Mitch Evans stated on another thread:
“Unfortunate, but true. There are no easy answers to to the question of divorce, either, but that’s another topic for another time…”
So I figured, let’s make this another time. Sure there’s an easy answer for the question of divorce. There’s always an easy answer for everything; that’s why they’re so attractive.
The easy answer for divorce is the same answer for gay marriage: ban it. Make it illegal. You want a divorce? Not in our country, Sunny Jim. Save the children. Save the family. Ban divorce.
So many people claim that being opposed to gay marriage has nothing, no NOTHING to do with the same type of prejudice that once prohibited marriage between blacks and whites or Jew and Catholic. Heavens no. It has to do with concern over saving marriage itself, even though not one shred of evidence has been produced indicating that gay marriage would somehow threaten straight marriage.
There’s the simple answer, then. Ban divorce. Put it on the voting referendums of every single state that banned gay marriage, watch it go down and flames, and expose them for the screaming hypocrites that they are.
Anybody else have simple answers they’d care to float about for difficult problems? War? Poverty? Terrorism?
PAD
• 
Incidentally, here’s a question for all those people against gay marriage: Do you support extramarital homosexual sex?
Why do people insist on asking this stupid loaded question? It’s like asking “have you stopped beating your wife?”.
What the hëll would the point of that be? A church isn’t required as it is for a marriage, so why should my marriage, conducted in a private ceremony, become something less than it is because some god-fearing twits can’t stand to see two people of the same sex be happy? And how would it become less than it is? Because there would be no DIFFERENCE between an single couple living together and a married couple? Really, what would change? Would you get divorced because of it? Would your marriage change one bit if an unmarried couple had all the same legal benefits, few as they are, as a married couple? In case you haven’t guessed, I’m turning your argument around on you. And the fact that you would view your marriage as LESS than it is because it was no different than just shacking up is very telling to me.
Bill,
I simply agree with legalizing/decriminalizing drugs altogether. I don’t think the steps you are proposing because we would simply treat “potheads” or others who test positive at work the same way we would treat those who show up for work drunk.
David Hunt,
I believe if we eneded the War on Drugs we would immediately benefit from more tax revenue, less emergency room visits, less related crime, less stigma and more attention and manpower being directed toward more “pedestrian” crimes.
Being in the process of a divorce now, I would say that allowing it if both parties are in favor of it should be permitted, but not if it’s based only the whims of only one party, without any substantive reasons.
As far as war is concerned, I think we need to just slightly alter how we wage it.
I mean, the only problem with war is the violence. Eliminate the violence and you’ve got a fun time.
Do a Geneva convention type thing and set new rules for war. Make it illegal to use any weapons during war other than water balloons, water pistols, super soakers, spitballs, and in EXTREME cases…paintballs. You’d have to get referees of course to make sure everything went fair and square (our Swiss friends would be helpful here), and there you go. No hospitals or schools accidentally/on purpose being demolished, no dead people, no burning villages, and since it’s still a competition, you’ve still got the whole violence-as-extension-of-pëņìš thing going on.
Peter said: Anybody else have simple answers they’d care to float about for difficult problems?
OOOOHHH! I’ve got one. Easy solution to gun violence. Make bullets illegal.
What the hëll would the point of that be? A church isn’t required as it is for a marriage, so why should my marriage, conducted in a private ceremony, become something less than it is because some god-fearing twits can’t stand to see two people of the same sex be happy? And how would it become less than it is?
Because there would be no DIFFERENCE between an single couple living together and a married couple? Really, what would change? Would you get divorced because of it? Would your marriage change one bit if an unmarried couple had all the same legal benefits, few as they are, as a married couple? In case you haven’t guessed, I’m turning your argument around on you. And the fact that you would view your marriage as LESS than it is because it was no different than just shacking up is very telling to me.
Except, of course, that you’ve used selective editing to reach that “telling” conclucion. Since the response you’ve chosen to quote came from the proposal to eliminate marriage altogether, not one to grant gays cicil inions, which is how you’re trying to make it appear.
Sorry to let facts get in the way of your self-rightousness… 😉
Aaack.. ‘cicil inions’ should read ‘civil unions’. What can I say, it’s early here… *g*
“There is no reason to “protect” marriage, no reason to make divorce difficult.”
Given the ‘disposable’ nature of our consumer society where we’re brought up thinking it’s easier and more convenient to dispose of something which doesn’t work and buy a new one, rather than try to get the old one fixed, I would say there are perfectly good reasons to have people need to work to get a divorce, if only because it *might* make them more inclined to make the marriage work in the first place.
“There is a very simple solution how to get rid of any divorce problem: Don`t get married in the first place.”
A ‘solution’ which more and more people seem inclined to follow. Given the disproportionate number of people in jails who come from broken or single family homes [yes, someone looked into the numbers], is this really a good thing?
“Abortion is between the woman and the man (well, ultimately it IS the woman’s body), so her right to choose abortion is rather ABSOLUTE.”
Isn’t this interesting? The WOMAN is the only one who decides whether to have the child or not. The MAN has no legal recourse. Ah, but, if she DOES decide to have the child … guess who pays? Yes, this is fair. [/sarcasm off] (Have there been any cases of a woman being impregnated via a sperm bank, and then going after the donor for support? I wouldn’t be surprised if someone was silly enough to do so.)
There was, by the way, a case years back in Canada where the father-to-be took the woman to court to stop her having an abortion. It made it to the Supreme Court … and then ended when she ignored the court-imposed ban on her getting an abortion until the end of the proceedings [which had been going rather quickly, by the way] and had it anyway. Last I heard she hadn’t spent so much as one day in jail for her obvious contempt of court. Again, yeah, that’s fair. Feh.
“War: I’m reminded of an old episode of Taxi where someone (I think it was Tony Danza’s character), suggested that world leaders should just get in the ring and go ten rounds.”
There was a public interest spot broadcast on tv back in the 70s (or late 60s?) which featured an Uncle Sam figure wrestling with a Kruschev send-up atop a hill. The voice-over pretty much followed what would eventually be said on TAXI.
