MEN BEHAVING BADLYALTHOUGH the role of mother can safely be said to be grounded in biology, the role of father is to a great degree socially constructed. In the words of the anthropologist Margaret Mead, "Somewhere at the dawn of human history, some social invention was made under which males started nurturing females and their young." The male role was founded on the provision of resources; "among human beings everywhere [the male] helps provide food for women and children." Being a learned behavior, the male role in nurturing the family is subject to disruption.....
When we put kinship and family in this context, it is easier to understand why nuclear families have started to break apart at such a rapid rate over the past two generations. The family bond was relatively fragile, based on an exchange of the woman's fertility for the man's resources. Prior to the Great Disruption, all Western societies had in place a complex series of formal and informal laws, rules, norms, and obligations to protect mothers and children by limiting the freedom of fathers to simply ditch one family and start another. Today many people have come to think of marriage as a kind of public celebration of a sexual and emotional union between two adults, which is why gay marriage has become a possibility in the United States and other developed countries. But it is clear that historically the institution of marriage existed to give legal protection to the mother-child unit, and to ensure that adequate economic resources were passed from the father to allow the children to grow up to be viable adults.(my emphasis)
Comment Policy
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Great Disruption
Men Behaving Badly, excerpt from Francis Fukuyama's The Great Disruption Atlantic Monthly May 1999.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is similar to what I used to argue on the family scholars blog: heterosexuals have already redefined marriage, and I don't see it changing back to what it was.
ReplyDeleteYes, historically, the institution of marriage existed to protect the mother-child unit. Thanks to easy divorce, marriage in most of the developed world no longer serves that purpose.
Child support is all that's left of the legal protection. While I am not a lawyer, I don't think the law makes a significant distinction between men who were once married to the mothers of their children and men who were never married to the mothers of their children when it comes to working out child support arrangements.
Peter, I'm not asking 0% divorce rate, but 50% is too high. How about lowering it to 25%, and if we can how so?
ReplyDeletePete: Thanks to easy divorce, marriage in most of the developed world no longer serves that purpose.
ReplyDelete...
Child support is all that's left of the legal protection. [emphasis added]
Pete, per usual, way overstates the situation in pursuit of his agenda. "Easy divorce" is certainly a bad thing, but has it eliminated the purpose of marriage? Clearly not. Children born to married parents still have statistically better outcomes than children born outside of marriage. Even if Pete's claim that marriage "no longer serves that purpose," of protecting the "mother-child unit" Pete stops short of claiming that marriage should no longer serve "that purpose," which is the message neutering marriage does have.
What kind of contract can be broken at whim by either of the parties? Not a strong one, that's for sure.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is already neutered.
When fine, upstanding citizens can divorce their spouses and marry their affair partners (John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich), it gets hard to claim that marriage is about anything more than "a kind of public celebration of a sexual and emotional union between two adults."
I won't disagree with you Peter that marriage is ""a kind of public celebration of a sexual and emotional union between two adults."
ReplyDeleteIt is.
It is.
Marriage is ultimately a fertility rite... very sexual and very emotional. What's more sexual or emotional then making babies (in bed, not a lab)?
Two people of the same gender can't have sex. They may stimulate their reproductive organs, and simulate sex/distort sex but two people of the same gender can't copulate/perform coitus. Marriage celebrates 'the act' of being in union sexually.
The act can only be performed by a man and a woman. That's not unjust discrimination based on homophobia, it's physical nature discriminating. Man can not decree what human sexuality is all about, which is reproduction. We can ignore it though, and apparently we have for some time.
Most of us have been born into a sexual anarchy. Not that sexuality had elements of oppression prior to the 60s, (one couldn't say pregnant on TV in the 50s) but liberation and anarchy are two different things.
Now this doesn't mean homosexuality is in of itself against nature, I posted previous in Samoan family the acceptance of gay uncles to assist with nieces and nephews.
If sex is connected to emotion, which it is, then why are young adults being promoted a hook-up culture in which women should feel no connection with casual sexual encounters?
Peter, any contract can be broken at whim - and the parties involved have to deal with the consequences.
