Undermining the institution of marriage?

[Bravus]

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

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

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

I didn't suggest that you weren't, I just restated the principle as part of the discussion, and since it seemed at least that you were making the case that the correlation in Norway implied causation. If you weren't, fair enough.

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

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.

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

I don't think I claimed that that article was balanced. I know it wasn't - it was written by an (I assume) gay researcher who has written on gay issues, and comes from a particular perspective. I felt it provided a broader consideration of the issues, and answered some of the questions I had posed in my previous post.

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

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.

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

Then give me concrete and complex evidence. But don't claim that the Norway case is all the evidence required for 'honest seekers', because it's clearly not. I am willing to look at the evidence, but I'm not seeing it.

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

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.

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

I didn't say I can't be convinced, I said it's not worth trying in this thread. I had two reasons for making that statement - first, it's off topic for the thread, and second, the kind of evidence that is relevant to making that case (what God requires of homosexual people) is Scriptural evidence, and we're starting (as we've seen in a number of discussions) from different basic premises when we discuss Scripture.

I said I *can* be convinced about the damage to marriage by recognising same-sex relationships, but remain to be and would like to see evidence. That evidence should be empirical, rather than just opinion. I tried to bring some empirical evidence - if there are problems with it, please point them out. Not on the basis of authority, but on the basis of what the stats actually say.

So I don't want it to be a fight and a tit-for-tat: if what I wrote sounded condescending, I apologise, because it wasn't meant to. I'm asking for good quality evidence, from whatever source. I'd be very interested, for example, to see whether Kurtz has rebutted those claims, and has looked at other variables and at comparable countries.

[there buster]

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

That is a very narrow defination (sic) of civil rights.

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

If it were a civil rights issue, it would involve the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That may be a narrow definition, but it is in fact the definition.

Not every difference in treatment is a matter of civil rights, as I have demonstrated.

[there buster]

Here's a part of the discussion by Kurtz

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

Against Marriage

The most revealing thing about Eskridge's paper is that it goes beyond a mere defense of registered partnerships to offer a full-throated endorsement of Swedish parental cohabitation. Having a Swedish government official as a coauthor emphasizes the point.

But Eskridge goes further and criticizes me for treating Sweden's 56-percent out-of-wedlock birthrate as a problem. "[Kurtz] uses the term 'out-of-wedlock births' in a consistently disparaging manner," complains Eskridge. This, says Eskridge, means "fetishizing one institution" (i.e. marriage), at the expense of the perfectly legitimate Swedish practice of parental cohabitation. Is there anything wrong with the fact that so many Swedish children are raised by unmarried couples? "Of course not," says Eskridge.

Eskridge defends Swedish parental cohabitation by pointing to a study that found Swedish children suffering when raised by a lone parent, but doing better when raised by either married or cohabiting parents. Eskridge neglects to mention that this equivalence between married and cohabiting parents applies only as long as the couples stay together. But cohabiting parents break up at two to three times the rate of married parents, which in the long run means more kids raised by lone parents. This problem of family instability is my main complaint about parental cohabitation. Yet Eskridge doesn't refute the point; he ignores it.

So while Eskridge offers a passing good word for marriage, he is actually deeply hostile to the idea of marriage as the preferred setting for parenthood. Eskridge endorses a Swedish system that has effaced virtually every legal distinction between marriage and cohabitation. Sweden is actually the model for America's most radical anti-marriage activists. So the "conservative case" for gay marriage is looking awfully dead right now.

Misrepresentations

Having ignored my critique of parental cohabitation, Eskridge goes on to egregiously misrepresent my causal framework. Eskridge claims that I consider Sweden the best and clearest example of the negative effect of same-sex marriage. False. Norway is the clearest Scandinavian example of the negative effects of same-sex partnerships (as I've repeatedly noted), and the Netherlands is the most important European example.

Eskridge goes into high dudgeon over my supposed inability to acknowledge that many factors contributed to martial decline in Sweden, well before registered partnerships were introduced in 1994. Yet I've repeatedly noted the importance of multiple causal factors and pre-existing marital decline. That's exactly why I concentrate on Norway and the Netherlands rather than Sweden and Denmark. Gay marriage had more effect on Norway and the Netherlands because there was "more marriage" left to undermine when gay marriage came around than in either Sweden or Denmark. There's no way Eskridge can even claim to refute me without looking at Norway and the Netherlands. Yet he spends all his time on the two countries where marriage had declined the furthest even before gay marriage was introduced (while pretending I don't understand that point).