“// Got a simple answer for lousy comic book sales?
Uh … the fact that my salary went up 600 % in the same period that comics went up 1700 %?
And on a topic-related note, I wish i’d have recorded, or at least written down a discussion which took place on a local radio station yesterday afternoon. This station, not know for extreme right-wing views, had the participants pointing out that, however much supporters of homosexual marriages may claim otherwise, once the basic definition of “marriage” has been changed, the all-important legal precedent has been set, and then people who support polygamy have a much easier case as the arguments being made in favour of “same-sex” marriage laws apply just as well to polygamous relationships. They did admit, however, that pedophilia and bëášŧìálìŧÿ are not a concern as other and different sets of laws exist to cover (i.e. ban) those.
Yup, the next few years should be interesting indeed.
BTW for all the antiabortion folks, hows about you adopt a kid from one of the people who you are barring from preventing an unwanted child being born????
I
Gay Marriage. Best summed up by Jack McCoy on Law and Order. He’s all for gay marriage. Why shouldn’t they have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us?
Domo
I’m a bit confused Mr D if you would really outlaw divorce or if you were kidding. Without divorce we wouldn’t have the fair Lady Kathleen running the House of David not to mention Princess Caroline…
Todd Morton
They say that half of all marriages end in divorce, and yes, I can see how that could be viewed as a bad thing.
But remember: the other half end with someone dying!
Ooo, a lot to cover and so little time:
Abortion and rape: Why I’m against it – well, for starters, anyone wanting an abortion would lie about being raped (Roe v. Wade anyone?). That’s not the compelling reason for me, though, it’s much more personal than that. My grandmother was raped and my mother was the result. In addition, my neighbor across the street was adopted because his mother was raped but chose not to punish the baby for the rapist’s sin. As I recall, one of our president’s has a similar story, but I don’t remember which one.
In life threatening pregnancies, I would give leeway, of course. Most LT pregnancies these days are from inviable implantation anyway, so the baby isn’t likely to survive.
A note, though: I would be very concerned if abortion were outlawed. I think while there has been some valiant effort on the part of conservatives to provide workable alternatives, not ENOUGH has been done. The social infrastructure would have to be drastically built up to support the illegalization of abortion and wouldn’t work very well anyway. Change people’s hearts about abortion, and the law won’t be necessary.
Why I don’t support gay marriage: to avoid hypocriscy. I do believe homosexual behavior is wrong. I also believe divorce is most often wrong. So to vote for gay marriage when my fervent hope is that the individual gay person would repent and require a divorce would be hypocritical. I figure gay marriage is a matter of time whether I vote for it or not, though. It won’t end my life or marriage.
Tim said “people change”. True. They don’t change in a vacuum, though, and they can work to a change that works for both. That’s what marriage is: a commitment to spend lives together for the good of each other and any offspring. That commitment has to be kept in mind while you grow and change. Obviously, it behooves us to choose our mate carefully, and to seek guidance when we’re struggling (and every marriage struggles at some point).
Tim said “Um … huh? Since when is welfare the *exclusive* provenance of the church? Does that mean impoverished atheists are simply SOL?
This just strikes me as more of a bizarre non sequitur than an actual change of subject.”
Well, everyone else was throwing out non-sequiturs, why not me? I am more or less serious, though.
Yes, welfare was the provenance of the church and the individual, as it should be. Government welfare cannot offer accountability and that is necessary in welfare. It’s humbling to go to a church for support; it isn’t to go to the government (at least not much). If you’re destitute, chances are something needs to change within you as well as in your situation (and yes, I was destitute once, so while I speak from limited experience, it is from experience).
Are atheist SOL? I dunno, are atheists unable to form their own societies? Do they have no friends? Family? Just so you know, most churches will provide relief for anyone who comes to their door, even atheists. You may have to hear some stuff you don’t want to, but there it is (I was working with the homeless awhile ago, and asked one fellow why he refused to go to the mission. He said he didn’t want to get preached at. His buddy said, small price to pay for food and a cot)
I’m not a Christian because it makes sense to me, I’m a Christian because I need God, in a physical/material sense as well as a spiritual one. The government seems intent on pulling that physical/material need from the CHURCH to ITSELF (in fact, that’s the democrat’s creed isn’t it? Become dependant on government so you HAVE to vote for me?). If I die tomorrow without life insurance, who is to blame that my wife is suddenly penniless?
I do my taxes on TurboTax and get a big red flag on my charitable deductions. The average giving for my demographic is 2%. 2%! I feel guilty for my paltry 17 percent. I know for a fact that some of my atheist friends give more than that and that some of my Christian friends less.
I feel for atheists (I was one, once) but pushing the government to take over church functions because they aren’t comfortable in a church weakens both the government and the church.
🙂
I have to say, I don’t really see why we should have marriage at all, between or among any combination of people. I don’t see why the government has created this business arrangement known as marriage. I guess it has to do with property rights, but that seems to be a pretty poor reason for creating a whole slew of legislation and creating this bizarre category of business arrangement. I, for one, believe that marriage is the most personal event I can possibly imagine, and I don’t see why anyone should have to validate it- government, religion or otherwise. It’s like creating legislation to codify “best friends”. If I want to be best friend with a monkey, an old man or my sister- it doesn’t matter. There is no paperwork to fill out with the government, no contracts entered into. I just decide. I believe it should be the same way with “marriage”. There should be no tax benefits or penalties for people who choose to have a life partner (or partners). There should be no silly rules about who gets my stuff if I die, or who can see me in the hospital if I am sick (my wife can see me, but my best friend cannot, simply because of a government sponsored arrangement?!) I am of the mind that marriage is a vestigal remains of an antiquated system. I think all marriage should be banned. It would make things so much easier, it would be fair for all parties, and it would be so logical.
Tim Lynch wrote
You wouldn’t even support abortion in the case of rape?
