Undermining the institution of marriage?

[aldona]

Both the US and Australia at the moment are in the middle of a heated debate on gay marriage/civil unions, and whether these should be legalised and whether they threaten traditional marriage.

I found this gem in the "Letters to the Editor" in today's newspaper. ("The Age", Melbourne, June 9 2006)

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I investigated the reasons 473 married couples gave for separating and divorcing. Most often mentioned: adultery, drugs, alcohol, gambling, exhaustion, poverty, differing career paths, violence, lack of child care and interfering in-laws. "The existence of civil unions for gay couples" was not given in a single case.

Helen Webberley, North Caulfield

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[aldona]

here's another one...this time from the "Sydney Morning Herald"...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

A normal routine, yet apparently destructive

On Monday morning my partner and I went to work, then met some friends to see a movie, ate Thai takeaway while watching Enough Rope, then went to bed. On Tuesday we went to work, met some other friends for dinner, drank a bit too much red wine, then went to bed. On Wednesday morning, work again and tonight we'll probably just watch a bit of TV.

In those three days George Bush, John Howard, Philip Ruddock and the Vatican all announced that recognition of our relationship was a threat to heterosexual marriage and the family itself. And here we were thinking we were just living our lives.

Apologies to those whose marriages and families were destroyed as a result of our actions. We will try to be more careful in the future.

Scott McKinnon, Balmain

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[Clio]

Aldona -

if the institution of marriage can be rendered obsolete as defined by the Creator, then the single most effective allegory for True Jesus relationship to the "called out" Bride is destroyed.

It is the keystone in the wall that the strong delusion possible. Marriage is an example, however imperfect, of the Bride's relationship to Jesus and His to the Father.

[Gail]

I think I need some more clarification...

Does this mean that a gay person in a heterosexual union has not been cited as divorcing in order to gain a gay marriage?

I don't think that's so unusual... I don't know if many gay people these days get themselves into a heterosexual situation, do they? (or bother)

[there buster]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

adultery, drugs, alcohol, gambling, exhaustion, poverty, differing career paths, violence, lack of child care and interfering in-laws. "The existence of civil unions for gay couples" was not given in a single case.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Neither did anyone mention pornography, overwork, differences over finances or child-rearing, lack of communication, selfishness, or even the existence of sin.

Since they weren't mentioned, they must not be factors either.

[olger]

The celebration of gender confusion & homosexuality will most definitely weaken the Biblical ordinance of marriage. Most definitely.

Those who are bound by the cords of sin need the olive branch of forgiveness and the bright promise of a new heart. The new heart will hate the old ways of sin and love righteousness. The spirit leads us to accept God's ways, and turn from man's ways.

God is good,

gcw

[Dr. Shane]

Divorce certainly undermines marriage. I don´t think anyone can argue with that.

Bigomy, the practice of having multiple wives (or husbands) also undermines marriage. We should not allow that.

Incest is also another issue. Brother marrying sister or father marrying daughters. Certainly this is damaging to the family unit and must not be allowed.

Gay marriage is also damaging to the family structure and civil governments are certainly acting within their authority to prohibit it.

[Neil D]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The celebration of gender confusion & homosexuality will most definitely weaken the Biblical ordinance of marriage. Most definitely.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Excuse me....but I don't see a direct corelation here...

I guess that makes me ignorant...Oh well...So please,

Someone explain to me how promising to be faithful to another person is damaging to society in general....

[Neil D]

What?!?!? No educators in this crowd?

Hmmmmmmm.......

[there buster]

Anyone persuaded by such weak reasoning as "it wasn't listed" needs more education than can be efficiently supplied here.

[Bravus]

Perhaps so. But I would argue that the idea that allowing gay marriage in some way damages straight marriage is at least as logically weak. People who identify as gay are not going to (except under duress, and usually with tragic consequences) marry straight people anyway. So the choices we are offering gay people are lifelong celibacy or fornication. Now I can accept the argument that lifelong celibacy is what God requires of gay people, although I'm not convinced (and please don't bother trying to convince me - it's been tried).

But the bottom line is that marriage between men and women is under threat from a very large variety of directions, most of them internal to the participants or endemic to our society. I'm not convinced that gay marriage is one of those pressures. Blaming the gay people is just an easier fix (well, except that it doesn't fix anything) than addressing the underlying problems with marriage in our society.

Can someone lay out a clear, concrete example of the damage done to a straight marriage by the gay married couple down the street?

[Gail]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

People who identify as gay are not going to (except under duress, and usually with tragic consequences) marry straight people anyway.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That was my pondering when I mentioned my puzzlement over the relationship of the divorce results above to gay marriages. To me it seemed like comparing apples and oranges

[there buster]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I'm not convinced (and please don't bother trying to convince me - it's been tried). . . . I'm not convinced that gay marriage is one of those pressures.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Given those two statements, why would anyone attempt the following.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Can someone lay out a clear, concrete example of the damage done to a straight marriage by the gay married couple down the street?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

It's a mark of how far intellectual rigor has fallen to political correctness that anyone couls actually say "gay marriage" with a straight face.