(emphasis mine)

Does this mean same-sex partnerships did nothing to contribute to Swedish marital decline? Not on your life. In "The Marriage Mentality" I showed how same-sex partnerships are pushing Sweden toward recognition of triple and quadruple parenting. And in "Fanatical Swedish Feminists," I showed how Sweden's same-sex partnerships have opened the way for a drive to abolish marriage and recognize polyamory. Eskridge talks about "nordic bliss." Read "Fanatical Swedish Feminists" and you'll see a nordic nightmare. When it comes to "slippery slope" issues, the impact of same-sex partnerships on Sweden is quite strong.

But that's not all. The Swedish out-of-wedlock birthrate continued to rise after passage of registered partnerships in 1994, and there's good reason to view registered partnerships as a contributing factor in that rise. As we saw in "Fanatical Swedish Feminists," Swedish legislation removing the final remaining differences between registered partnerships and marriage (e.g., the right to state-funded artificial insemination), made a point of treating marriage, registered partnerships, and mere cohabitation alike. So instead of highlighting marriage's privileged status as a site for parenthood, partnership legislation is communicating the message that marriage is no different from cohabitation.

The Very Beginning

That message is not new. On the contrary, it goes back to 1987, when Sweden adopted the world's first same-sex partnership legislation. And this points to perhaps the greatest weakness in Eskridge's argument. If we take into consideration only the time after the 1994 passage of Swedish registered partnerships, then the negative effect on marriage is real but limited. That's why it makes sense to turn to Norway and the Netherlands for a clearer shot at isolating the causal effect. Yet there's also a very strong case for counting from 1987, when Sweden passed its first same-sex partnership legislation. And if we count from 1987, Eskridge's already misleading statistical argument collapses completely, since Swedish marriage has weakened substantially since 1987.

This may be why Eskridge has so little to say about the Homosexual Cohabitation Act of 1987. Remarkably, nowhere in the body of his extensive account of Swedish same-sex partnership legislation does Eskridge devote more than a passing line or two to the historic 1987 law that actually kicked off the world-wide drive for same-sex marriage. Instead, he shuffles the issue off into a footnote. There Eskridge argues that Sweden's historic 1987 same-sex partnership legislation was too unlike marriage to have any significant effect on the cultural meaning of marriage itself.

This is wrong. Eskridge lightly glosses over the fact that the Homosexual Cohabitation Act of 1987 was directly tied to a major legislative equalization of heterosexual cohabitation and marriage. In 1987, Sweden extended most of the protections of marriage to cohabiting heterosexual couples, going much further in equalizing marriage and cohabitation than ever before. And the historic Homosexual Cohabitation Act of 1987 was essentially an extension to same-sex couples of the newly liberalized law for heterosexuals.

So the most radical equalization of marriage and cohabitation in Swedish history was directly connected to the first same-sex partnership legislation in world history. The cultural message is clear: Marriage is little different from either heterosexual or homosexual cohabitation. So, contrary to Eskridge, the Homosexual Cohabitation Act of 1987 was a major expression of Sweden's cultural separation of marriage and parenthood. In both a literal-legal and a metaphorical sense, the first gay partnership law was tied to a radically skeptical attitude toward marriage as the preferred site for parenthood.

Eskridge readily admits that Sweden's liberalized heterosexual cohabitation laws helped bring about same-sex partnership legislation. But how could that causal connection be real without also working in reverse? If same-sex partnerships flow from the idea that heterosexual marriage and cohabitation are essentially the same, then same-sex partnerships themselves must lock-in and reinforce that very way of thinking. That it why it is perfectly fair to see same-sex partnerships as one of several factors contributing to Swedish marital decline from 1987 on.

First Cause

Historically, that first 1987 law was deeply connected to the registered partnership legislation that followed. A minority on the Swedish commission that recommended that first same-sex partnership law wanted to adopt full-fledged gay marriage. The ultimate goal was clear from the start. It was only political prudence that limited that first move. But when the first Swedish same-sex partnership law took effect in January of 1988, it created political momentum in nearby Denmark. So in that very same month, January 1988, Denmark put a proposal for registered partnerships before Parliament, which passed in 1989. After Norway followed suit in 1993, Sweden came on board with full-fledge registered partnerships in 1994. Obviously, the whole process was a tightly connected chain of events set off by Sweden's initial partnership plan in 1987. This continuous history, and the powerful symbolic impact of Sweden's world's-first innovation in 1987, strongly suggests that we can legitimately begin "counting" the effect of same-sex partnerships on Swedish marriage from 1987.

