User Tag List

Page 1 of 7 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 98

Thread: Why marriage matters

  1. #1
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    3,884
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 1,354 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    561195

    Why marriage matters


  2. #2
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    3,884
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 1,354 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    561195
    At the heart of the current debates about same-sex marriage are three crucial questions: What is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what would be the consequences of redefining marriage to exclude sexual complementarity?

    Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children need both a mother and a father. Marriage predates government. It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes. This is why 41 states, with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children. While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing.

    Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not need government sanction or license to do so. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

    In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This reduces marriage to a system to approve emotional bonds or distribute legal privileges.

    Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships is the culmination of this revisionism, and it would leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage apart from other bonds. Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and would deny, as a matter of policy, the ideal that a child needs both a mom and a dad. Decades of social science, including the latest studies using large samples and robust research methods, show that children tend to do best when raised by a mother and a father. The confusion resulting from further delinking childbearing from marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and expand welfare programs. Redefining marriage would legislate a new principle that marriage is whatever emotional bond the government says it is.

    Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage. It rejects the anthropological truth that marriage is based on the complementarity of man and woman, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage to abandon the norm of male–female sexual complementarity would also make other essential characteristics—such as monogamy, exclusivity, and permanency—optional. Marriage cannot do the work that society needs it to do if these norms are further weakened.

    Redefining marriage is also a direct and demonstrable threat to religious freedom because it marginalizes those who affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. This is already evident in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., among other locations.

    Concern for the common good requires protecting and strengthening the marriage culture by promoting the truth about marriage.

    What Is Marriage?

    Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.

    At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed to both the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.

    Marriage connects people and goods that otherwise tend to fragment. It helps to connect sex with love, men with women, sex with babies, and babies with moms and dads.[1]*Social, cultural, and legal signals and pressures can support or detract from the role of marriage in this regard.

    Maggie Gallagher captures this insight with a pithy phrase: “[S]ex makes babies, society needs babies, and children need mothers and fathers.”[2]Connecting sex, babies, and moms and dads is the social function of marriage and helps explain why the government rightly recognizes and addresses this aspect of our social lives. Gallagher develops this idea:

    The critical public or “civil” task of marriage is to regulate sexual relationships between men and women in order to reduce the likelihood that children (and their mothers, and society) will face the burdens of fatherlessness, and increase the likelihood that there will be a next generation that will be raised by their mothers and fathers in one family, where both parents are committed to each other and to their children.[3]

    Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children need a mother and a father.

    Marriage is a uniquely comprehensive union. It involves a union of hearts and minds, but also—and distinctively—a bodily union made possible by sexual complementarity. As the act by which a husband and wife make marital love also makes new life, so marriage itself is inherently extended and enriched by family life and calls for all-encompassing commitment that is permanent and exclusive. In short, marriage unites a man and a woman holistically—emotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forth—for the whole of life.[4]

    Just as the complementarity of a man and a woman is important for the type of union they can form, so too is it important for how they raise children. There is no such thing as “parenting.” There is mothering, and there is fathering, and children do best with both. While men and women are each capable of providing their children with a good upbringing, there are, on average, differences in the ways that mothers and fathers interact with their children and the functional roles that they play.

    Dads play particularly important roles in the formation of both their sons and their daughters. As Rutgers University sociologist David Popenoe explains, “The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.”[5]*Popenoe concludes:

    We should disavow the notion that “mommies can make good daddies,” just as we should disavow the popular notion…that “daddies can make good mommies.”… The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary—culturally and biologically—for the optimal development of a human being.[6]

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to ClimateSanity For Your Post:

    BoyStan (September 10th, 2017)

  4. #3
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    3,884
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 1,354 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    561195
    Marriage as the union of man and woman is true across cultures, religions, and time. The government recognizes but does not create marriage.

    Marriage is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. The government does not create marriage. Marriage is a natural institution that predates government. Society as a whole, not merely any given set of spouses, benefits from marriage. This is because marriage helps to channel procreative love into a stable institution that provides for the orderly bearing and rearing of the next generation.