ReplyDeleteFor example, an actor may have a contract for a role in a film. The producer can break the contract, and pay the stipulated (or court ordered) penalty. The actor can break the contract, and then the actor has to pay the penalty.
Businesses can drop contrats. Governments can drop contracts. It happens all of the time.
It is called freedom of association. Feedom doesn't mean "no consequences".
Renee, as far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal status. While the Catholic Church might refuse to marry a couple who is incapable of consumating their marriage, the state has shown no interest in making this distinction in recent years.
ReplyDeletePlayful Walrus, you are correct to point out that contracts are broken -- it's the consequences that matter.
The social, legal, and economic consequences for breaking the marriage contract have been drastically reduced over the past couple of generations.
In many states, the actions of the parties don't have any bearing on how the assets are divided. There aren't consequences for initiating the dissolution of the contract.
Pete (before): ...it gets hard to claim that marriage is about anything more than "a kind of public celebration of a sexual and emotional union between two adults."
ReplyDeletePete (later): ...as far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal status.
A "public celebration" is not "a legal status." The only thing consistent about these two statements is that they both denigrate marriage.
Pete: When fine, upstanding citizens can divorce their spouses and marry their affair partners...
Just like any other institution, there will always be bad examples of marriages. One cannot spotlight these bad examples as proof that an entire institution is corrupt. That even Pete so readily recognizes which examples of marriage are bad ones shows marriage still has meaning despite them.
Renee: Marriage is ultimately a fertility rite...
No, it isn't.
op-ed, I actually disagree with you. The outward sign for the Sacrament of Marriage is not the rings or the vows in the Catholic Church, but the conjugal act. It's just not done on the altar.
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDelete"The social, legal, and economic consequences for breaking the marriage contract have been drastically reduced over the past couple of generations. "
The consequences have just been moved to the other parties. The party who is actually at fault 'leaves the marriage/causes the breakdown' reaps the benefits, leaving the other spouse and children to pick up the pieces. At times it can really shock the conscience thinking how your spouse, who us supposedly the most trusted person in the world can screw you over with little to any recourse.
Some of the discussion here in Massachusetts back in 04' was that homosexual couples were fighting for divorce not marriage, as a way to handle break ups. Attorneys couldn't wait for their first gay divorce, a whole new market to specialize in. Pretty sad... either way.
Op ed, I'm quoting Fukuyama with the line about the public celebration. Were I editing Fukuyama, I would have suggested that "celebration" be replaced with "recognition."
ReplyDeleteDo you deny that marriage is a legal status? Or, if you prefer, a legal recognition of a couple's union? It may be solemnized by a religious ceremony, but the religious ceremony is not necessary. The state license is.
While there is overlap, church and state have different views on the meaning and purpose of marriage.
The Catholic Church has some very specific ideas about what constitutes a legitimate marriage. The state recognizes many marriages that the Catholic Church does not.
Are we debating public policy or church doctrine?
I'm not arguing that marriages like McCain's point to fundamental flaws in the institution of marriage. My claim is that McCain's second marriage indicates that there has been a significant shift in legal and cultural ideas about marriage. A hundred years ago, John and Cindy would have been barred from marrying in some jurisdictions.
You can attempt to draw a line in the sand with regards to same-sex marriage. You may see a couple more state constitutional bans on the same-sex marriage, but I'm convinced that the public is slowly moving towards accepting the idea of same-sex marriage.
Peter, That is my fault I use religious ceremonies as an analogy.
ReplyDeleteStill even from a secular point of view, is that heterosexual activity gets you pregnant and homosexual activity doesn't. Heterosexual activity has to consider there may be a pregnancy, and obligations to follow. Who doesn't want men to be held accountable to their children with little need for the government to step in for child support. We also want couples to enter marriage willingly, not via shotgun weddings. I realize that 'sex gets you pregnant' has been ignored for some time, and yes we're in a mess. Most of us though aren't baby boomers, but born well into in it.
It doesn't mean society can't recognize non-marital relationships, but we still need marriage to be marriage. Many people say too late, we're screwed. But that is like saying, the 'end is near'. The end isn't near, we just have to get back on track.
Renee, ten years ago, I thought there was a workable civil-union compromise. I no longer think that's going to happen.