And if we count from 1987, rather than 1994, the negative effect on marriage is obviously substantial. That would put paid to nearly every one of Eskridge's statistical arguments, which may be why he buried his discussion of the 1987 law in a brief, unconvincing footnote. Yes, Swedish marriage began weakening well before 1987, as I myself have noted repeatedly. And gay marriage is simply one of a series of mutually reinforcing causes that tend to weaken marriage. But same-sex partnerships are part of the causal mix. And there's no doubt that Sweden's out-of-wedlock birthrate has increased substantially since 1987. Sweden's marriage rate has also declined significantly since then, and its divorce rate has substantially increased.

Actually, Swedish marriage is markedly weaker than current marriage or divorce rates indicate. Since my first piece on Scandinavia, I've explained how misleading Scandinavian marriage statistics now are. Slight decreases in Scandinavian divorce rates do not indicate greater family stability. Instead they reflect the fact that the pool of married people has been shrinking for years. With fewer married couples, there is a smaller pool of potential divorcees. And now, instead of formal divorce alone, we get the unrecorded de facto divorces that come when the growing number of Scandinavia's cohabiting parents break up (at two to three times the rate of married parents). Eskridge continues to ignore these arguments. But even without them, the decline in Swedish marriage since 1987 is obvious.

Catching Up

Eskridge makes much of a slight recent uptick in marriage rates across Scandinavia. For example, the Swedish marriage rate rose from 425 (per 100,000) in 2002 to 435 in 2003. But both rates were well below 1987's 490 or 1988's 523. How does Kurtz explain this recent marriage "resurgence?" Eskridge urgently demands. Eskridge knows perfectly well what my explanation is (since I've offered it repeatedly). He just doesn't want to comment on it.

Scandinavian demographers agree that the slight recent uptick in marriage rates across Scandinavia does not contradict the general picture of martial decline. Instead it reflects "catching up" by older Scandinavians who'd postponed marriage and childbearing for years, as well as remarriage among the large pool of divorced. This slight uptick in marriage and childbearing among over-30's disguises rising parental cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth rates among younger Scandinavians. In Sweden, and especially Norway, growing out-of-wedlock birthrates make the overall trend toward marital decline clear.

Only in Denmark has "catching up" by older couples been enough to largely offset and disguise growing parental cohabitation among the young. This reflects two recent public policy changes. Denmark massively expanded its day care system in the 1990s, and rates of day care use therefore rose more sharply in Denmark during the 1990s than in Sweden or Norway. Historically, Denmark (where nearly all women work, and "housewives" are virtually unknown) has had much more limited parental-leave policies than other Scandinavian countries. That, too, changed in the 1990s, when for the first time Danes were granted up to 52 weeks of parental leave for each child.

The combination of this increase in both day care and parental leave unleashed pent-up demand for parenting among Denmark's older working women. That pushed fertility up (likely, only temporarily), which in turn meant more marriages among Danes over 30. (Although even many of these older Danes become parents without marrying.) In 2003, the average Danish woman giving birth for the first time was 30.1 years old.

Causes

Although I'm focusing on the causal issue, it's worth noting that Eskridge egregiously caricatures my views on cohabitation and divorce, claiming that I favor any and all family liberalizations, except same-sex marriage. Eskridge's caricature is easily refuted by my NRO essay, "Strange Bedfellows."

By connecting the world's first same-sex partnerships with a radical equalization of heterosexual marriage and cohabitation in 1987, Sweden introduced same-sex unions as a new factor reinforcing an already existing pattern of marital decline. But if you want to see the causal force of same-sex partnerships disentangled from other factors, look to the Netherlands. In Holland, unlike Scandinavia, there was little or no pre-existing practice of parental cohabitation when same-sex partnerships were introduced. So the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate accelerated at double-speed under the impact of the change. The Dutch case is like a natural laboratory that allows us to isolate the causal effect that began in Sweden in 1987. (For details, see "No Explanation," "Dutch Debate" and "Standing Out".)