You see, I’ve never understood the “Abortion is okay in cases of rape” argument. It’s not consistant.
What you’re basically saying is, “It’s okay to kill you, if your Dad is an áššhølë.”
I also ask any person between the ages of 18-34 who tells me they are behind the war in Iraq,
Except for the kids.
Marriage is designed to protect children and the family unit. Men who abandon their families increase the societal burden of care for those children. It’s supposed to be an institution of responsibility: if you commit to marry and raise a family, you commit to see it through.
That is the rational of why bigamy is illegal: a single guy having twenty children with five wives is unlikely to be able to support all those kids, so it’s in the government’s best interest to regulate such things.
Most of that is undone now, with no-fault divorce. A guy who suddenly hairs out of a marriage, leaving his stay-at-home wife who agreed to stay at home and actually raise the children they produce rather than hire someone else to raise them, is now stranded with out of date or no job skills to support children on her own. Parenting is a two person job (one person can do a wonderful job, I’ve seen proof). Marriage is the best way to perform that job.
A couple can raise kids without being married, but one has to wonder why one or both are unwilling to actually make the commitment to do so.
When I asked if people who oppose gay marriage support homosexual extramarital sex, eclark1849 replied, “Why do people insist on asking this stupid loaded question? It’s like asking “have you stopped beating your wife?”
Umm, why is it a loaded question? If homosexuals can never marry (which, I believe, is the stated goal of the people against gay marriage), then by definition they will be “limited” to a lifetime of sex outside of marriage. And since most of the people opposing gay marriage claim it’s not homophobia but some defense of the institution, then that should be just fine with you: Homosexuals might never marry, but you can’t condemn them for having sex outside a union you prevented them from entering into.
Of course, that falls apart if this anti-gay marriage initiative is just the first step in making homosexuality a crime and those who practice it into second-class citizens, denied the rights and opportunities granted to all other American citizens.
And for those talking about the “sanctity of marriage,” I’m reminded of a quote from ALLY McBEAL when Richard Fish was arguing for a same-sex couple wanting to get married: “Murders can get married, child molesters can get married, rapists can get married, but not these two?”
A heterosexual couple can marry for love. They can marry for tax purposes. (I woulda liked the $15,000 deductible instead of $7,500. Ah well.) They can get married because the woman is pregnant. They can get married because they feel it’s the next step after dating for a while. They can get married because they’re in Vegas. They can get married if they’re drunk. They can get married because their families had planned it for years. They can get married as part of a TV show (on Fox!). And yes, they can get married if one of them is a murderer, arsonist, pedophile, embezzler, rapist, whatever — even if they’d been convicted, or confessed.
But by all means, letting two people of the same gender get married would really weaken the institution from all these noble possibilities listed above.
Please.
I am a proponent for gay rights so it pains me to say this but gays are going about gaining civil rights the wrong way. Right now their focus is on changing laws that ban behavior associated with gay couples. Unfortunately to this they have to take on all fifty states plus the federal government which is a mammoth task. In the Illinois Legal Complied Statues alone they are all sorts of rules regarding perceived gay sexual behavior in the bed room as well as what two men can and can
James, you can make a case against comic books by giving examples like Secret Wars, Secret Wars II, and other rotten books, just as you can make heterosexual marriage look bad by the incredibly crummy marriages out there, but just like the shining example of comics might be a PAD book, it’s the shining example of marriage that we should be looking at. We all know there are people who should never get married and do anyway, but that’s not much of an argument to say any other union should be permitted. By that logic a dog and cat can get married.
I will agree that a whole lotta pork has been added to the marriage contract in our legal system. Tax breaks, if any, should be for marriages with kids or if a parent stays home to parent children or because of disability (the original intent of tax breaks, to enable the one income family model that used to be prevelant). Tax breaks just because you’re living together seems odd. Visitation rights and death benefits are easily set up with wills and hospital instructions.
Benefits are a weird animal, also. Again the original intent was to benefit the stay at home spouse. Why should a company pay benefits to able-bodied spouses if that person isn’t raising kids and just doesn’t feel like working? They shouldn’t.
Having been through a divorce recently, my gorge becomes bouyant when I hear (OK, or read) someone saying that divorces should be prohibitively expensive, or that they should be more difficult to obtain than marriages.
If you seriously think that’s going to solve anything, you need to take a good look at the sky and determine how it’s color differs from that of your actual planet of origin.
A lady and I got married; without going into graphic details, it turned out to be a huge mistake. One could argue that we SHOULD have gotten pre-marital counseling, that we SHOULD have lived together first, that we SHOULD have … well, there are about a hundred SHOULD haves which we didn’t do. And life together turned out to be pretty darned unbearable. To those who say that we “made(our)bed and need to lie in it,” I will respect Mr. David’s desire for civility on his site by not telling you what you can do with it. You weren’t there.
We made a mistake, and we solved it in the only way that was going to work for all parties involved.
Make divorces more difficult? They need to make marriages more difficult; the marriage problem is not going to be solved by forcing people to live in a situation where they do not wish to be. Ultimately, though, if a gay or lesbian couple want to get married, they should be able to do it.
Except, of course, that you’ve used selective editing to reach that “telling” conclucion. Since the response you’ve chosen to quote came from the proposal to eliminate marriage altogether, not one to grant gays cicil inions, which is how you’re trying to make it appear.
Sorry to let facts get in the way of your self-rightousness… 😉
Sorry to burst your smugness balloon, but Craig himself tied the two proposals together.
“A church isn’t required as it is for a marriage, so why should my marriage, conducted in a private ceremony, become something less than it is because some god-fearing twits can’t stand to see two people of the same sex be happy?”
In my original proposal to do away with marriage, I made no reference to gay marriage, and instead concentrated on the reasons why marriage is all but irrelevant in today’s society. The courts have pretty much seen to that. But I blame society specifically and Churches in general for the sorry state of marriage today.
Here’s the thing, Society has no compelling reason to allow gays to marry. I’d like to hear one if you got it. Please, change my mind.
