage, IMO, is the hollywood “happily ever after” notion - people think of marriage as a lifetime of happiness, not hard work and sacrifice. Also, parental consent is no longer needed (and often ignored) - so instead of several older adults who understood marriage from the inside, you now have young lovestruck couples deciding to marry (and being shocked when they aren’t living in a storybook). Social condemnation of divorce has slacked as well, but I think thats as much an effect as a cause.