So Scandinavia leads the world in parental cohabitation and the legal equalization of cohabitation and marriage. Amazingly, even as he claims to defend marriage, Eskridge actually endorses this system. Meanwhile, Sweden has seen the birth of a political drive to abolish marriage and recognize polyamory. That doesn't look like "nordic bliss" to me. Also, Eskridge has absolutely nothing to say about the continued decline of marriage in Norway, the actual center of my Scandinavian case. And today we've learned that the effect of introducing same-sex partnerships to Sweden in 1987 unravels Eskridge's already weak statistical case there. Combine these Scandinavian examples with the Dutch experience, and it's clear that gay marriage weakens marriage itself.

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

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "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."

Ed, thanks for putting it that way. This allows me to clairfy something.

I have not posted in this thread a comment on the marriage issue. I have asked you, as I ask others, who plan to vote against homosexual marriage, if you see civil rights issues that should be addressed--perhaps in another form than in marriage.

You, as I understand you, have made your position clear. You are against homosexual marriage, and you appear to me to be against any form of law that would address what I call a civil rights issue outside of marriage.

I can respect that position. Although it is not mine. I will state that I believe that there are civil rights issues that need to be addressed, and that may be addressed outside of marriage.

However, as I look at the political and social scene in the United States, I believe that those who take the position that you appear to take, that does not allow for laws which address certain civil rights, will, in some places, cause laws that allow homosexual marriages to take place.

I live in a State that expects to have at least three different measures on the ballot this November, that address this issue in contrasting ways. I believe that it is the opposition of those who do not want these civil rights issues to be addressed by law that will tip the vote toward a major law that grants such. I have not come to the place where I think that homosexual marriage will be allowed. But, I think that this oposition will be very powerful in influencing people for vote for such civil rights. In any case, on both sides, are raising millions.

As to what pastors/Christians, etc. do when it comes to a civil vote, that is not as simply answered as you have made it.

I can on the basis of my Biblical understanding take a firm position. But, do I then attempt to force that position on the public at large through law? Some will say yes, and some will say no. There may be times when I will do each, depending on other factors.

So, should you be surprised if my vote does not always match my Biblical positions on that subject? I think not.

In any case, it seems tome that you have misunderstood where I am. I thank you for bringing it up, as you are probably not alone in this, and they can benefit from this discussion.

As you may suspect, I posted as I did as I expected that you and I would probably engage in a civil discussion over this, that might be of interest to some others.

Peace,

Gregory Matthews

[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">

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

Excuse me....but I don't see a direct corelation here...Someone explain to me how promising to be faithful to another person is damaging to society in general....

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

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

Ed Dickerson said:

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

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

I am willing to be taught by multiple individuals if you are not inclined to teach...And anytime I am here, is time well spent in learning and for the individual teaching, time honing teaching skills.... <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/mittelgr124.gif" alt="" />

Never the less, I still do not see a direct correlation between same sex couple who are committed to each other as

daming the Biblical ordinance of marriage.

You are the teacher...I am a willing student. If you are willing to put up with questions, and for the amount of time you spend in here, Ed, are you willing to do more than just poo-hoo opinions?....

[there buster]

The problem, Gregory, is that "civil rights" has a meaning. It is not infinitely elastic.

Your examples are simply not civil rights issues.

Steve and Frank's home ownership could have been resolved with something as simple and inexpensive as a will. Clearly this is not a civil rights issue. It's a probate issue.

The other one, about making medical decisions for a person no longer competent, is not a civil rights issue either.

In neither case was anyone denied anything because of race, religion, or even "sexual orientation." They did not enter into a specific legal agreement, that is, marriage, nor were they eligible to do so.

None of this has the least implications for constitutional law.

No one said, "Steve, you can't marry Frank because you are homosexual." Nor that Ruth couldn't marry Alice because they were lesbians.

You simply can't turn every legal difference into "civil rights."

Suppose Francine marries Steve. They have a child, Glenda. Steve dies and Francine marries Johnny (who knew? Franky and Johnny were lovers!). When Francine dies intestate, Johnny gets everything. Glenda gets nothing. Glenda cannot go to the Civil Rights commission and hope for redress. She has go to probate. Depending on what Steve brought to the marriage and other issues, probate might get Glenda something.

She might find a lawyer who would (for a handsome fee) appeal her case as far as it would go. But, lacking some other issue, the Supreme Court would refuse to review it. She would have no standing. It's simply not a civil rights issue.