ReplyDeleteThere's no problem with using religious ceremonies or doctrine to describe what marriage is about, so long as we are clear that we're talking about a religious view of marriage.
Certainly, the same biological realities and cultural demands that helped shape religious ideas about marriage also helped shape legal notions about marriage.
There's no mistaking that religious ideas inform public policy debate, on this and other topics, but they do not trump all other concerns when it comes to public policy.
The outward sign for the Sacrament of Marriage is not the rings or the vows in the Catholic Church, but the conjugal act.
ReplyDeleteThat would be all well and good, except that it is not an outward act. It isn't publicized, recognized, or otherwise observed.
I think of all the religions you are working through, thinking of that marriage rite as an outward sign is more fertility-cult paganism than anything else.
I don't mean that as a bad thing. Just that as a lawyer, you perhaps have a better understanding of a private and public act that you can apply to this situation?
I would have suggested that "celebration" be replaced with "recognition."
ReplyDeleteStill, you can't take a piece of something as representative of a whole. If I remember right, in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, a race discovered everything about the universe by studying a piece of cake. Perhaps they can, and perhaps you can discover everything that marriage is about by studying the emotional bonds that marriage recognizes. But then again a universe is not a piece of cake, and a marriage is much more than the emotions.
It is a legal institution, nothing less.
And as a legal institution it means between a man and a woman.
When you and I take this road, I remember you always get stuck at the point where I show you it is a contradiction to call a same-sex couple by the same name as a couple that is equal to both genders. You drop the subject there.
That is your willfullness, and the cost is the utter nonsense that Op-Ed noted in your argumentation above. You can make things work in your own mind, only by detaching from reality. You are studying a piece of wedding cake, assuming it is the universe of matrimony.
On Lawn, but we still support marriages being publicly acknowledge/assumed as 'consummated' and celebrate the bride and groom's ability to have sex ASAP even in modern times with honeymoons. I'm assuming many cultures figured out that respect for privacy up'd the fertility rates immensely.
ReplyDeleteMarriage are assumed by the public to be consummated (sex), unless the issue arises as in sham marriages for immigration purpose or annulments. Here is a legal post from an immigration attorney regarding "Must the marriage be consummated"
Renee,
ReplyDeleteThat would be all well and good, except that it is not an outward act. It isn't publicized, recognized, or otherwise observed.
That doesn't mean marriage is marriage without consummation. It simply means perhaps you've made something private into a public spectacle, which was never intended to be.
I agree with you to some extent. I live in a secular society, where sex is for everything but marriage/family and then again, we have grandparents paying up for their adult children to give them grandchildren. To me that's weird.
ReplyDeleteAs for my own children I try to follow through of examples of healthy relationships, not the act itself. I don't want talking about married couples bedroom to become subject of gossip, which that could easily come to when it does become outward. But there are ways society can respect and promote healthy relationships without having to divulge what goes on in the bedroom.
Pete: Do you deny that marriage is a legal status?
ReplyDeleteYes. Marriage existed long before even the concept of "legal status." Legally married is a legal status, but it is merely intended as a shadow of the actual status. You seek to reduce marriage to merely its shadow.
A hundred years ago, John and Cindy would have been barred from marrying in some jurisdictions.
Three questions:
1) Which?
2) What law?
3) So what?
I suppose there's no need to answer questions 1 & 2 if you can't answer 3. As nearly as I can tell this shows only your fascination with the sex lives of prominent Republicans and nothing about "same-sex marriage."
The McCain marriage doesn't even suggest a recent phenomenon. Examples of people marrying their "affair partners" stretch back thousands of years.
You can attempt to draw a line in the sand with regards to same-sex marriage.
Which has nothing to do with the McCains' marriage, incidentally.
I'm convinced that the public is slowly moving towards accepting the idea of same-sex marriage.
This is essentially the entropy argument. The notion is that since everything tends toward disorder and since neutering marriage is more disordered, therefore it is likely to come to pass eventually. The problem with this argument is that even if one extends the universe's trend toward entropy to include social institutions like marriage you cannot predict that it's decline will include a "same-sex" phase. Entropy is, by definition, disordered meaning you cannot predict any particular state that a system in entropy will pass through.
Renee: op-ed, I actually disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteNo, you don't.