Discrimination is a crock argument designed mainly to elicit an emotional response. That’s why liberals make it. As I’ve pointed out, marriage is nothing more today than legal discrimination against singles.
They attempt to make a connection between gay marriage and interracial marriage. Once again, an apples and oranges argument. Liberals don’t bother to point that out because it diminishes their argument.
Marriage should be between a male and female… period. All races were being allowed to marry anyway, and there were even a few interracial marriages between Indians and whites, Orientals and whites, and even Latinos and whites. It was only marriages between Blacks and Whites that caused a real problem, and even that wasn’t a big problem as long as it was a white man and black female. White men had had black mistresses for centuries.
Even today that attitude persists. As PAD pointed out, Justin Timberlake ripping the bodice off of Janet, she’s in trouble. Usher ripping the bodice off of Britney, he’s in trouble.
In fact, the legal cases that were tried were NEVER for trying to GIVE two people of different races tthe right to marry, it was for trying to TAKE IT AWAY.
“Make marriage more difficult?” My sister married her first husband the Catholic way; after publishing three “banns” accomplished after regular counseling with a priest. Didn’t save her from that guy’s mental problems, which got so bad she was considering hunting down an old boyfriend with mob connections to have him anonymously killed. (Better than divorce, isn’t it?)
She ended up divorcing him and leaving the Church that refused to dissolve the marriage without a huge cash payment to Rome.
And isn’t it interesting that this concern over the “sanctity of marriage” is not really conservative? Because a traditional conservative would say it wasn’t the government’s business.
There are ALWAYS easy answers. Here are some.
DIVORCE: Make it a business deal, and both parties getting married must sign a contract. If they breach it (get a divorce), then each party must sacrifice half of their assets, individual and combined, to be distributed as decided by the person that married them.
POVERTY: Determine the standard of living at which poverty exists. Every government official, in order to be elected, will be paid that amount as income per year, and will be required to live in a neighborhood representative of that standard of living. This goes up to and includes the President, the Supreme Court, and every member of Congress, and employees of each of those divisions.
WAR: Wars are not fought by generals and armies anymore; they are fought by heads of state. If a head of state declares war (or takes an action equivalent thereof), he and his governing bodies will be transported to an isolated location along with the governing bodies of the target nation(s.) First team to die loses.
TERRORISM: Countries which harbor terrorists get bombed. Nuked. (This will work better for the US and China than some other countries.) If the terrorists are not delivered in one month – another nuke. Sooner or later, either the terrorists will be turned over, or atomized.
There are ALWAYS simple solutions.
Ahh, but James, you miss the point. The point is that you CAN condemn them. Condemning is what it’s all about. See, they can get married if they want to, just not to each other. So they are still condemnable because they’re not acting in ways that some people find acceptable. I watched that wifeswap when the black christian lady traded places with the white lesbian lady, and left her interracial children at home fearing for them because she was leaving them with a ‘sexual deviant’ And she could not fathom why the lesbians took offense when she claimed they were SHACKING UP!! Basically, her point was that they weren’t married, and that any sexual union between a woman and a woman is just based on lust. There’s no family involved. It’s just two women lusting after each other and the fact that they’re raising a child and commited to each other is incidental.
They can deny it all they want to, but when it boils down to it, it seems pretty simple to me. It’s one group of people who are concerned about making sure that another group of people isn’t doing something that they think is wrong. In general quite a few human beings like doing this. ‘I believe in something that says this is wrong. If I don’t stop you from doing it, then I’m admitting that my belief might not be all it’s cracked up to be, and I can’t bare to think that my belief isn’t infallible. So quit doing what you’re doing that’s making me so uncomfortable.”
And don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that people who are against gay marriage are wrong. I’m just saying that they KNOW they’re right. There’s a difference. I’m willing to say, hey, maybe they’re right, and we’re all gonna go to hëll. I don’t think that’s very likely, but it’s possible. I think you’ll find that the people who are most vocal and setting up legislation and such aren’t capable of making such statements in the other direction. For them, it’s about being right with God, because God said so. And because God hasn’t had a thing to say since Jesus flew the coop. Not one word except what’s written in those well translated books.
And of course, that’s my simple answer. With no grey. That doesn’t take into account Iowa Jim, and others who seem reasonable.
‘Simple answers for complex issues.’ your fundementalists at work, on BOTH ends of the spectrum. Anybody who’s interested in reading a little about the liberal end and just how insane some of they’re stuff is, should read Michael Chrichton’s new book. “State of Fear” Good stuff that really made me think twice about giving any money to the environmentalists anymore.
Arrghh ‘their’ not ‘they’re.’ excues mi crappie typpos
Divorce is certainly the biggest threat to any form of marriage. We live in an era where everyone wants the easy answers and the quick fixes. I suppose when people spend all day working at the office, the last thing they want to is work at home.
That’s like asking someone who believes in Affirmative Action if they would give up their job to a minority, or if someone opposes the Israeli occupation, why aren’t they fighting in the Gaza Strip.
Beliefs do not always translate into direct action.
Not giving up my job doesn
Robbnn claimed my focusing on negative examples of heterosexual marriage is like focusing on crappy comic books, saying I should focus on “shining examples” of marriage.
Unfortunately, the discussion is about the RIGHT to get married. Having the right to do something isn’t always the “shining example.” My right to get married means I can do it for the loftiest of romantic ideals, or to pay less taxes. My right to free speech lets me make impassioned, reasoned arguments, or to make claims unsupported by facts. My right to view movies means I can watch CASABLANCA or DEBBIE DOES DALLAS. My right to worship as I choose means I can pursue any ancient religion, or join a New Age cult.
Denying someone the right to do something doesn’t prevent them from doing something under certain circumstances — it denies them the right to do it AT ALL. Opponents of gay marriage aren’t examining every case and granting some marriages for being “shining examples” of what a couple can be and denying those doing it for “base” reasons. They want to ban it COMPLETELY, with no exceptions. (And I’ll bet all the money in my pocket against all the money in your pocket that if gay marriage is banned, that very ban will be used as an excuse for denying civil unions to homosexuals too.)