    This understanding of marriage as the union of man and woman is shared by the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions; by ancient Greek and Roman thinkers untouched by these religions; and by various Enlightenment philosophers. It is affirmed by both common and civil law and by ancient Greek and Roman law. Far from having been intended to exclude same-sex relationships, marriage as the union of husband and wife arose in many places, over several centuries, in which same-sex marriage was nowhere on the radar. Indeed, it arose in cultures that had no concept of sexual orientation and in some that fully accepted homoeroticism and even took it for granted.[7]

    As with other public policy issues, religious voices on marriage should be welcomed in the public square. Yet one need not appeal to distinctively religious arguments to understand why marriage—as a natural institution—is the union of man and woman.

    Marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view of marriage that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs.

    In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view of marriage that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This view reduces marriage primarily to emotional bonds or legal privileges. Redefining marriage represents the culmination of this revisionism and would leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage apart from other bonds.

    However, if marriage were just intense emotional regard, marital norms would make no sense as a principled matter. There is no reason of principle that requires an emotional union to be permanent. Or limited to two persons. Or sexual, much less sexually exclusive (as opposed to “open”). Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands. Couples might live out these norms where temperament or taste motivated them, but there would be no reason of principle for them to do so and no basis for the law to encourage them to do so.

    In other words, if sexual complementarity is optional for marriage, present only where preferred, then almost every other norm that sets marriage apart is optional. Although some supporters of same-sex marriage would disagree, this point can be established by reason and, as documented below, is increasingly confirmed by the rhetoric and arguments used in the campaign to redefine marriage and by the policies that many of its leaders increasingly embrace.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to ClimateSanity For Your Post:

    BoyStan (September 10th, 2017)

  6. #4
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    3,884
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 1,354 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    561195
    Why Marriage Matters for Policy

    Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does.

    Virtually every political community has regulated male–female sexual relationships. This is not because government cares about romance as such. Government recognizes male–female sexual relationships because these alone produce new human beings. For highly dependent infants, there is no path to physical, moral, and cultural maturity—no path to personal responsibility—without a long and delicate process of ongoing care and supervision to which mothers and fathers bring unique gifts. Unless children mature, they never will become healthy, upright, productive members of society. Marriage exists to make men and women responsible to each other and to any children that they might have.

    Marriage is thus a personal relationship that serves a public purpose in a political community. As the late sociologist James Q. Wilson wrote, “Marriage is a socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people to stay together and care for children that the mere desire for children, and the sex that makes children possible, does not solve.”[8]

    Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. Marital breakdown weakens civil society and limited government.

    Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. Government recognition of marriage protects children by incentivizing men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children.

    Social science confirms the importance of marriage for children. According to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every examined indicator when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes do best on educational achievement, emotional health, familial and sexual development, and delinquency and incarceration.[9]

    A study published by the left-leaning research institution Child Trends concluded:

    [I]t is not simply the presence of two parents…but the presence oftwo biological parents*that seems to support children’s development.[10]

    [R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes.… There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents.[11]

    According to another study, “[t]he advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents.”[12]*Recent literature reviews conducted by the Brookings Institution, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, the Center for Law and Social Policy, and the Institute for American Values corroborate the importance of intact households for children.[13]

    These statistics have penetrated American life to such a great extent that even President Barack Obama refers to them as well known:

    We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.[14]

    Fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and children.

    Social science claiming to show that there are “no differences” in outcomes for children raised in same-sex households does not change this reality. In fact, the most recent, sophisticated studies suggest that prior research is inadequate to support the assertion that it makes “no difference” whether a child was raised by same-sex parents.[15]*A survey of 59 of the most prominent studies often cited for this claim shows that they drew primarily from small convenience samples that are not appropriate for generalizations to the whole population.[16]

    Meanwhile, recent studies using rigorous methods and robust samples confirm that children do better when raised by a married mother and father. These include the New Family Structures Study by Professor Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas–Austin*[17]*and a report based on Census data recently released in the highly respected journal*Demography.[18]

    Still, the social science on same-sex parenting is a matter of significant ongoing debate, and it should not dictate choices about marriage. Recent studies using robust methods suggest that there is a lot more to learn about how changing family forms affects children and that social science evidence offers an insufficient basis for redefining marriage.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to ClimateSanity For Your Post:

    BoyStan (September 10th, 2017)

  8. #5
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    3,884
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 1,354 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    561195
    Marital breakdown costs taxpayers.