The outward sign for the Sacrament of Marriage is not the rings or the vows in the Catholic Church, but the conjugal act.
That doesn't make it a "fertility rite."
It's just not done on the altar.
Which pretty well means it is not, as OnLawn has already pointed out.
Consummation, while a requirement of marriage, is not intended to have any affect outside the couple itself other than its natural potential to create a new life. This potential is there even for intercourse not associated with consummation or even marriage, for that matter. All of which makes marriage quite different from a fertility rite.
That would be all well and good, except that it is not an outward act. It isn't publicized, recognized, or otherwise observed.
ReplyDeleteIn some cultures, relatives make a public display of the bloody sheets -- proof of the bride's virginity.
And as I noted above, Catholic doctrine has been used to block church weddings of those unable to consummate their marriages.
--------------
Op-ed, the "so what?" is a demonstration that laws regarding marriage change. What was once prohibited is now allowed.
As for your questions 1 & 2, there are at least five states which prohibited such marriages. Details can be found on this page. I don't think that it's a comprehensive list.
For example:
Pennsylvania
Prior to 4/2/80, the defendant in a divorce granted in Pennsylvania who had been guilty of adultery could not marry the co-respondent during the lifetime of his/her former spouse.
If you can show me a prominent Democrat who divorced his or her spouse and married his or her affair partner, I'd be happy to add them to my list. I've been asking for several years, and while there are many prominent Democrats who have cheated on their wives, none of them divorced their wives to marry their affair partners. Giuliani and Gingrich have done it twice.
I think their actions (and their continued prominence in the supposedly conservative party) undermine the idea of traditional marriage.
-----------
op-ed: Marriage existed long before even the concept of "legal status."
And marriage existed long before the concept of church, too.
Pete: In some cultures, relatives make a public display...
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with anything being discussed.
Catholic doctrine has been used to block church weddings...
More irrelevance.
Op-ed, the "so what?" is a demonstration that laws regarding marriage change.
Again, so what? That doesn't say that any particular change is either inevitable or good. It does highlight the points in marriage that have not changed, but that doesn't go to any point Pete wishes to make.
What was once prohibited is now allowed.
And what was once allowed is now prohibited, consanguine marriage, for example. Yet another completely irrelevant point raised by Pete.
...there are at least five states which prohibited such marriages.
Which means as many as 45 that didn't.
For example: Pennsylvania
The McCains were not married in Pennsylvania.
If you can show me a prominent Democrat who divorced his or her spouse and married his or her affair partner...
Sorry. Sex lives of prominent anybody is Pete's obsession, not mine. Since individuals commonly act improperly, individual actions tend not to prove or disprove any particular public policy.
I think their actions (and their continued prominence in the supposedly conservative party) undermine the idea of traditional marriage.
This sentence was wrong after the first two words. It's also the opposite of what Pete said earlier:
"I'm not arguing that marriages like McCain's point to fundamental flaws in the institution of marriage."
And marriage existed long before the concept of church, too.
Exactly. This, of course, contradicts Pete's earlier claim that marriage was, itself, just a legal status, but as we have already seen, consistency is not a strength of Pete's arguments.
Thanks op-ed for distinguishing a difference between a fertility rite and a marital rite, though I can't help but see that a marital rite being a civilized rational fertility rite though that works.
ReplyDeletePeter, So conservatives cheat with their hearts, and liberals just hook up? Again as we saw with the governor of south carolina and in new york.
ReplyDeleteOp-ed, you continue to twist what I say.
ReplyDeleteI wrote, "as far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal status."
You just wrote that I claimed "that marriage was, itself, just a legal status." I have never made that claim.
You challenged my claim that 100 years ago, John and Cindy McCain would have been barred from marrying in some jurisdictions. I gave you a specific citation, and suddenly, that's not good enough because it wasn't an Arizona law. I never made the claim that they would have been barred from marrying in Arizona.
We're discussing whether or not marriage has been redefined. Marriage used to be a life-long union, and that ideal was reinforced with legal prohibitions and social consequences for those who violated the expectations.
I think it's a big deal that self-confessed adulterers are running for the presidency. As recently as 1988, confirmation of an affair was enough to knock out a leading contender for the Democratic nomination, Gary Hart. Clearly, something has shifted in how Americans think about marriage.