I am all for granting gay people the right to get married. What they do with that right is up to them — just like with heterosexual couples.
(And for the bad comic book example, I agree that SECRET WARS 2 is bad — but that doesn’t mean I would take away anyone’s right to read it or buy it. Freedom is easy when it’s used for what you believe in, but it’s hardest (and greatest) when used for what you oppose.)
It’s supposed to be an institution of responsibility: if you commit to marry and raise a family, you commit to see it through.
You forget something there: not all of us married folks are out to “spawn”, as Bill Maher once put it.
So, I even sit on the fence on the bigamy issue: if some billionaire wants to mary half a dozen Anna Nicole Smith’s, have a dozen other bášŧárdš, but can support them all… well, more power to them, I suppose.
And if some guy marries half a dozen women, has no kids, is that really a problem for society?
Beyond the IRS tax codes, that is.
Not giving up my job doesn
And if some guy marries half a dozen women, has no kids, is that really a problem for society?
Beyond the IRS tax codes, that is.
The other side of the coin is whether society should “cut a break” to this man. Those marriage don’t do anything for society, so why should society recognize and reward them?
The tax code is a perfect example. Notice that the really big tax deductions are not for being married, but for the kiddos. Kids, homes and education are probably the top three. That’s because as a society we value those things and want people to engage in those activities.
Robbnn,
Abortion and rape: Why I’m against it – well, for starters, anyone wanting an abortion would lie about being raped (Roe v. Wade anyone?).
Wow. What an astonishingly negative view of humanity.
You seriously think a woman would lie about one of the most traumatic things a person can undergo, including taking on the “she was asking for it” stigma that’s still prevalent in much of society, simply because it would allow for easier access to abortion?
As I said previously, there are some worldviews that are simply alien to me. That’s one of them.
That’s not the compelling reason for me, though, it’s much more personal than that. My grandmother was raped and my mother was the result. In addition, my neighbor across the street was adopted because his mother was raped but chose not to punish the baby for the rapist’s sin.
I can understand that; thank you for sharing it.
However, that doesn’t really lend itself to a sweeping argument the way you’re intending it to. Your grandmother was undoubtedly a very brave woman, and I commend the strength of her (yes, here’s that word again) CHOICE.
One thing that bears repeating: “pro-choice” is not the same thing as “thinking abortion is the best solution.” I’m not saying your grandmother should have aborted in that situation. I’m not saying she shouldn’t have, either. If, heaven forbid, my wife were to find herself in a similar situation, I have absolutely no idea which way she’d ultimately wind up going, except that it would be a horrifically difficult choice either way.
My position is that it is not my place to say what choice she must make, where “she” could be my wife, your grandmother, or any woman on the planet. I am not in her shoes or in her circumstances, and I have no right to make that decision for her. (Now, if it were my wife, I’d certainly hope to be involved in the decision somehow, but the ultimate choice would be hers.)
Saying “abortion should be illegal” is saying that the government has a greater right to make that choice than the woman does — and that is a hugely disturbing can of worms to me. As I said not long ago here, any government that is given the right to outlaw abortion is also being given the right to mandate it under a different set of circumstances.
I can absolutely understand why you would oppose abortion given those circumstances; I would likely feel the same way.
But my position is that you don’t get to make the decision for everyone. Nobody does.
I do, by the way, also appreciate greatly that you’re focusing on changing minds rather than changing laws. You’re absolutely right in everything you say about the issues of legality, IMO.
On divorce…
Tim said “people change”. True. They don’t change in a vacuum, though, and they can work to a change that works for both.
Sometimes they can.
Sometimes, however, they cannot, and it’s foolish to insist that those people remain locked in a relationship which does nothing but drain the life and the love from both parties.
You’ve argued that the children make the difference. Speaking as one whose parents divorced, let me be clear: the “damage” that would have been done to my life and my brother’s life had they stayed together, IMO, is significantly larger than whatever damage was done by the divorce. It’s not just that people change — sometimes people are better off apart.
As with abortion, however, if you want to focus on changing hearts, I’m with you. Absolutely, argue that people should try all kinds of options and approaches before simply deciding to throw in the towel. I agree with you that divorce shouldn’t be a casual “well, seeya ’round” sort of thing: I think that does a good deal more to cheapen the ideal of marriage than any current attempt to expand the definition might.
As others have said, you can talk about “should haves” all you like — but at some point, everyone also needs to accept What Is.
Lastly, on the side issue of welfare:
Yes, welfare was the provenance of the church and the individual, as it should be. Government welfare cannot offer accountability and that is necessary in welfare.
It can’t? Then what are all those restrictions for?
It’s humbling to go to a church for support; it isn’t to go to the government (at least not much).
Why exactly is “humbling” needed? This is starting to sound suspiciously like arguments that people are only “homeless by choice” or that “poor people are only poor because they’re lazy”. (Quotes courtesy of R. Reagan and G. W. Bush, respectively — brimming with compassion, all.)
Sometimes you can wind up in poverty despite the fact that you’ve been working hard and acting ethically. Frankly, at this point I think you’ve been more than sufficiently humbled: you shouldn’t need an extra dose of shame involved when you go and get help.
Are atheist SOL? I dunno, are atheists unable to form their own societies?
“I’m an atheist. I still go to church — I’m not a heathen. I go to an atheist church. Crippled people get up and testify that they were crippled, and still are.” — Paula Poundstone
I’m sorry, but this sort of smugness never sits well with me. Of course, atheists can form their own societies — it’s just that according to you, apparently, they don’t count and shouldn’t be in the business of helping. After all, they’re not the church.
Just so you know, most churches will provide relief for anyone who comes to their door, even atheists. You may have to hear some stuff you don’t want to, but there it is
Do you have any idea how sanctimonious that sounds, Robbnn? “People can get help as long as they listen to the religion I’ve decided is right.” It ain’t your place.