    Marriage benefits everyone because separating childbearing and childrearing from marriage burdens innocent bystanders: not just children, but the whole community. Often, the community must step in to provide (more or less directly) for their well-being and upbringing. Thus, by encouraging the marriage norms of monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence, the state is strengthening civil society and reducing its own role.

    By recognizing marriage, the government supports economic well-being. The benefits of marriage led Professor W. Bradford Wilcox to summarize a study he led as part of the University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project in this way: “The core message…is that the wealth of nations depends in no small part on the health of the family.”[19]*The same study suggests that marriage and fertility trends “play an underappreciated and important role in fostering long-term economic growth, the viability of the welfare state, the size and quality of the workforce, and the health of large sectors of the modern economy.”[20]

    Given its economic benefits, it is no surprise that the decline of marriage most hurts the least well-off. A leading indicator of whether someone will know poverty or prosperity is whether, growing up, he or she knew the love and security of having a married mother and father. For example, a recent Heritage Foundation report by Robert Rector points out: “Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 82 percent.”[21]

    The erosion of marriage harms not only the immediate victims, but also society as a whole. A Brookings Institution study found that $229 billion in welfare expenditures between 1970 and 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture and the resulting exacerbation of social ills: teen pregnancy, poverty, crime, drug abuse, and health problems.[1]*A 2008 study found that divorce and unwed childbearing cost taxpayers $112 billion each year,[23]*and Utah State University scholar David Schramm has estimated that divorce alone costs local, state, and federal-level government $33 billion each year.[24]

    Civil recognition of the marriage union of a man and a woman serves the ends of limited government more effectively, less intrusively, and at less cost than does picking up the pieces from a shattered marriage culture.

  9. #6
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    3,884
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 1,354 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    561195
    Government can treat people equally—and leave them free to live and love as they choose—without redefining marriage.

    While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing. Adults are free to make choices about their relationships without redefining marriage and do not need government sanction or license to do so.

    Government is not in the business of affirming our love. Rather, it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose. Contrary to what some say, there is no ban on same-sex marriage. Nothing about it is illegal. In all 50 states, two people of the same sex may choose to live together, choose to join a religious community that blesses their relationship, and choose a workplace offering joint benefits. There is nothing illegal about this.

    What is at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages—and then force every citizen, house of worship, and business to do so as well. At issue is whether policy will coerce and compel*others*to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

    Appeals to “marriage equality” are good sloganeering, but they exhibit sloppy reasoning. Every law makes distinctions. Equality before the law protects citizens from*arbitrarydistinctions, from laws that treat them differently*for no good reason. To know whether a law makes the right distinctions—whether the lines it draws are justified—one has to know the public purpose of the law and the nature of the good being advanced or protected.

    If the law recognized same-sex*couplesas spouses, would some argue that it fails to respect the equality of citizens in multiple-partner relationships? Are those inclined to such relationships being treated unjustly when their consensual romantic bonds go unrecognized, their children thereby “stigmatized” and their tax filings unprivileged?

    This is not hypothetical. In 2009,Newsweek*reported that there were over 500,000 polyamorous households in America.[25]*Prominent scholars and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) activists have called for “marriage equality” for multipartner relationships since at least 2006.[26]

    If sexual complementarity is eliminated as an essential characteristic of marriage, then no principle limits civil marriage to monogamous couples.