Pete: I wrote, "as far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal status."
ReplyDeleteYou also wrote:
"Do you deny that marriage is a legal status?" [emphasis added]
You challenged my claim that...
No, I asked you to substantiate it so we could discuss it. I also asked you to show how it was relevant to the discussion, which you failed to do.
I gave you a specific citation,---
No, paraphrasing is not "a specific citation."
and suddenly, that's not good enough because it wasn't an Arizona law.
Suddenly? When was it ever "good enough?"
We're discussing whether or not marriage has been redefined.
If so, then the McCains are no example of that since, as you admit, they were never legally barred from marrying in Arizona even if the claims you make about their marriage are true. Again, your reference to the McCains ends up simply showing your obsession with the sex lives of prominent Republicans.
Clearly, something has shifted in how Americans think about marriage.
No. Gary Hart's infidelity continued while on the campaign trail, much like John Edwards's in the most recent election. It was also not "self-confessed." To the contrary Hart challenged the press to catch him, which they did. That is a significant difference to the McCains' wedding which occurred 30 years ago. Old news has much less impact in a campaign, therefore your conclusion that it signals "something has shifted" is, at the very least, unwarranted.
Even if the McCain and Hart situations were similar, it still would not signal some recent shift. Ted Kennedy was reelected multiple times after his own public indiscretion which resulted in the 1969 death of his mistress. Feel free to point out that at least he didn't marry her. Ted Kennedy also ran for U.S. President, by the way.
Shorter Peter:
ReplyDelete"Neutered marriage, because marriage used to mean something virtuous"
I think I need to get out photoshop and work up a poster for this one...
On Lawn, I concur.
ReplyDeleteOr as my three year old would say, 'Awesome!'.
Peter, can you logically defend your implied idea that, because/if our culture has changed somewhat in how it thinks about marriage already, therefore it can change in how it thinks about it even more without any harm as a result? How does this follow?
ReplyDeleteAlso, please explain logically how charges of hypocrisy (against the opponents of an idea) are really relevant to the discussion of whether or not the idea is a good one.
R.K., Attitudes about marriage in the western world have not shifted "somewhat." I'm arguing that a significant, fundamental shift has already happened.
ReplyDeleteNote how Fukuyama describes the process: the redefinition of marriage is the reason that same-sex marriage becomes a possibility. Same-sex marriage isn't causing the redefinition of marriage. Same-sex marriage is the result of the redefinition that has already happened.
I am aware that a great many people think that same-sex marriage will harm marriage. Among them are people I respect. Nonetheless, I have yet to be convinced that allowing same-sex couples to marry will cause harm.
R.K., where on this thread have I raised the hypocrisy charge against those opposed to same-sex marriage?
On Lawn, I'll give you an even shorter version: marriage is already neutered.
Yes, marriage used to mean something. Today, not so much. On that, perhaps, we can agree.
As for assessing Ted Kennedy's character, we can probably agree on that, too.
Peter, to some extent I agree with you. What to do about it is where I guess we disagree. Along with Fukuyama, initially same-sex marriage is a result not a cause of the breakdown/fragility of the family (that article was written in 99'?), not a cause at first. Same-sex marriage though will be/is another factor.
ReplyDeleteWe need to get things back on track.
Baby steps are fine, but our compass is off course.
Pete: ...where on this thread have I raised the hypocrisy charge against those opposed to same-sex marriage?
ReplyDeleteWhen Pete said "I think their actions (and their continued prominence in the supposedly conservative party) undermine the idea of traditional marriage."
Nonetheless, I have yet to be convinced that allowing same-sex couples to marry will cause harm.
Note that Pete doesn't claim he can see, but rather that he can't. He doesn't say he can see that neutering marriage will not harm it, just that he can't see the harm that will result.
Pete's is an argument from ignorance, or what I illustratively call the ostrich argument. Burying one's head in the sand means one can't see the lion, but it doesn't undo the damage the lion is about to do.
...marriage is already neutered.
