Gay Marriage: Traditional Marriage Predates State and Church

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
522

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

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.[/quote]

I understand you just fine, and this is getting dull. I am not saying that you think the public polciy of marriage is “love, commitment, companionship”. I am saying that if that is what marriage is about and has become about - because that’s what people think it is about these days - there is no longer a logical reason to have any kind of publicly recognized marriage.

I am pointing you to…wait for it…the conclusion of your assertion. I am not misunderstanding your assertion.

The majority of people may very well believe that marriage is about “love, commitment, companionship” - and my point is, if this is true - and you say it is - we no longer have a reason to have publicly recognized marriage. The public policy no longer exists.

This was something I raised with Forlife. Set aside gay marriage, for a moment. Now, take away the public policy angle of children, and ask one question: why would Society have any reason to publicly recognize and encourage in law the permanence of a coupling of two heterosexuals?

Answer? None. That is my point regarding the logical conclusion of your point about the majority thinking marriage is about “love, commitment, companionship”. If true, there’s no need for any kind of legal marriage.

That’s it. No, I don’t misunderstand you - I am just lighting the way to where your claim leads. If that is what marriage “is” now, that isn’t an argument for gay marriage - it’s an argument for no publicly recognized marriage at all. It would serve no purpose.

523

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

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

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Yup. Its all those damn liberals.[/quote]

Oh, darn, I wish Capped had access to more recent research:

[i]The study showed that the percentage of adults who have been married and divorced varies from segment to segment. For instance, the groups with the most prolific experience of marriage ending in divorce are downscale adults (39%), Baby Boomers (38%), those aligned with a non-Christian faith (38%), African-Americans (36%), and people who consider themselves to be liberal on social and political matters (37%).

Among the population segments with the lowest likelihood of having been divorced subsequent to marriage are Catholics (28%), evangelicals (26%), upscale adults (22%), Asians (20%) and those who deem themselves to be conservative on social and political matters (28%).

Born again Christians who are not evangelical were indistinguishable from the national average on the matter of divorce: 33% have been married and divorced. [/i]

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released

Although, despite your swing and miss, that really isn’t exactly the point. At any rate, get some new (and accurate) material.

No doubt entertainment has had an effect, but it’s clear you are oblivious to the outright cultural assault on marriage that occurred since the 1960s. The death of moral opprobrium as it relates to marriage was all done in pursuit of “liberating” people from the constraints of stuffy old sexual and social norms. None of this was an accident, of course, and now we see exactly where that kind of thinking leads.

As for “blaming Hollywood”, let’s recall, as an example, the “Murphy Brown” kerfuffle where Dan Quayle had the audacity to suggest that the Murphy Brown character electing to raise a kid unmarried and alone as a career woman might send a poor message to society was met with public derision by “progressives” who harrumphed at Quayle’s paleolithic thinking and paternalistic idiocy. Of course, in this day and age of horrid social effects from this thinking, I’ve never seen a climbdown from the same smug “progressives” who chastised such archaic notions as “hey, maybe kids oughta have their parents.”

To put a finer point on it, you can’t quite simply blame “Hollywood” unless you also blame “Hollywood’s polictial bent”.

524

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

I am saying that if that is what marriage is about and has become about - because that’s what people think it is about these days - there is no longer a logical reason to have any kind of publicly recognized marriage…

That’s it. No, I don’t misunderstand you - I am just lighting the way to where your claim leads. If that is what marriage “is” now, that isn’t an argument for gay marriage - it’s an argument for no publicly recognized marriage at all. It would serve no purpose.

[/quote]

I give up.

525

Dont know why I keep trying.

What marriage is, in terms of public policy and intent is different than what marriage is in terms of common public perception.

Saying the latter is about X, Y, and Z does not mean the former is about X, Y, and Z.

526

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Dont know why I keep trying.

What marriage is, in terms of public policy and intent is different than what marriage is in terms of common public perception.

Saying the latter is about X, Y, and Z does not mean the former is about X, Y, and Z.[/quote]

The public policy of marriage is determined by what it “is”. If marriage “is” about something other than ordering the birthing and raising of children, there is no reason to have a public policy encouraging it. Society doesn’t care. The only reason we should keep publicly recognized marriage around is if marriage “is” to promote a certain end result related to children.

It’s dirt simple. Your arguments are clear enough - you just don’t like where they end up.

527

I’m going to try to make an analogy.

The style of allowing ones pants to “sag” was seen as a tough-guy or thug fashion statement. While various rumors of its origin exist, according to some sources, it started in prison as an effect of prisoners getting pants that were too large and not being allowed belts to hold them up.

This means that the original cause (having to wear oversized pants with no belt) was different then the common perception (wanting to make a fashion statement).

The common perception, regardless of the original cause, is what dictated who “sagged” their pants.

Likewise, the common perception of marriage dictates who marries and why – regardless of the intent of the public policy.

528

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Likewise, the common perception of marriage dictates who marries and why – regardless of the intent of the public policy.[/quote]

So, are the people who think marriage is about "love, commitment, companionship, and not about child-raising wrong…or right?

529

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Dont know why I keep trying.