The government seems intent on pulling that physical/material need from the CHURCH to ITSELF (in fact, that’s the democrat’s creed isn’t it? Become dependant on government so you HAVE to vote for me?).
No, that’s not the Democrats’ creed. Democrats believe that part of government’s job is to provide for the public good. Otherwise, why not split into individual fiefdoms, and simply let the serfs be cared for by their lords?
I have never been dependent on the government, at least in the way you define it. I’d like to think I never will be. However, I think the civilization of which I am a part has the duty and the obligation to provide for those who might fall through the cracks. People can differ about the means, but I am not prepared to say “well, that’s the breaks.” You, apparently, are.
And that’s sad.
TWL
“Here’s the thing, Society has no compelling reason to allow gays to marry. I’d like to hear one if you got it. Please, change my mind.”
Because society isn’t supposed to come up with compelling reasons to “allow” something. In a free society, that’s unnecessary. Society is supposed to come up with compelling reasons to PREVENT something. That something cannot and should not be rooted in matters of bias, prejudice and intolerance. Instead it must be rooted in something that would cause damage to the commonweal.
And the fact is that there is not a shred of evidence that indicates gay marriage would damage the commonweal. None. That it would either act as a deterrent to heterosexual union or would somehow foster the breakdown of those unions.
The ONLY reason to prevent it is the same reason that, as noted earlier, stood against blacks marrying whites or interfaith unions: Bias. Prejudice. Discrimination. This argument isn’t mainly to “elicit an emotional response.” It’s made because it’s true, and the emotional response comes from bigots who despise being called on their bigotry and don’t like being reminded that their sort of thinking made a black man touching a white woman a hanging offense.
So the bigots cling desperately to their eroding position, claiming that being called on their bigotry is unfair and still not offering any proof–other than their opinion–that society is threatened by gay marriage. Only their own bigotry is threatened, because bottom line, they hate gays and don’t want to see them accorded equality.
Which is SOP. Black men serving beside white men in the military, black men playing baseball with white men, was greeted with the same hostility and ignorance. Fortunately, history shows that in the long run, the bigots tend to lose as more enlightened thinking replaces theirs.
Sooner or later, gay marriage will be a right, and those who work now in opposition to it will be looked upon with the same pity and disgust that we look upon protestors lining up screaming and waving signs while scared black children entered white schools for education.
The only question remaining in its inevitability is…which side of history do you want to be on? The side that realizes progress must be made in society in order to reflect developing thinking? Or the side lobbying against change while citing tired old saws of how the republic will fall if the status quo is allowed to change.
PAD
Discrimination is a crock argument designed mainly to elicit an emotional response. That’s why liberals make it.
Well, I’ll concede that point to the undisputed expert on crock arguments designed to elicit emotional responses…
TWL
Why, in this so called Land of the Free, are some denied the freedom to legally marry? To me a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage is the establishment of a religious belief on the governmental level, something our constitution forbids. Religious organizations and its members are free to denounce and refuse to recognize gay marriage, but claiming that their world view is the superior one simply because their faith states it is an empty shell of an argument to me.
The church I used to attend would not allow divorced members in elected positions – because the Bible does not allow for divorce and it is not recognized. Those that are divorced and remarried are considered to be committing adultery.
I think that religious people just want their belief and world view empowered, so they seek out the government to enforce the religious laws of their belief. Something that our government is not supposed to do. The reasoning seeming to be, “If everyone followed God’s law, we wouldn’t have these problems.” Conversion by mandate, never worked and never will.
While my former church paid for my wife’s funeral (her illness and death left me and my son penniless and at the mercy of the generosity of others) and I am grateful for that, the Bible does not say anywhere that the Church is solely responsible for carrying for the ill, the starving, the naked, and the homeless. In the Sermon on the Mount Christ specifically says YOU, not the Church or the government, are responsible. My belief is that in a government of the people for the people, it is that government’s responsibility to aid its less fortunate every bit as much as the Churches of our nation. Frankly, someone who states they are a Christian and that denounces social programs isn’t a true Christian at all.
Just my two pennies on the subject.
Tim,
“My position is that it is not my place to say what choice she must make… I am not in her shoes or in her circumstances, and I have no right to make that decision for her.”
Sounds like the Southern argument for slavery. “It’s not you Northerner’s place to say if keeping slaves is wrong for me or not, you don’t have a plantation to harvest.” The baby makes a difference, just as the black human being made the difference.
I’m not advocating divorce be illegal, just difficult. The fellow in the midst of divorce; my heart goes out to you. I’m trusting it isn’t because you don’t like the same kind of ice cream. It is, of course, your decision and it sounds like no children are involved, so even better.
Atheist forming a group around atheism ARE a church of sorts. Help away.
Humility is NOT synonymous with shame. As Socrates said “it is the beginning of wisdom”.
Are people poor by choice? Many are or by abdication of taking responsibility for their own training. Libraries are FREE. Lack of education is the responsibility of the individual and his or her parents (presuming they didn’t get a no fault divorce and flew the coop). Catastrophies also happen, but plan ahead and you can overcome anything. I don’t mean all of this is easy, and by force of the medium this has to be presented simplistically, but ultimately we are responsible for our own fate. Humility says we should help others when we can and seek help when we need it. That isn’t sanctimonious, it’s fact.
So should those who didn’t take responsibility for their training and lives not be helped? No, they should be, but not by the government and not enabled to remain irresponsible.
To play devil’s advocate (pun not intended), a simple answer regarding gay marriage is also, “Let people marry whoever they want.”
Let me be upfront by saying that if two people, heterosexual or not, want to get married, then I personally feel that’s none of my business. And I don’t want to make it my business. And if the courts decide to get out of the way of civil unions, then, again, I actively desire not to impede anyone living their life the way they choose.