This, like lying about what he's said, is simply the con-man's game. "Give me that ring you are wearing. Clearly it's a worthless bauble. I am doing you a favor by taking it off your hands." If it's so worthless, why do Pete (and the rest of the marriage neutering crowd) want it so badly?
As for assessing Ted Kennedy's character, we can probably agree on that, too.
Utterly missing the point, per usual. The point is not Ted Kennedy's character. Pete, in his campaign to denigrate and belittle marriage tried to compare two recent events, the implosion of Gary Hart's campaign in 1988 and John McCain's recent failed presidential bid, to argue a recent, dramatic shift in our attitudes about marriage. I simply pointed to an earlier, failed presidential bid to show no such recent shift had occurred.
There is no doubt that marriage in our society needs to be strengthened. Communities that have weaker understandings of marriage fair much worse than communities with stronger attitudes about marriage. This fact alone proves marriage is not yet as worthless as Pete claims. Pete and the rest of the marriage neutering crowd are content to watch communities suffering the effects of poor attitudes about marriage continue to suffer so long as communities who currently have stronger attitudes about marriage join them in their suffering. While misery may love company, that is a poor basis for any public policy.
Peter: R.K., Attitudes about marriage in the western world have not shifted "somewhat." I'm arguing that a significant, fundamental shift has already happened.
ReplyDeleteRegardless. Even if it's a "fundamental" shift, can you logically defend your implied idea that we thus know it can undergo even more of a shift without any harm as a result? How does this follow?
Nonetheless, I have yet to be convinced that allowing same-sex couples to marry will cause harm.
Of course, the assumption that the burden of proof must be on the opponents of the change.
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/jane-galt-a-libertarian-view/
R.K., where on this thread have I raised the hypocrisy charge against those opposed to same-sex marriage?
Then what is your point in raising the issue of Giuliani's or Gingrich's infidelity, and of Republicans marrying their mistresses, as if it was somehow relevant? To show that our ideas of marriage have shifted already? To argue that it's a good thing that it has and that therefore a further massive shift will be even better? If so, you've picked a bad example. So what is the point, relevant to neutering marriage, that you're trying to make in particular with examples of philandering Republicans?
I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof to you, R.K. I realize that I can't prove that there would be no additional harm to society by extending the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples.
ReplyDeleteWhy do I raise the issue of divorce and the marriage of affair partners? I think it represents a significant change in the way we think about marriage.
If I were to decide to divorce my spouse to marry someone with whom I am conducting an affair, the state would allow me to dissolve my marriage. The state's only interest would be in making sure that I contributed to child support.
Under such a system, it seems to me that (as far as the state is concerned) the feelings of adults towards one another are more central to the idea of marriage than the notion that children need mothers and fathers.
I'm not arguing that marriage is worthless. The value in marriage goes beyond the legal rights and responsibilities, of course, and it is largely up to each couple to make their marriage meaningful and valuable. The state, however, offers specific benefits to married couples. The rationale for such privilege was that marriage was the place where children were created and nurtured and raised.
That intent is flouted by those who divorce their spouses to marry their affair partners.
Op-ed, Ted Kennedy's presidential bid was undermined by Chappaquiddick. You may recall that Ted was never nominated.
Of course, the real world rarely offers up direct, clear comparisons. I'd wager that it's still the case that a current affair, revealed during the primary campaign or general election, would eliminate a candidate.
Sure, I'm getting in a little dig with Rudy, John, and Newt, but I'm not claiming that they invalidate opposition to same-sex marriage. For me, their continued prominence in their party indicates a change in values. Given the way they overlooked Clinton's and Kennedy's indiscretions, one wouldn't look to Democrats to gauge the moral climate in this country.
Peter, what harm do you see as happening in the values change you already witness? What harm has happened because of it? What harm would continue to happen, and primarily to whom, if we go even further down that road of infidelity and sexual freedom over responsibility?
ReplyDeleteSecond, I think the fact you are still trying to convince us that marriage has changed, shows that for us and the majorities who've voted to protect marriage, it hasn't changed. Not for the state, not for the people who need marriage to protect their rights and responsibilities, in other words, not for those that care about the virtue that marriage brings.
That intent is flouted by those who divorce their spouses to marry their affair partners.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. And it's a bad thing, and we should not make it any worse.