One might as well speak of Ostrich flight.

Pretty much that same question has been asked about cohabitation, social programs for single mothers-- the list is nearly endless. And now, since we've already weakened marriage by these other measures, what difference will it make if we make marriage between

For the honest seeker, the experience of Norway alone should take care of it.

In the 1990, Norway had the lowest rate of out-of-wedlock birth and cohabitation in Scandinavia. In 1993 Norway legalized gay marriage, and both rates shot up. Just one of those inconvenient coincidences, no doubt.

There's plenty of evidence in Scandinavia and the Netherlands.

You claim to be a teacher. Society teaches by what it endorses and what it prohibits. The primary purpose of marriage has always been to provide a stable environment where children can be conceived and reared.

Every variant that does something else confuses the issue and weakens the message.

Yes, marriage is under siege, by those who don't understand its purpose.

[Bravus]

Thanks for soldiering on in the face of my unconvincedness, Ed. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I can still be convinced of the damage done to the institution of marriage by... OK, can't say 'gay marriage'. Two people of the same sex living together in a marriage-like state of cohabitation?

I am a teacher, and I'm also the author of two published books on research methodology. What's one of the first things we learn? Corellation does not establish causality. A correlation between gay marriage in Norway and the increase in divorce and unmarried cohabitation is interesting, and worth further study, but by itself it does not establish that one caused the other. What has happened to the divorce and cohabitation statistics over the same period in countries that did not institute gay marriage? What other factors have occurred in Norwegian society over that period that may have been influential. I know you have a respect for the evidence, Ed, and you have to know that this is not strong evidence.

[Gregory Matthews]

Just tagging on:

Definations:

polyandry: The practice of having multiple husbands at the same time.

polygamy: A system where a person of either gender may have more than one spouse at the same time.

polygyny: The practice of having multiple wives at the same time.

bigamy: The practice of entering into a new mariage while still married to another.

marriage: A social and legal institution between a male and a female for the purpose of initiating a family.

NOTE: I am simply giving some word definations. My personal position is not to be deduced from the above.

The question that society faces today is more than just a question regarding homosexual marriage. It also involves the quesiton of civil unions that are not called marriages, and it involves civil rights.

I so not claim to know how society will go. I guess I will simply have to wait and see.

[Bravus]

I went looking for some better comparisons, and found this article on Slate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2100884

Please note that this is not just a search for evidence that bolsters my argument, and I'm very happy to discuss the evidence on its merits. But it's pretty clear that trends on cohabitation in Norway are in line with those in other European countries, including those that don't recognise gay unions, which strongly suggests that the causes are something else.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Corellation does not establish causality."

The above is one of the most important teachings of statistics. Let me illustrate (with a made-up story:

John Researcher (JR) of Read Better Elementary School (RBE) wanted to contribute to the scientific discussion of reading skills. JR had noted that the children began to improve their reading skills as they increased the size of the large toe on their feet. So, JR developed the idea that the ability to read was directly determined by the size of the child's large toe.

So, JR set out to test his thesis. He went to RBE and involved thier students, from grades one through eight, in a scientific research study. After proper permission from their parents, he measured the size of their big toe. Following this he measured the reading ability of each child.

After the collection of the data, he put it together, and began to study it. He determined that there was a very clear, direct, relationship between the size of the cild's big toe, and the child's reading ability.

JR the wrote up his research, and submitted it for publication in the Journal Of Elementary Reading Skills. The editor rejected the article flat out, and told JR not to submit it again.

Why was that article rejected. The facts were there. You could replicate the study, and obtain the same raw data if you were to do it yourself!

[there buster]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

it involves civil rights

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This is false.

Every one has exactly the same right to get married, regardless of race, ethnicity, or even "sexual orientation."

[Gregory Matthews]

Ed, does marriage bestow certain civil rights upon people that unmarried people do not have?

[there buster]

Actually, no.

A person entering into marriage is treated differently than an unmarried person in some cases, but that doesn't make it a civil rights issue, since people are free to marry or not.

A person who incorporates is treated differently than one who does not. Once again, this is not a civil rights issue.

A pastor or counselor, such as yourself, is treated differently in some cases, but that is not a civil rights issue.

As a licensed teacher, I'm a mandatory reporter. I have both certain privileges and obligations because of that, but it is not a civil rights matter.

Theoretically, civil rights only come into play when a status is granted or denied on the basis of race or religion, for example.

This has been badly distorted by so-called "affirmative action," where preference is based on race, but I'm guessing that's not what you had in mind. On principle, I consider that a violation of civil rights.

Even granting that "sexual orientation" should be included in those categories, it still doesn't make it a civil rights question.

Nothing on the marriage license asks either party about their "sexual orientation."

They have precisely the same right to marrry as anyone else.

[there buster]

I'm quite aware of the difference between correlation and causation.