Both of your cases involve either property rights, inheritance, power of attorney, or probate. These are simply not civil rights issues.

Now, if the state or the courts refused to hear Glenda's suit because she was a woman, she would have cause for a civil rights complaint. But that's not the reason she didn't inherit. It had nothing to do wither race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. It had to do with her legal relationship to the other party.

There will likely be increasing pressure to create these legal relationships. Depending on how they are structured and named, I could support some and reject others. You can call them civil rights issues all you want to, it won't change the facts. They simply are not civil rights cases.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "There will likely be increasing pressure to create these legal relationships. Depending on how they are structured and named, I could support some and reject others. You can call them civil rights issues all you want to, it won't change the facts. They simply are not civil rights cases."

Ah, Ed, The above is an interesting statement. You tell us that you could support some type of a legal relationship. That is my major point. You and I might not agree on all of the specific, and we might not agree as to whether or nto every suggested legal relationship should be supported. Perhaps you would want to support more types than I, or perhaps I would want to support more types than you? I do not know. But, we appear to agree that some sypes should be supported. That is simply my major point.

You continue to bring up the marriage issue. I will say again that I have never stated that marriage is the answer. I have stated that I beleive that the rigid stances of some who fail to see that there are legal issues that should be addressed (You appear now to take a less rigid position than I once thought.) will push marriage to the forfront, and perhaps bring this about as the answer in some places. In any case, don't paint me into a corner (posiiton) that I have not stated.

Again, I thank you for this civil discussion on a subject that is very emotionally loaded. I figured that we could have such, and thought it might stimiluate some discussion that would be helpful.

As to what are civil right, and what are not, we shall simply continue to disagree. It may be that my examples are poorly chosen. I will not argue that point. In any case, it appears that we disagree on this issue.

[Bravus]

Despite Ed's casual slander, I don't reduce marriage to property rights. I'm not even exercised all that much about property rights. I do see his apparent reduction of marriage to a child making-and-rearing institution *as it's primary and perhaps only purpose* as a reduction: if that were the case it would be perfectly legitimate for marriages to fall apart after the kids leave home. Marriages are also about the lifelong partnership, love and commitment of a couple to one another, and as Clio has pointed out, marriage is also an important symbol of Christ's relationship with the church.

The Scandinavian cases basically show that in societies that don't think marriage is important, people tend not to think marriage is important (and of course, societies are made up of people in the first place). So there's a complex of things that are tending to lead toward more cohabitation and less marriage, and on the balance of all the evidence I see gay partnerships as one factor among that complex set of factors, rather than as the cause. It could be considered another symptom of a particular set of attitudes to marriage, rather than their cause.

The bottom line remains, for me, that the advocates of marriage (of whom I am absolutely one) need to make the positive case for the benefits of marriage, and need to show by example why marriage is the best environment for loving one another and for raising children. I'd be very interested to see the statistical trends in the US on marriage versus cohabitation, and on children born out of wedlock, across the same period as has been studied for Scandinavia... is the strong advocacy for marriage actually making a positive difference?

I'm a straight man, blissfully married to the same woman for almost 20 years, with two children, and I talk about how great that is, and how I believe it is God's ideal for everyone, all the time. I also have a number of gay friends who are in long term, committed, loving relationships that give their lives some of the peace, love and meaning I find in my marriage. I'm *also* one of perhaps two people out of my high school class (at an Adventist school) who is still married...

I said it before - there's lots of hard work to be done in rehabilitating and expanding marriage. Particularly because the next generation will, to a huge extent, be the product of broken marriages (my daughters tell me they are in the tiny minority in their schools in having their parents still married). But that work has to be done by the married, and the prospectively married. Keeping gay people out in the cold may help to avoid one more minor message about the nature of marriage, but it's essentially peripheral and irrelevant to the main work of building up marriage. That's done by example as well as by instruction, and by making shure that our *own* marriages are as loving, faithful and joyful as they can be. It's also (IMO) about living in love rather than in fear or dislike of those who are different.

[there buster]

The fact is, many of the issues you cited can be taken care of now, with durable powers of attorney as just one example.

The reason I "keep bringing up the marriage issue" is because that's the topic here.

My point is not to "reduce marriage to bearing children," but to indicate it is a primary part.

And by pointing out that these property and other concerns can be handled by other means, I simply highlight the real issue behind "gay marriage."