What marriage is, in terms of public policy and intent is different than what marriage is in terms of common public perception.

Saying the latter is about X, Y, and Z does not mean the former is about X, Y, and Z.[/quote]

The public policy of marriage is determined by what it “is”. If marriage “is” about something other than ordering the birthing and raising of children, there is no reason to have a public policy encouraging it. Society doesn’t care. The only reason we should keep publicly recognized marriage around is if marriage “is” to promote a certain end result related to children.

It’s dirt simple. Your arguments are clear enough - you just don’t like where they end up.[/quote]

I’M NOT SAYING THE PUBLIC POLICY OF MARRIAGE IS ABOUT LOVE. I’M SAYING THE COMMON PERCEPTION IS ABOUT LOVE.

TWO. DIFFERENT. THINGS

God dammit dude, for an educated guy you’re fucking dense when you want to be.

530

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

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.[/quote]

I understand you just fine, and this is getting dull. I am not saying that you think the public polciy of marriage is “love, commitment, companionship”. I am saying that if that is what marriage is about and has become about - because that’s what people think it is about these days - there is no longer a logical reason to have any kind of publicly recognized marriage.

I am pointing you to…wait for it…the conclusion of your assertion. I am not misunderstanding your assertion.

The majority of people may very well believe that marriage is about “love, commitment, companionship” - and my point is, if this is true - and you say it is - we no longer have a reason to have publicly recognized marriage. The public policy no longer exists.

This was something I raised with Forlife. Set aside gay marriage, for a moment. Now, take away the public policy angle of children, and ask one question: why would Society have any reason to publicly recognize and encourage in law the permanence of a coupling of two heterosexuals?

Answer? None. That is my point regarding the logical conclusion of your point about the majority thinking marriage is about “love, commitment, companionship”. If true, there’s no need for any kind of legal marriage.

That’s it. No, I don’t misunderstand you - I am just lighting the way to where your claim leads. If that is what marriage “is” now, that isn’t an argument for gay marriage - it’s an argument for no publicly recognized marriage at all. It would serve no purpose.

[/quote]

A few significant benefits come to mind:

  1. Reduction of STDs
  2. Improved average psychological and emotional health for society
  3. First level financial support from spouse, reducing drain on public coffers
  4. Drives commerce for an entire industry (wedding invitations, flowers, banquets, entertainment, travel, gifts, etc.)
531

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Likewise, the common perception of marriage dictates who marries and why – regardless of the intent of the public policy.[/quote]

So, are the people who think marriage is about "love, commitment, companionship, and not about child-raising wrong…or right?[/quote]

They’re right about what (read this real close) MARRIAGE IS TO THEM.

They’re ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that that is THEIR PERCEPTION of marriage.

Its what marriage is TO THEM.

532

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I’M NOT SAYING THE PUBLIC POLICY OF MARRIAGE IS ABOUT LOVE. I’M SAYING THE COMMON PERCEPTION IS ABOUT LOVE.

TWO. DIFFERENT. THINGS

God dammit dude, for an educated guy you’re fucking dense when you want to be.[/quote]

The problem is that you can’t focus on the issue. I keep saying over and over and over that I don’t think you think the public policy of marriage is about love. Enough with this garbage.

533

[quote]forlife wrote:

A few significant benefits come to mind:

  1. Reduction of STDs
  2. Improved average psychological and emotional health for society
  3. First level financial support from spouse, reducing drain on public coffers
  4. Drives commerce for an entire industry (wedding invitations, flowers, banquets, entertainment, travel, gifts, etc.)[/quote]

Utter nonsense.

  1. There’d be negligible reduction of STDs.
  2. There is no connection to “emotional health” for society because of publicly available marriage, because society has no need to privilege that relationship.
  3. First level financial support can come in in the exact same way for someone who is simply cohabitating with a lover, a formally-recognized “spouse” provides no additional “financial support”
  4. Give me a break. Dumbest thing I may have ever read.
534

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

They’re right about what (read this real close) MARRIAGE IS TO THEM.

They’re ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that that is THEIR PERCEPTION of marriage.

Its what marriage is TO THEM.[/quote]

Good, now next step. What is the public policy of marriage, if not to reward people for their choices in “love, commitment, and companionship”?

535

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I’M NOT SAYING THE PUBLIC POLICY OF MARRIAGE IS ABOUT LOVE. I’M SAYING THE COMMON PERCEPTION IS ABOUT LOVE.

TWO. DIFFERENT. THINGS

God dammit dude, for an educated guy you’re fucking dense when you want to be.[/quote]

The problem is that you can’t focus on the issue. I keep saying over and over and over that I don’t think you think the public policy of marriage is about love. Enough with this garbage.[/quote]

No, the problem is you’re confusing which issue I’m talking about. I’ll try this again

We have two issues. One is the public policy of marriage. The other is the risk gay marriage poses to straight marriage.

I’m refuting your claim about the latter. Yet you keep fucking trying to apply it to the former. YOU, thunderbolt, cant focus on the issue.

536

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

They’re right about what (read this real close) MARRIAGE IS TO THEM.