    Supporters of redefinition use the following analogy: Laws defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman are unjust—fail to treat people equally—exactly like laws that prevented interracial marriage. Yet such appeals beg the question of what is essential to marriage. They assume exactly what is in dispute: that gender is as irrelevant as race in state recognition of marriage. However, race has nothing to with marriage, and racist laws kept the races apart. Marriage has everything to do with men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers and children, and that is why principle-based policy has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

    Marriage must be color-blind, but it cannot be gender-blind. The color of two people’s skin has nothing to do with what kind of marital bond they have. However, the sexual difference between a man and a woman is central to what marriage is. Men and women regardless of their race can unite in marriage, and children regardless of their race need moms and dads. To acknowledge such facts requires an understanding of what, at an essential level, makes a marriage.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to ClimateSanity For Your Post:

    BoyStan (September 10th, 2017)

  11. #7
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    3,884
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 1,354 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    561195
    We reap the civil society benefits of marriage only if policy gets marriage right.

    The state has an interest in marriage and marital norms because they serve the public good by protecting child well-being, civil society, and limited government. Marriage laws work by embodying and promoting a true vision of marriage, which makes sense of those norms as a coherent whole. There is nothing magical about the word “marriage.” It is not just the legal title of marriage that encourages adherence to marital norms.

    What does the work are the social reality of marriage and the intelligibility of its norms. These help to channel behavior. Law affects culture. Culture affects beliefs. Beliefs affect actions. The law teaches, and it will shape not just a handful of marriages, but the public understanding of what marriage is.

    Government promotes marriage to make men and women responsible to each other and to any children they might have. Promoting marital norms serves these same ends. The norms of monogamy and sexual exclusivity encourage childbearing within a context that makes it most likely that children will be raised by their mother and father. These norms also help to ensure shared responsibility and commitment between spouses, provide sufficient attention from both a mother and a father to their children, and avoid the sexual and kinship jealousy that might otherwise be present.

    The norm of permanency ensures that children will at least be cared for by their mother and father until they reach maturity. It also provides kinship structure for interaction across generations as elderly parents are cared for by their adult children and as grandparents help to care for their grandchildren without the complications of fragmented stepfamilies.

    If the law taught a falsehood about marriage, it would make it harder for people to live out the norms of marriage because marital norms make no sense, as matters of principle, if marriage is just intense emotional feeling. No reason of principle requires an emotional union to be permanent or limited to two persons, much less sexually exclusive. Nor should it be inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands. This does not mean that a couple could not decide to live out these norms where temperament or taste so motivated them, just that there is no reason of principle to demand that they do so. Legally enshrining this alternate view of marriage would undermine the norms whose link to the common good is the basis for state recognition of marriage in the first place.

    Insofar as society weakens the rational foundation for marriage norms, fewer people would live them out, and fewer people would reap the benefits of the marriage institution. This would affect not only spouses, but also the well-being of their children. The concern is not so much that a handful of gay or lesbian couples would be raising children, but that it would be very difficult for the law to send a message that*fathers matter*when it has redefined marriage to make*fathers optional.

    This highlights the link between the central questions in this debate: What is marriage, and why does the state promote it? It is not that the stateshould not*achieve its basic purpose while obscuring what marriage is. Rather, it*cannot. Only when policy gets the nature of marriage right can a political community reap the civil society benefits of recognizing it.

    Finally, support for marriage between a man and a woman is no excuse for animus against those with same-sex attractions or for ignoring the needs of individuals who, for whatever reason, may never marry. They are no less worthy than others of concern and respect. Yet this same diligent concern for the common good requires protecting and strengthening the marriage culture by promoting the truth about marriage.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to ClimateSanity For Your Post:

    BoyStan (September 10th, 2017)

  13. #8
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    3,884
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 1,354 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    561195
    The Consequences of Redefining Marriage

    Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers.

    Redefining marriage would further disconnect childbearing from marriage. That would hurt children, especially the most vulnerable. It would deny as a matter of policy the ideal that children need a mother and a father. Traditional marriage laws reinforce the idea that a married mother and father is the most appropriate environment for rearing children, as the best available social science suggests.

    Recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages would legally abolish that ideal. It would deny the significance of both mothering and fathering to children: that boys and girls tend to benefit from fathers and mothers in different ways. Indeed, the law, public schools, and media would teach that mothers and fathers are fully interchangeable and that thinking otherwise is bigoted.

    Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and*biological*children and for men and women to marry before having children. Yet the resulting arrangements—parenting by single parents, divorced parents, remarried parents, cohabiting couples, and fragmented families of any kind—are demonstrably worse for children.[27]*Redefining marriage would destabilize marriage in ways that are known to hurt children.