Marriage has always been a complex institution involving several aspects, childbearing and the regulation of sexual behavior among them. It does not follow that any of these aspects can be removed and marriage remain intact.

For a long time, people have thrown rice at newlyweds, or engaged in some other fertility ritual, recognizing marriage's central--but not sole-- function. Marriage also serves as the acceptable place for sexual expression. For example, if a marriage is not consummated, it can be annulled.

That, in the end, is what the gay marriage debate is all about. Whether or not society will place its stamp of approval on "gay consummation." All of the other issues have legal remedies already, if people choose to avail themsleves of those remedies. And if they were truly the central concern, we would see all sorts of living trusts and durable powers of attorney and other innovative legal arrangements. We're not, because it's not about that. It's about recognition and acceptance of homosexuality.

Now, I'm not one of those people who think that fire and brimstone will rain down if we recognize that status. I DO think it won't be necessary, as the nuclear family is the foundation of a healthy society, and every time we give social approval to another arrangement, cohabitation or what ever, we weaken marriage.

ANd the question about "how does a gay couple weaken my marriage" misses the point. It's how it weakens marriage for tne NEXT generation. They already see it being devalued in plenty of ways.

I have two daughters getting married this year, one next week. From their perspective the pool of eligible people is pretty thin. It's them, and my grandchildren, I'm concerned for.

Bravus, I did not slander you. I may have misunderstood your position, but I did not say anything about your intelligence, intentions, or character.

I only indicated that reducing marriage to property rights appears to fit in with your other beliefs.

[olger]

I appreciate your thoughts here, brother Ed. I agree with you.

I just returned from a two week trip to Norway, where I was one of two speakers at a marriage conference in Oslo. We had 24-counseling cases after the meetings.

These people are dear people with a lot of potential, and in some cases, a lot of damage from liberal idealogy. In the case of moral failure (including homosexuality) when the civil culture blesses sin, we end up with a modern Diana worship minus the temple. The cost can be counted in the hundreds (and thousands) of damaged and defeated lives.

Bravus & Gregory: My dear brothers, I doubt very much if Paul would have wasted a moment on civil issues that were clearly in defiance of God's written will.

Warm regards,

gcw

[aldona]

And somehow I can't picture the early Christians getting heated up and lobbying the ancient Greek and Roman governments about the widespread acceptance of homosexual activity in those nations...

Instead, they focused on strengthening and improving relations between husband and wife in order to uphold the institution of marriage. (look at all the commands in the NT about how husbands and wives should relate to one another.)

I had a look in the local newspaper a few days ago. In the "lonely hearts" column, I was amazed at the number of ads from people looking for partners which started with the word "married". (as in "married but bored," "married but looking for discreet daytime relationship," etc.)

I'll believe that the religious fundamentalists are serious about upholding the sanctity of marriage when they get as publicly "heated up" about this issue as they do about the issue of legally recognized gay partnerships.

aldona

[there buster]

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

strong advocacy for marriage

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

That's got to be a joke.

Nearly everything in our major media have been debunking the nuclear family for nearly thirty years.

Adultery is glorified as love, marriage is depicted as abusive to women and children. When people finally have had enough, the complaint is, "Why now?"

Well, I personally have been an advocate for monogamy for thirty years. In fact, some of us have been warning about this sort of thing for a long time.

The minute an initiative to encourage marriage is mentioned--as happened in the U.S. a couple of years ago--it meets with an avalanche of scorn.

[there buster]

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

And somehow I can't picture the early Christians getting heated up and lobbying the ancient Greek and Roman governments

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

Aside from the fact that the Roman "government" was a series of mainly debauched Emperors who were not amenable to "lobyying;" that it was the Roman Empire--Greece did not have an independent government; and that the only Christian who appealed to the Emperor (Paul) was beheaded for his efforts; aside from those minor points, your statement makes perfect sense. I think your picture is a little fuzzy.

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

I had a look in the local newspaper a few days ago. In the "lonely hearts" column, I was amazed at the number of ads from people looking for partners which started with the word "married". (as in "married but bored," "married but looking for discreet daytime relationship," etc.)

I'll believe that the religious fundamentalists are serious about upholding the sanctity of marriage when they get as publicly "heated up" about this issue as they do about the issue of legally recognized gay partnerships.