For me, their continued prominence in their party indicates a change in values. Given the way they overlooked Clinton's and Kennedy's indiscretions, one wouldn't look to Democrats to gauge the moral climate in this country.
Agreed, and it's not a good change in values, and we should not make it any worse.
Your argument is like the person who brings out a gallon of gasoline to throw on a fire, and when someone tries to stop him, says: "But the fire's already burning out of control."
That intent is flouted by those who divorce their spouses to marry their affair partners.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, and this is not a good thing, and I think you agree.
For me, their continued prominence in their party indicates a change in values. Given the way they overlooked Clinton's and Kennedy's indiscretions, one wouldn't look to Democrats to gauge the moral climate in this country.
Agreed, and this is not a good thing, and I think you agree.
Your argument thus is like the guy who brings a gallon of gasoline to pour on a fire, and when someone objects, says "hey, the fire's already spreading anyway".
That intent is flouted by those who divorce their spouses to marry their affair partners.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, and this is not a good thing, and I think you agree.
For me, their continued prominence in their party indicates a change in values. Given the way they overlooked Clinton's and Kennedy's indiscretions, one wouldn't look to Democrats to gauge the moral climate in this country.
Agreed, and this is not a good thing, and I think you agree.
Your argument thus is like the guy who brings a gallon of gasoline to pour on a fire, and when someone objects, says "hey, the fire's already spreading anyway".
Sorry for the double post; my first for some reason didn't show up, and I thought the second didn't either, until I posted a third time.
ReplyDeleteSo what's worse? I abandon my wife and kids to marry a younger woman, or the lesbian couple a block over gets married?
ReplyDeleteFunny, Peter didn't ask "which one is good and which one is bad".
ReplyDeleteLike I said, Peter is showing just how much he thinks about neutered marriage by the associations he's making.
Two people of the same sex can't get 'married', because the whole point of the existence of marriage over the course of humanity is to bring man and woman together in terms procreative aspect of human sexuality, ultimately to be held accountable to off spring.
ReplyDeleteTwo people of the same sex don't have off spring. It's just biological fact, no law can change that. We assume by understanding how a woman gets pregnant (through sex), that sex with a man gets her 'knocked up' bearing a child and she would like some help raising the child. If homosexual acts got individuals pregnant there would be birth control designed for such an ordeal, and the situations would be considered the same, hence equal to one another.
As you noted, the situation with your wife compared to two woman are two different situations and should be acknowledged as so by society and public policy. You shouldn't leave your wife and kids for a younger woman or anyone else, and people in homosexual relationships shouldn't deny the existence that a man has an obligation not to abandon pregnant woman.
Because society doesn't want Peter to leave his wife and kids for a younger woman, we will hold him to a higher obligation to that relationship. For us to hold Peter to that obligation, we have to make distinctions from other types of relationships, even if it means blocking a lesbian couple from using the same term, whatever that term maybe. In this case it's marriage.
ReplyDeleteFrom Howard Law Journal in Fall 2006, Bill Duncan Portraint of a Marriage.
"From page 105/116
“The new kind of civil union exists merely to amplify the self- confidence of the partners. Children, neighbors, community, the world –all such others are strangers to the deal.”47 For instance, mar-riage between a man and a woman has been understood to create obligations to children, because children may result from the marriage, whether as a result of choice or not. The decision to marry creates an obligation to support the children of the marriage, an obligation not contingent on desire. A same-sex partnership cannot create the same obligation because there is no potential for unintentional procreation in that context.
Some of the courts try to compensate for the absence of obligation by invoking concepts like “commitment,”48 but commitment is an awfully diluted substitute for obligation. Commitment and even love are terminable in a way that obligation is not because both are subjective and can, to some degree, be chosen or unchosen. On the other hand, one may ignore an obligation, but cannot will it out of existence. An obligation is objective.""
Sorry for a third post, yeah it completely stinks how people can walk away from marriage. Many people are upset, still many are unwilling to stand up to stop the crap. "Well, if s/he wasn't happy." There are real reasons why a spouse may have to leave (fault), but yeah it's too easy to leave a spouse without any sort of negative consequences or even shame.
ReplyDeleteSo what's worse? I abandon my wife and kids to marry a younger woman, or the lesbian couple a block over gets married?