They’re ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that that is THEIR PERCEPTION of marriage.

Its what marriage is TO THEM.[/quote]

Good, now next step. What is the public policy of marriage, if not to reward people for their choices in “love, commitment, and companionship”?[/quote]

…

No. We’re talking about the risk gay marriage poses to the marriage habits of heterosexuals.

Whats relevant to that point is the common perception of marriage held by heterosexuals. Not the public policy of marriage. The public policy of marriage does not dictate the marriage habits of heterosexuals - the common perception of marriage held by heterosexuals does.

The public policy of marriage is a seperate point.

537

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

No, the problem is you’re confusing which issue I’m talking about. I’ll try this again

We have two issues. One is the public policy of marriage. The other is the risk gay marriage poses to straight marriage.

I’m refuting your claim about the latter. Yet you keep fucking trying to apply it to the former. YOU, thunderbolt, cant focus on the issue.[/quote]

Negative - I am not and have not been focusing on “risk gay marriage poses to straight marriage”. I have been expressly discussing what the public policy of marriage is. Period.

And as an aside, you have;t refuted “the latter”. As I have been stating, if the majority has changed its mind as to what marriage is supposed to be - that it is about “love, commitment, companionship”, and not about children - then that shift harms marriage because it calls for a negation of any publicly recognized institution of marriage.

That’s bad for marriage, and it is exclusive of any argument about gay marriage. Independently - bad for marriage.

Now, next step - gay marriage reinforces this bad idea among heterosexuals, that marriage is about “love, commitment, companionship”, and not about children (because it couldn’t be).

And so, I’ll type this slowly - at the exact time we need to be changing the minds of your majority that think marriage is really about “love, commitment, companionship” and not children comes along a movement that reinforces this wrong-headed idea that marriage is really about “love, commitment, companionship”: the call for gay marriage.

We don’t want people to think that. We want to change that. It is in error. And so anything that gets in the way of us changing that erroneous thinking isn’t a good thing for marriage, properly and correctly understood.

Got it, champ?

538

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

No. We’re talking about the risk gay marriage poses to the marriage habits of heterosexuals.

Whats relevant to that point is the common perception of marriage held by heterosexuals. Not the public policy of marriage. The public policy of marriage does not dictate the marriage habits of heterosexuals - the common perception of marriage held by heterosexuals does.

The public policy of marriage is a seperate point.[/quote]

Stop pussing out on answering the question. I’ll repost:

What is the public policy of marriage, if not to reward people for their choices in “love, commitment, and companionship”?

539

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

No, the problem is you’re confusing which issue I’m talking about. I’ll try this again

We have two issues. One is the public policy of marriage. The other is the risk gay marriage poses to straight marriage.

I’m refuting your claim about the latter. Yet you keep fucking trying to apply it to the former. YOU, thunderbolt, cant focus on the issue.[/quote]

Negative - I am not and have not been focusing on “risk gay marriage poses to straight marriage”. I have been expressly discussing what the public policy of marriage is. Period.

And as an aside, you have;t refuted “the latter”. As I have been stating, if the majority has changed its mind as to what marriage is supposed to be - that it is about “love, commitment, companionship”, and not about children - then that shift harms marriage because it calls for a negation of any publicly recognized institution of marriage.

That’s bad for marriage, and it is exclusive of any argument about gay marriage. Independently - bad for marriage.

Now, next step - gay marriage reinforces this bad idea among heterosexuals, that marriage is about “love, commitment, companionship”, and not about children (because it couldn’t be).

And so, I’ll type this slowly - at the exact time we need to be changing the minds of your majority that think marriage is really about “love, commitment, companionship” and not children comes along a movement that reinforces this wrong-headed idea that marriage is really about “love, commitment, companionship”: the call for gay marriage.

We don’t want people to think that. We want to change that. It is in error. And so anything that gets in the way of us changing that erroneous thinking isn’t a good thing for marriage, properly and correctly understood.

Got it, champ?[/quote]

Hm. I see what you’re saying a bit better now. Thank you.

540

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

No. We’re talking about the risk gay marriage poses to the marriage habits of heterosexuals.

Whats relevant to that point is the common perception of marriage held by heterosexuals. Not the public policy of marriage. The public policy of marriage does not dictate the marriage habits of heterosexuals - the common perception of marriage held by heterosexuals does.

The public policy of marriage is a seperate point.[/quote]

Stop pussing out on answering the question. I’ll repost:

What is the public policy of marriage, if not to reward people for their choices in “love, commitment, and companionship”?
[/quote]

I was never pussing out - we were talking about different topics. Before your last post you said nothing about wanting to change the common perception of marriage to match the public policy.

541

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I was never pussing out - we were talking about different topics. Before your last post you said nothing about wanting to change the common perception of marriage to match the public policy.[/quote]

No, we weren’t - the issue is the public (not private) institution of marriage. What people choose to do privately is not in dispute at the moment.

Now, you said earlier that you weren’t saying that the public policy of marriage was to reward a person’s choice of “love, commitment, companionship” - ok, no problem.

Then what is the public policy of marriage, if it is not to reward a person’s choice of “love, commitment, companionship”?