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

And just what do you propose that people should actually do about this? Clamor for outlawing adultery? There are lots of people who have something to say about this cavalier attitude toward marriage. You just don't hear it, because it doesn't make the news.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "The fact is, many of the issues you cited can be taken care of now, . . . "

This is a point where we disagree. I will suggest that there are legal issues, which I place in the realm of civil rights, that can not be addressed by any present legal form that presently exists.

I will also suggest that such is part of the reason for agitation for homosexual marriages.

From that perspective, I will suggest that those who speak out against such legal attempts to address these civil rights issues indirectly contribute to the agitation for homosexual marriages. In one sense those who vote against such attempts to address those legal issues are just as effective in promoting homosexual marriages as are those who actually vote for such.

[there buster]

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

which I place in the realm of civil rights

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

Fine. Which provision of the constitution do you have in mind?

[there buster]

this from the N.Y. Times

Will Same-Sex Marriage Collide With Religious Liberty?

...some excerpts...

Marc D. Stern, whose many years handling religious freedom cases for the American Jewish Congress have made him an expert in the area, can hardly be identified as a conservative agitator. Yet he firmly believes that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will make clashes with religious liberty "inevitable."

....

Chai R. Feldblum, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a proponent of same-sex marriage, agrees that permitting gay couples equal access to civil marriage will inevitably burden the religious liberty of those religiously opposed.

....

"this is going to be a train wreck"

[Gregory Matthews]

Ed and I disagree as to what is a Civil Right. As I understand him, he wants them related to the Constitution. He reflected that view when he asked me to cite a provision of the Constitution.

Here is a discussion on this point which is abridged from Wikipedia:

"Civil rights are the protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all citizens by law. Civil rights are distinguished from "human rights" or "natural rights"—civil rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their territorial boundaries, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars claim ought to belong to all people.

********

Laws guaranteeing civil rights may be written, derived from custom or implied. In the United States and most continental European counties, civil rights laws are most often written. In the United States, for example, laws protecting civil rights appear in the Constitution, in the amendments to the Constitution (particularly the 13th and 14th Amendments), in federal statutes, in state constitutions and statutes and even in the ordinances of counties and cities.

***********

State governments can expand civil rights beyond the U.S. Constitution, but they cannot diminish Constitutional rights. For example, some American cities make it illegal to discriminate against persons on the basis of their sexual orientation, thus expanding the civil rights of homosexuals, . . . States frequently grant civil rights in excess of federal law, such as Article 21 of the Maryland Constitution, which requires that a jury be unanimous in order to convict a person of a crime.

**********

Civil rights can in one sense refer to the equal treatment of all citizens irrespective of race, sex, or other class, or it can refer to laws which invoke claims of positive liberty. “

[there buster]

Here are the legal definitions:

civil rights n. those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, including the right to due process, equal treatment under the law of all people regarding enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and protection.

********************************

civil rights

pl.n.

The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

************************

Civil rights*. The rights that go with citizenship, that one acquires simply by being a citizen. Not all of these are inalienable rights, however--see rights. For example, a citizen may lose the right to vote if convicted of certain crimes.

Rights*. Claims that have some justification behind them. A moral right is a morally justified claim. A legal right is a legally justified claim. When we use the term right without specifying the nature of the justification, we usually mean a moral right. Rights specify the acts that are permitted, forbidden, or required. If they specify the acts that the rights-holder may perform (such as vote, or drive a car), they are often called licenses. If they specify acts that others may not perform (as the right to life obliges others not to kill the rights holder), they are called liberties or negative rights. If they specify what the rights-holder should receive, they are called rights of entitlement or positive rights. Other major types of classifications of rights are:

* Alienable rights and inalienable rights - Alienable rights may be taken or given away. Inalienable rights cannot.

* Human rights and special rights - Human rights belong to all people, or all people who are competent to exercise them. (An earlier term that is a close synonym for human rights is "natural rights.") In contrast, a right that only belongs to some people is termed a "special" right.

* Absolute rights, and prima facie rights - Absolute rights cannot be outweighed by other considerations. Prima facie rights can be outweighed by other considerations. For example, many of those who oppose capital punishment say that the right to life is an absolute right, but those who believe that capital punishment is morally justified in some circumstances say it is only a prima facie right.

****************************

As this last definition demonstrates, the wikipedia has conflated sever different categories of rights under the rubric of "civil rights."

A civil right, whether strictly defined as being constitutional, or loosely defined as the rights one gains "simply by being a citizen," it cannot apply to marriage, to inheritance, or to making medical decisions for another.