And I have been following the debate between Kurtz and Eskeridge and Spedale for quite some time.

Your so-called balanced article simply repeats Eskeridge and Spedale's arguments, including some of their misstatements of Kurtz's position, and ignores problems in E&S's manipulation of the data.

Saying you're awaiting "concrete and simple" evidence is disingenuous, since you know that such questions do not lend themselves to concrete and simple answers. It's a good way to appear to be reasonable, without being so.

And when you say you can't be convinced, that tells me volumes. First of all, it's not a statement about either evidence or logic. It is a statement about your will.

So I'd be foolish to spend any time on that.

All this sounds a lot like the argument in the 1970's, that divorce wouldn't hurt children. It all seemed so civil, enlightened, and reasonable. And by the time the data was conclusive, the damage was done. And those determined to remake society in the image of their fantasies moved on. Now we have "gay marriage."

[Gregory Matthews]

O. K. Ed, let us look at it for a moment:

Marriage, in our society today is socially and legally defined as a specific relationship between one male, and one female. We probably all agree to that.

Situation #1:

Now, a male has total freedom (I am assumning a competency, magority, and a few other exceptions.) to marry any female who is willing to marry him. The two get marriad, they jointly purchase a home, and the female dies. The male now becomes sole owner of that home, in a simplified process that costs little.

Now let us change it. Steve and Frank cannot legally get married. However, they have had an unofficial (illegal if you want to say so) relationship that has lated for 20 years. Steve now dies. Yes, it is possible that they could have made it legally possible for Frank to become sole owner of that home. But, that process is legally mroe complcated, and potentially more expensive. Is this a civil right?

Situation # 2:

Ruth and Alice, like Frank and Steve, have had a relatioship for 20 years. Everything that they own is shared property. Ruth becomes sick, is hospitalized, becomes incompetent to make medical decisons. Alice comes asks to make medical decisions for Ruth. But, John, Ruth's former husband also shows up. He claims that he is properly the NOK, and should be allowed to make the medical decisions. It is a civil right that John may have a better chance of making those decisions for Ruth, than does Alice?

Let us change this just a little. Alice shows up with a Medical Power of Attorney dated back in the early stages of her relationship with Ruth. But, so does John. For Ruth to prevail is likely to be time-consumning, and costly. Even if the Medical Power of Attorney were more recent, it could be costly for Ruth.

Is this a civil right?

NOTE: I work in a medical arena where it is not uncommon for an ex-spouse to be determined to hold the decision making power.

What I am saying to you, Ed, is that in my opinion, regardles of one's position on homosexual marriage, there are some civil rights issues. We could go on and on listing examples such as I have given across the spectrum. We might not agree on them. But, I am simply suggesting that people reflect on the civil rights aspects.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Theoretically, civil rights only come into play when a status is granted or denied on the basis of race or religion, for example."

That is a very narrow defination of civil rights.

I will suggest that what you have mentioned is an issue of discrimination.

Civil rights covers, in my mind, a much larger arena. Civil Rights goes into areas where clasic discrimination, as you have mentioned, are not involved.

[bevin]

And a true gem it is to, Aldona.

One of my favorite cartoons shows two Al Queda men saying to each other "I know how we will attack America - lets go to Massachusetts and marry each other!"

Which do you think has done more harm to USA marriages - Mass. Gay Marriage, or the huge number of extremely visible clergy who have been publically caught in adultery?

This issue is just something the clergy and the politicians use to distract the bigotted from the clergy and politicians severe failings.

/Bevin

[there buster]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

What I am saying to you, Ed, is that in my opinion, regardles of one's position on homosexual marriage, there are some civil rights issues. We could go on and on listing examples such as I have given across the spectrum. We might not agree on them. But, I am simply suggesting that people reflect on the civil rights aspects.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

No. Those are not civil rights issues.

I gave you several examples which are similar.

As a pastor, you can take certain deductions that I cannot. You have the right to conduct marriages, which I do not.

Not every difference in status before the law is a civl rights issue.

AFter two full years minimum of debate on this issue in the public, it is a mistake to think I'm unaware of those issues. The point is, they simply are not a matter of civil rights.

Once again, I pointed out a number of different situations in which people have different status before the law, but are not civil rights issues.

In the cases you cited, those individuals have the same rights to marry as anyone else, and they have the same rights to enter into contracts.

Our society gives certain privileges and makes certain requirments to individuals who take on certain responsibilities.

Being a pastor, teacher, doctor, or counselor is one example. Being a veteran is another. Marriage is yet another.

Society has made the judgment that the value to the larger society is such that we grant these individuals certain privileges to compensate them for otherwise uncompensated sacrifices or services.

Another example is say, airline pilots. However, blind people cannot be pilots. Is that a civil rights issue? Or is it because they are unable to fulfill a necessary requirement of being a pilot?

Inherent in marriage is the ability to procreate and provide a stable environment for children.

I'm not surprised that someone like Bravus would reduce marriage to a matter of property rights. That a pastor would do so shocks me.