The awkward aspect comes in that marriage is not just a civil institution — it’s also a religious one. Most religions, before they veered off into their own individual perspectives, tend to agree with the Genesis account of God creating Eve and giving her to Adam, thus creating marriage and the family unit. (For those pundits who claim that Adam and Eve were never married, when God himself brings two people together, we can rest assured that the union has his stamp of approval.) And the Bible continually says, not just in the Mosaic law (Leviticus being one book), but right into the Christian scriptures (1 Corinthians 6:9 being a good example) that God does not approve of homosexuality. Many people, PAD included, often use Christ as an exemplar of the Bible’s testament to tolerance, but that tolerance was never passive or absolute.
(Again, keep in mind, this is not meant to represent an argument for the existence of God, whether the Bible actually is an accurate reflection of his Word, whether God’s judgment is correct or not, or how much authority one should personally place in the Scriptures — this is merely meant to present what the viewpoint of the Bible actually is as a matter of public record. Far too many people place their own political and social views into God’s mouth, particularly on this issue. The Bible, both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, is clear on this issue. The same argument could be conversely made as to whether Hitler felt the Jewish people should be left to live their lives in peace — whether one accepts the sentiment or not, that’s independent of whether it reflected Hitler’s viewpoint.
For my part, I will refer to the Bible as God’s word, but no onus is made on the reader to accept that assessment.)
Therefore, if we have a group of people who wish to adapt a religious institution in a way that the originator did not intend, and, in fact, in a way that He actively opposes, then it’s not difficult to me to see where people can become concerned.
Again, this is not a validation of violence or discrimination, but suddenly the issue of gay marriage is now not so clear. In this progressive society, we are taught to let each live according to his own way as long as no unjustified imposition is made on others — “The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.” Yet, at the same time, we are also taught to contemplate the existence of a Creator who may have higher standards for us than just that. Whether we chose to adopt them or not is a personal decision, but many of the social and legal statutes that we follow are either consciously or subconsciously derived from His word. Therefore, at what point to we divorce ourselves from the Creator? At what point do we completely make our society and conduct a subjective process? Where did the assumption begin that any authority making a mandate that we don’t agree with is, by definition, oppressive and invalidated? (I’m sure the Hebrews trekking across the desert with Moses had a hard time continually walking out of the camp to move their bowels, burying them, and then washing up, but the subsequent discovery of bacteria doesn’t make it sound like a bad idea by today’s standards.)
Many people have correctly pointed out that there are far too many issues wherein these questions should be more pointedly asked, but that doesn’t remove the onus on us to consider the possibility that God may have a just reason for his feelings on this issue that are for our benefit. And, when one allows that possibility, how willing are we to haphazardly dismiss those feelings for the sake of appearing liberal-minded? And, again, how accommodating can we be when people disobeying God’s work want to use one of His own ceremonies to sanctify it? If someone stole my car, should I also be expected to keep my car full of gas for him?
Again, I feel that this issue is none of my business. I don’t need to judge others or try to speak on God’s behalf — I think He can take care of that Himself (Al-Qaida, take notes!). And if the government wants to institute a civil equivalent of marriage, that’s their option. But if there is to be a separation of Church and State (which liberals claim is the conservatives’ major failing in this issue), how can we use the law to force a man of God to perform a religious ceremony that flies in the face of God’s word? If we are to let people think and do what we want, it would be hypocritical to tell God to “get in step with the times” regarding the institution He created. Because, at this point, we are no longer asked to be tolerant, but told to be compliant — a large leap.
Liberals are more dogmatic that they appear to be, and, in their own way, dominating and self-righteous.
Again, this was not meant to play one viewpoint against the other, but to demonstrate that the Left has its own simple answer for this issue, and it’s no more authoritative that the Right’s.
James Blight:
>The awkward aspect comes in that marriage is not just a civil institution — it’s also a religious one.
Not awkward unless one allows it to be. There is the legal aspect to all marriages and the religious aspect placed on many. My best friend got married with none of the bells or whistles of spirituality or organized religion. He is as married in the eyes of the state as anyone else.
If one is going to use the argument of religion as a componant of marriage in keeping homosexuals from being legally united, than it is hypocritical not to make pre-marital sex, alcohol usage, gambling, and mášŧûrbáŧìøņ illegal…… especially if one considers the dangers to society if someone should get it in their head to perform all of these actions at the same time.
Fred
My position is that it is not my place to say what choice she must make… I am not in her shoes or in her circumstances, and I have no right to make that decision for her.
Sounds like the Southern argument for slavery. “It’s not you Northerner’s place to say if keeping slaves is wrong for me or not, you don’t have a plantation to harvest.” The baby makes a difference, just as the black human being made the difference.
Oh, please.
1) A slave could survive on his or her own, and in virtually all cases had a very clear preference for doing so.
2) I could turn the slavery argument around and point out that you’re claiming the mother be forced into a role that’s effectively enslaved to the fetus.
A nice attempt to link abortion to civil rights, but that’s all.
I notice that this is the only sentence of my entire piece on abortion you chose to pick at. What’s your opinion on the point that whatever a government can ban, it can mandate with equal justification?
Atheist forming a group around atheism ARE a church of sorts.
1) No, actually, it’s not, and I would greatly appreciate it if you didn’t try to equate atheism religion again. It’s not.
2) I’m not talking about “atheists forming a group around atheism.” I’m talking about simple human decency of one person helping another. You appear to think that it’s acceptable if the help-ee is forced to listen to a belief system that is not theirs as cost for receiving the help. I look forward to the next time you’re forced to hear an hour-long lecture on why you should switch to Islam next time you check out a library book.
Humility is NOT synonymous with shame. As Socrates said “it is the beginning of wisdom”.
Then why do you feel that the government providing help does not facilitate that humility? What’s different about going to a church?
Humility says we should help others when we can and seek help when we need it. That isn’t sanctimonious, it’s fact.
But insisting that only religious organizations are in a good position to provide such help is NOT fact, and IS sanctimonious. Kindly stop ducking the point.
So should those who didn’t take responsibility for their training and lives not be helped? No, they should be, but not by the government
For the last time: Why Not?