    Leading LGBT advocates admit that redefining marriage changes its meaning. E. J. Graff celebrates the fact that redefining marriage would change the “institution’s message” so that it would “ever after stand for sexual choice, for cutting the link between sex and diapers.” Enacting same-sex marriage, she argues, “does more than just fit; it announces that marriage has changed shape.”[28]*Andrew Sullivan says that marriage has become “primarily a way in which two adults affirm their emotional commitment to one another.”[29]

    Government exists to create the conditions under which individuals and freely formed communities can thrive. The most important free community—the one on which all others depend—is the marriage-based family. The conditions for its thriving include the accommodations and pressures that marriage law provides for couples to stay together. Redefining marriage would further erode marital norms, thrusting government further into leading roles for which it is poorly suited: parent and discipliner to the orphaned; provider to the neglected; and arbiter of disputes over custody, paternity, and visitation. As the family weakened, welfare programs and correctional bureaucracies would grow.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to ClimateSanity For Your Post:

    BoyStan (September 10th, 2017)

  15. #9
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    3,884
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 1,354 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    561195
    Redefining marriage would put into the law the new principle that marriage is whatever emotional bond the government says it is.

    Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage. It rejects the truth that marriage is based on the complementarity of man and woman, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children need a mother and a father.

    Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships is not ultimately about expanding the pool of people who are eligible to marry. Redefining marriage is about cementing a new idea of marriage in the law—an idea whose baleful effects conservatives have fought for years. The idea that romantic-emotional union is all that makes a marriage cannot explain or support the stabilizing norms that make marriage fitting for family life. It can only undermine those norms.

    Indeed, that undermining already has begun. Disastrous policies such as “no-fault” divorce were also motivated by the idea that a marriage is made by romantic attachment and satisfaction—and comes undone when these fade. Same-sex marriage would require a more formal and final redefinition of marriage as simple romantic companionship, obliterating the meaning that the marriage movement had sought to restore to the institution.

    Redefining marriage would weaken monogamy, exclusivity, and permanency—the norms through which marriage benefits society.

    Government needs to get marriage policy right because it shapes the norms associated with this most fundamental relationship. Redefining marriage would abandon the norm of male–female sexual complementarity as an essential characteristic of marriage. Making that optional would also make other essential characteristics of marriage—such as monogamy, exclusivity, and permanency—optional.[30]*Weakening marital norms and severing the connection of marriage with responsible procreation are the admitted goals of many prominent advocates of redefining marriage.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to ClimateSanity For Your Post:

    BoyStan (September 10th, 2017)

  17. #10
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    3,884
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 1,354 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    561195
    The Norm of Monogamy.*New York University Professor Judith Stacey has expressed hope that redefining marriage would give marriage “varied, creative, and adaptive contours,” leading some to “question the dyadic limitations of Western marriage and seek…small group marriages.”[31]*In their statement “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” more than 300 “LGBT and allied” scholars and advocates call for legally recognizing sexual relationships involving more than two partners.[32]

    University of Calgary Professor Elizabeth Brake thinks that justice requires using legal recognition to “denormalize[] heterosexual monogamy as a way of life” and “rectif[y] past discrimination against homosexuals, bisexuals, polygamists, and care networks.” She supports “minimal marriage,” in which “individuals can have legal marital relationships with more than one person, reciprocally or asymmetrically, themselves determining the sex and number of parties, the type of relationship involved, and which rights and responsibilities to exchange with each.”[33]

    In 2009,*Newsweek*reported that the United States already had over 500,000 polyamorous households.[34]The author concluded:

    [P]erhaps the practice is more natural than we think: a response to the challenges of monogamous relationships, whose shortcomings…are clear. Everyone in a relationship wrestles at some point with an eternal question: can one person really satisfy every need? Polyamorists think the answer is obvious—and that it’s only a matter of time before the monogamous world sees there’s more than one way to live and love.[35]