No one receives those rights, either from the Constitution, or from "simply being a citizen."

As a citizen, I do not have the automatic right to marry whoever I choose. Neither do I have the right to inherit--even from my parents or spouse if they designate otherwise in their will. Finally, nor do I have the automatic right to make medical decisions for someone else. These may be designated through durable powers of attorney, or living wills, to name two.

Saying that we disagree does not automatically mean that either position is equally valid. We might disagree concerning whether the moon is composed of Roquefort cheese, but in the end, it either is, or it isn't.

None of the things you describe are Constitutional matters, nor do they come to person "simply for being a citizen."

When taking a case to court, as opposed to the newspapers, or a froum like this, the legal definition applies.

[Parade Orange]

ummmm......

Do I dare speak?

Share more about myself?

Share my experiences?

Share my views?

Open myself up for vultures?

Who uses big words and can type quickly one single thought without forgetting the idea.

naahhhh

[Parade Orange]

But I will say one thing about myself that people who dont know me( which would be all of you) will be suprised I imagine.

I am 43 and my 'friend' is 53. We have been together ,in one degree or another, 17 years this month. He is my best friend. We share almost everything. We lived together for 10 years and now we have separate residence 45 minutes away from each other. I have my own separate bedroom up in his cottage in the woods. He retired early and moved from the SF area in CA.

We met in a bath house(dont ask) in Berkley. He was so cute. Always loved older men. We were an instant item. We were always together. I moved in a year later or so. He is a quiet reflective creative meloncholy dear spirit. Always busy he is. He loves redesigning his Gingerbread home -painting,gardening,landscaping and such. Painting every stitch of his rustic fau stone print wallpaper in his 'animal plush a la celtic blood red" livingroom. Very busy. Very creative.

[Parade Orange]

He sculps and draws other people very well. He is cut like fine cloth. He has doe eyes with hints of green and gold.

I brought him into the church when God grabbed me out of nowhere. He followed me. He was baptized. He started reading 'The Desire of Ages. We became 'christian brothers'.

nifty huh?

[Parade Orange]

It looks so good on paper!

well anyhoo....

He was diagnosed with the HIV virus that causes AIDES.

20 years ago. God has been so good to him and me.

That was when it was a death sentence.

He takes various Protese Inhibitors very day that has have some unpleasant side effects. But so far so good.

[aldona]

Ed said:

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

And just what do you propose that people should actually do about this? Clamor for outlawing adultery? There are lots of people who have something to say about this cavalier attitude toward marriage. You just don't hear it, because it doesn't make the news.

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

They could start by actually MENTIONING it from the pulpit sometimes...if they can pause for breath long enough while spouting hate and curses on homosexual people...

Most of the people who place those ads (that I mentioned) are probably respectable regular attenders at their local churches (of whatever denomination), and sit there and nod and say "Amen! Preach it, brother!" when their pastor lays the blame for the demise of the marriage institution at the feet of gay people.

It's safe to condemn homosexual activity in a sermon - the preacher knows that most of those present will agree, be grateful that they have a preacher who is not afraid to TELL IT LIKE IT IS and get that warm inner "Lord-I-thank-You-that-I-am-not-like-those-queers" glow.

But if you mention something like adultery and serial monogamy then it can hit a little too close to home...and actually offend some of those in the audience (or in the pulpit?)

aldona

[Parade Orange]

I moved out to take care of my son when he was 15. I moved to the valley 8 years ago. Friend still lived in the SF area for about a year and followed me here. Well 45 minutes away up into the snow line(above the foothills). We have a deep bond and still a fondness. There is nothing better in a relationship than each having their own home and keep putting their best foot forward(though it has stumbled many a time) almost every weekend. I couldnt afford to live in that expensive SF area. My friend didnt want to help support my son. He was a handful and I didnt expect him too. He is my son so I had to move. It was a choice we both had made and parted in good standing. He started visiting on weekends and He loved my minister and couldnt get enough(thats another story). I introduced him to my wonderful young minister and his lovely Godly wife and my small church circle. He loved the area and started talking about retiring early. He was with his company for 26 years. So he moved closer to me.

[Parade Orange]

I pretended for years to have that holy 'Im glad I am not like those QUEER' glow. When I was deep in the closet.

"Closets are for your parisols and gowns, Darlink!"