So far as I can tell, you think the government serves no positive function whatsoever: all it does is pass laws that go against what you know to be right (e.g. the movement towards gay marriage) and help those who should rather help themselves.
Boy, we really suck as a nation, don’t we?
What IS the role of government, Robbnn? What do you think it ought to be doing?
and not enabled to remain irresponsible.
Yeah, those dámņ Pell Grants certainly make people irresponsible.
TWL
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
James,
I’ll ask you the same question I asked IowaJim:
Why not simply remove all legal aspects of marriage, and calll everything a “civil union” from a legal standpoint? The religious definition of marriage can be left intact and be left up to an individual couple and whatever faith they choose to subscribe to. That way, if one faith feels comfortable marrying gay couples and another one does not, both can define “marriage” according to their own views and feel that their religious obligations have been fulfilled … but all couples are treated equally under the law.
Wouldn’t that serve to remove the conflict you describe?
TWL
1) A slave could survive on his or her own, and in virtually all cases had a very clear preference for doing so.
A baby cannot without help for years. Do you think abortion should be allowed after birth?
I said it is not the government’s place to offer welfare, it is the churches and the individuals. I’m pretty sure I said individuals and/or private groups (such as atheistic societies) can/should too.
Government takes its income from the people in stewardship for the people. The government should not take my money and fund things I think are wrong with the exception of national defense.
The government should provide for national defense, traffic infrastructure, crime prevention and apprehension (including fraud). I’m okay with FEMA type emergency aid, but schooling and welfare should be private institutions. Some regulation of education is fine, and some for business and environment. Combine this with the Fair Tax instead of our current tax system and that’s the broad strokes of my view of government.
Robbn:
>I said it is not the government’s place to offer welfare, it is the churches and the individuals.
While this is purely and 100% speculation and opinion, if the government were to turn around and say “OK, abortions are illegal under the condition that the churches who support pro-life fund it commpletely.”, I strongly suspect that either A) the issue would suddenly become a secondary concern or B) there would be agreement with this and a noticably absent follow-through.
Fred
Robynn wrote:
Government takes its income from the people in stewardship for the people. The government should not take my money and fund things I think are wrong with the exception of national defense.
I’m curious: why do you make the exception for national defense? And do you (as implied in this statement) think national defense is wrong? Or is there money spent on national defense that you think is wrong, but you think the government should spend it that way anyway?
We’re the government, each one of us that votes or chooses not to. We choose, through our actions or inaction, to use our tax dollars for all sorts of things, including education, national defense, helping the poor, giving the old financial stability, and giving rich white boys high-profile jobs in an architecturally interesting office. We did all this, and we can change any one of thse things. But we’re in a democracy, and if you can only deal with the government spending money in the way you, personally, would like, then I hope you have enough money to buy your own private island.
I’m sure we’ll be declaring war on it soon enough.
Rob
There was a public interest spot broadcast on tv back in the 70s (or late 60s?) which featured an Uncle Sam figure wrestling with a Kruschev send-up atop a hill. The voice-over pretty much followed what would eventually be said on TAXI.
I REMEMBER that one! Late 60s, I’m pretty sure. I can almost see it in my minds eye now; as I recall, Uncle Sam got in a good body punch to the gut but Nikita came back with a solid right to the jaw that Sam sold like Ric Flair. I remember being highly cconcerned because it was clear, even to a child, that my guy had a distinct weight disadvantage.
This was also about the time they saturated the airwaves with anti-smoking ads. They had the guy who played Hamilton Burger on Perry Mason talking about not wanting to lose his fight against lung cancer. One day we were watching it and my mom told me that he had lost the fight. I never ever did try cigarettes. It’s funny what sticks to you.
You seriously think a woman would lie about one of the most traumatic things a person can undergo, including taking on the “she was asking for it” stigma that’s still prevalent in much of society, simply because it would allow for easier access to abortion?
As I said previously, there are some worldviews that are simply alien to me. That’s one of them.
Although I agree with the crux of your argument, it is true that Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of Roe v Wade, made up the story that she was raped because she belived that it was the only way to get an abortion. While I doubt that this would be a commonplace thing, it has to be aknowledged that it is not something the posetr made up out of whole cloth.
James,
No advocate of gay marriage is saying that any priest should be forced to marry gay people. What churches/priests choose to do is largely protected by the seperation of Church and State. What they are saying is that gay people should be allowed to marry, whether it be by civil ceremony or religious ceremony performed by a cleric/religion that doesn’t have a problem with gay marriage.
Robbnn: “Are people poor by choice? Many are or by abdication of taking responsibility for their own training. Libraries are FREE. Lack of education is the responsibility of the individual and his or her parents”
Hi Robbnn,
Yes, libraries are free. Libraries do not, however, hand out diplomas or certifications. While I also advocate educating oneself, I also know that it means nothing without my name on a document. add that fact with the cronyism and nepotism in the business world and it shows that your statement above is not entirely facual.
I am knowlegeable on a variety of subjects but that is irrelevant since post high school education, where one get his/her name on said documents, is more cost-prohibitive than you seem to aknowlege.
Does that mean I intend to give up? Hëll no. It means that when I get to where I want to be that I intend to do what I can to redefine the status quo so that, eventually, everyone really does have a right to an education. Not just those that can afford it.
TWL: “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
Hi Tim,
Ebenezer Scrooge, indeed.
Shouldn’t all these strict constructionist be against marriage in its entirety? After all, it is not in the Constitution.
Oh. Right. Then it becomes something that each State should decide. Hetero and/or Homo.
In reality and all kidding aside, we know the truth:
The answer is that the people who are against Homosexual and Lesbian marriage are simply bigots. They can try to rationalize it, but it still smells up a storm.
I
I’ll ask you the same question I asked IowaJim:
Tim,
RE: your question for me earlier — I didn’t mention it before, but there are definitely some conservatives who fully endorse your solution. They approach it from the opposite side that they want to do everything they can to keep the government out of church affairs. My position is by no means the only one of those who disagree with gay marriage.
Iowa Jim