    A 2012 article in*New York Magazineintroduced Americans to “throuple,” a new term akin to a “couple,” but with three people whose “throuplehood is more or less a permanent domestic arrangement. The three men work together, raise dogs together, sleep together, miss one another, collect art together, travel together, bring each other glasses of water, and, in general, exemplify a modern, adult relationship. Except that there are three of them.”[36]

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to ClimateSanity For Your Post:

    BoyStan (September 10th, 2017)

  19. #11
    LIFETIME MEMBER aCultureWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    14,671
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 1,202 Times in 1,034 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    618862
    On Obergefell vs Hodges:



    I guess marriage doesn't matter to Donald Trump (being that he's had 3, I can see why he doesn't care if homosexuals share the same institution as heterosexuals).
    Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?
    Galatians 4:16

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to aCultureWarrior For Your Post:

    Rusha (June 29th, 2017)

  21. #12
    Black Rifles Matter Nick M's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    16,831
    Thanks
    648
    Thanked 8,741 Times in 5,955 Posts

    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147789
    Which is why "gay marriage", because calling it slavery did not stick.
    Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Titus 1

    For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

    Ephesians 5

    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nick M For Your Post:

    ClimateSanity (June 28th, 2017),Tambora (July 1st, 2017)

  23. #13
    Over 1000 post club The Horn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New Rochelle,NY.
    Posts
    1,113
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 203 Times in 148 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    112151
    This is nothing but a tired rehashing of all the specious arguments against same sex marriage . There is not one shred of evidence that being raised by gay parents is in any way harmful to children, as long as they are good parents, which most are . Or that it puts them at risk of being molested or "becoming gay .' after all, most gay people had straight parents , and kids raised by gay parents have for the most part turned out to be heterosexual .
    Gay marriage does not interfere with heterosexual marriage in any way , does not violate anyone's rights, and does not stop heterosexual couples from getting married and having children .
    So many children have been sexually abused by their heterosexual parents . So the chances of being sexually abused by gay parents is no greater .
    Long ago, so many white people, particularly in the south, were horrified by the idea of allowing black people to vote . This was against God's will to them, and a terrible sin . It was the same with the question of allowing women to vote .
    But did all t his interfere with the voting rights of white males ? Hardly .
    If you don't like same sex marriage , don't marry someone of the same sex . Nobody is forcing you to do this .

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to The Horn For Your Post:

    eider (July 2nd, 2017),Rusha (June 30th, 2017)

  25. #14
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    3,884
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 1,354 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    561195
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horn View Post
    This is nothing but a tired rehashing of all the specious arguments against same sex marriage . There is not one shred of evidence that being raised by gay parents is in any way harmful to children, as long as they are good parents, which most are . Or that it puts them at risk of being molested or "becoming gay .' after all, most gay people had straight parents , and kids raised by gay parents have for the most part turned out to be heterosexual .
    Gay marriage does not interfere with heterosexual marriage in any way , does not violate anyone's rights, and does not stop heterosexual couples from getting married and having children .
    So many children have been sexually abused by their heterosexual parents . So the chances of being sexually abused by gay parents is no greater .
    Long ago, so many white people, particularly in the south, were horrified by the idea of allowing black people to vote . This was against God's will to them, and a terrible sin . It was the same with the question of allowing women to vote .
    But did all t his interfere with the voting rights of white males ? Hardly .
    If you don't like same sex marriage , don't marry someone of the same sex . Nobody is forcing you to do this .
    You don't understand how beneficial traditional marriage is to society do you? You don't realize how damaging to society it is when traditional marriage is weak in society and it's numbers decline? Do you?

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to ClimateSanity For Your Post:

    glassjester (June 30th, 2017)

  27. #15
    Over 4000 post club glassjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,600
    Thanks
    536
    Thanked 1,215 Times in 959 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    262395
    Quote Originally Posted by ClimateSanity View Post
    You don't understand how beneficial traditional marriage is to society do you?
    Absolutely essential. Just look at what fatherlessness has done to inner cities.
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to glassjester For Your Post:

    ClimateSanity (June 30th, 2017),JudgeRightly (July 5th, 2017),Tambora (July 1st, 2017)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us