ReplyDeleteAs bad as the former is, it is ultimately worse for the two lesbians to both be called the "mothers" of a child (and leave the father totally out) than for the younger woman to be called the mother of a child she has actually had with the older man.
R.K. Have you read the blog 'Confessions of a Cryokid. An adult woman looking for her father, when her mother became a single mom by choice?
ReplyDeleteThey're not allow to acknowledge loss, because well it is pushed upon them that there was no father to begin with. While divorce/adultery/abandonment is now easily allowed, for much of society we realize loss for the spouse and children in the relationship.
Back in April of 08's I had this posting regarding a gay man who donated his sperm to a lesbian couple in Ireland being denied any right to his child.
But again here in Massachusetts, egg/sperm donation is common for older infertile couples/homosexuals/singles to harvest sperm/eggs from the local university students. Eugenics on the open market. Babies are products designed for the consumer, not human beings.
Reproductive technology, while a serious issue, is a red-herring in the marriage debate.
ReplyDeleteBanning same-sex marriage does nothing to reduce the current practice of the reproductive technologies that raise these concerns. Whether they can marry or not, lesbian couples will continue to use these reproductive technologies, as will infertile couples and single women.
Pete: Reproductive technology, while a serious issue, is a red-herring in the marriage debate.
ReplyDeleteSo is divorce, Pete. How's that petard working out for you?
"[Upholding the definition of] marriage does nothing to reduce the current practice of [divorces and affairs] that raise these concerns. Whether ['lesbian couples'] can marry or not, ... couples will continue to use [divorce and extra-marital affairs] ..."
Banning same-sex marriage...
More illegitimate rhetoric. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman no more "bans" same-sex marriage than defining the role of a police officer "bans" accountants from policing.
Just another example showing that arguments for neutering marriage depend on false premises.
R.K.: Your argument thus is like the guy who brings a gallon of gasoline to pour on a fire, and when someone objects, says "hey, the fire's already spreading anyway".
ReplyDeleteActually, it's more like bringing a gallon of gasoline to a camp fire. Pete is trying desperately to make the situation with marriage appear much worse than it is so the damage his gallon of gasoline will do seem like it will be less noticeable by comparison. Witness his irrelevant response:
"So what's worse? I abandon my wife and kids to marry a younger woman, or the lesbian couple a block over gets married?"
On Lawn: Peter is showing just how much he thinks about neutered marriage by the associations he's making.
Good point. Neutered marriage activists always compare their proposed change to marriage with broken and dysfunctional marriages today. If that's how they see their own proposed change, I'm not going to argue.
What is meant by "petard"? If you mean what I think you do that's pretty hostile and unworthy of the intellectual's attention.
ReplyDeleteYou guys make great debate here that shouldn't be spoiled with insults because it distracts from your points, which are usually spot on.
sudarta,
ReplyDeleteI never head of that term either, but it's not an insult. I thought it was an insult too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard
"The word remains in modern usage in the phrase hoist with one's own petard, which means "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else" or "to fall into one's own trap", literally implying that one could be lifted up (hoist, or blown upward) by one's own bomb."
Thanks for that clarification Renee. I think it is important for us to approach our adversaries with dignity and respect so that no one confuses which side is right in argument. After all, when you're right you don't need to resort to those sorts of tactics and it only serves to distract.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day as lost as active homosexuals are they are still God's children and worthy of our efforts towards redemption.
Sudarta, what did you "think" it meant?
ReplyDeletefor me, a version of 'retard'.
ReplyDeleteI guess a part of the Great Disruption was a decline of humanities overall, considering the term petard is used in Shakespeare's Hamlet. Never read it.
ReplyDeleteThe Decline of the English Department
Sudarta: What is meant by "petard"?
ReplyDeleteRenee covered that one.
...your points, which are usually spot on.
What do you mean "usually?!?" ;)
Renee: for me, a version of 'retard'.
Certainly offensive, but what would "How's that [retard] working out for you?" even mean?
It doesn't makes sense, but being from the Boston area the 'r' sound is removed commonly so any word just sounds awkward.
ReplyDeleteTry it say... 'pet-AH-d'