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
• 
Robbnn, I think most or at least some states only prohibit issuing a marriage license to direct blood relations: parent-child, and sibling-sibling. First cousins can marry in many states, and not all stereotypically in the south.
Single-event direct blood procreation does have an increased chance of genetic weakness, but really only widespread and multi-generational procreation of this kind poses any risk to the genetic strength of the gene pool. It’s mostly a moral stigma that prohibits wide acceptance of such unions.
And if a brother and sister do somehow overcome that and engage in sex, they can produce offspring whether they’re married or not.
And to speak truthfully, if a large enough segment of society wanted to allow intra-family marriage, we’d be talking about it like we’re talking about gay marriage today. In looking at woman’s suffrage earlier, I read that much of the resistance to allowing woman to vote was that she didn’t want the vote. BUT, if she ever came forward and did want it, man would grudgingly give it to her.
What we’re facing today is a changing society where a group, homosexuals, formerly were not active and demanding enough to consider changing the status quo. Now they are. To deny them access to the legal rights afforded with marriage is to deny progress and change for no other reason than to remain stagnant.
More baseless assumptions, Powell. Nice.
I’ll follow PAD’s lead and call “Bûllšhìŧ” now too.
Now you assume that two people of the same sex who love each other won’t take their relationship, or the concept of marriage, seriously.
Guess what? 50% of married couples already don’t take the concept seriously.
PAD: he’s not living in the wrong century, he’s on the wrong planet.
“Why?
Because the offspring of such a union could make unhealthy babies.”
Certainly would explain a few people around here…
PAD
Nope. If you propose the law that keeps pedophiles, rapists and murderers from being granted the legal privilege of marriage, I will rally support for it. I mean, they got the law passed that takes away your driver’s license for stealing gasoline. This would be a much more fitting punishment-to-crime situation.
Figure out a formula that would allow couples to dissolve a marriage after X amount of time without producing offspring, and I’ll support that, too.
PAD:
“This is just more opinion being offered up as fact.”
“And the supposed link between legalizing same-sex unions and illegalizing divorce is a bedrock truth?”
There is no “supposed link.” What I’ve said is that if those who claim they oppose legalizing same-sex unions only because they believe that it poses a danger to marriage in this country–and are not simply bigots who don’t believe in equal rights for gays–then it’s only logical that they should advocate making divorce illegal since divorce poses a far greater threat than gay marriages.
Except they won’t. Why? Because it isn’t REALLY about stopping the erosion of marriage in this country. It’s about bigotry against gays. But no one wants to admit they’re a bigot. So they come up with all sorts of dodges and shuck and jives to explain that, oh no, they’re not bigots. They’re just interested in what’s best for the commonweal.
See, if there really WAS interest in saving marriage, then forbidding gays to marry would need to go hand in hand with a drive to eliminate divorce because, you know, what God hath joined together, etc., etc. The fact that you DON’T see that being advocated, and you never will–that there is, in fact, no link–simply underscores the hypocrisy and bigotry.
“No, you can knock off the smoke-and-mirrors act at any time.”
Says the bigot who’s pretending he’s not.
“While there is no “danger” to traditional marriage from endorsing same-sex unions, there is simply no compelling reason to endorse same-sex unions.”
Which brings us right back to my original point: In a free society, you should not need to present a compelling reason to making something legal, but instead to make it illegal. Since you say there’s no “danger” to traditional marriage, then there’s no reason to go out of one’s way to prevent gays from equal rights. Just as there was no reason to prevent blacks from having equal rights, or women from having equal rights…socieal conditions that I have every confidence you would have been on the wrong side of when they were being debated.
Just as you’re on the wrong side now.
PAD
If I say that cheating is wrong, does that make me a bigot? If I say lieing is wrong, does that make me a bigot?
Cheating and lying create obviously bad effects that are agreed upon by all parties.
Not so gay marriage.
If you simply say “gay marriage is wrong”, that does not IMO make you a bigot. If you attempt to get it enshrined as policy, however, that does.
Gee, I’m getting the most extraordinary feeling of deja vu…
TWL
“Nope. If you propose the law that keeps pedophiles, rapists and murderers from being granted the legal privilege of marriage, I will rally support for it. I mean, they got the law passed that takes away your driver’s license for stealing gasoline. This would be a much more fitting punishment-to-crime situation.”
Y’know, the moment I suggested something that infringed upon the rights of someone other than you, that you’d be all for it.
See, that’s the bizarro mindset at work. When you talk about legalizing gay marriage, immediately they start saying, “So what’s next? Legalizing marriage of cousins? Siblings? How about two, three and four-way marriages? It’s the beginning of the end and therefore must be stopped!”
So now I bring up the notion of impeding rights of others to marry and Pugh is, of course, okay with that.
Except, of course, as soon as you start curtailing the right to marry, where do you stop? Is it only first degree murder? How about second? Involuntary homicide? Manslaughter? How about murderers whose convictions are overturned? How is preventing a lawbreaker from marrying after he has served his debt to society not a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments? Do we treat a serial rapist the same as an eighteen year old guy who had sex with his seventeen year old girlfriend and was convicted of statutory rape because an irate father pressed charges? What about people who are accused but get off on a technicality? Or a hung jury?
Here’s a thought: How about if we start determining that, for the good of the children, married couples can only have two kids maximum. Or must apply for a license for each child in order to assure the state that the child will be cared for. Apply the same standards adoptive couples must meet to all couples. After all, if we’re all for endorsing the government’s right to dictate who should be allowed to do what and with whom when it comes to matters of love, why stint at half measures?
PAD
PAD:
“What I’ve said is that if those who claim they oppose legalizing same-sex unions only because they believe that it poses a danger to marriage in this country–and are not simply bigots who don’t believe in equal rights for gays–then it’s only logical that they should advocate making divorce illegal since divorce poses a far greater threat than gay marriages.”
And what I’ve said is that people who make that claim are dopey. I agree that the issue of rampant divorce needs to be addressed
What about people who are accused but get off on a technicality? Or a hung jury?
[Shatner] Must … resist … obvious … bad jokes… [/Shatner]
Banning divorce wouldn’t really solve anything.
The question of divorce can only be adressed preemptively by way of pre-marital counseling and compatibility screening. Both of which are available. Why people don’t take advantage of these more often, I don’t know.
On the other hand, pre-matital counseling and compatibility screening can’t predict the effects post-marriage tradgedies (miscarriage, death in the family, loss of mobility, etc…).
Marriage is a problematic situation because two individuals are involved. While these two individuals may be in synch on most things something can always happen to cause irreparable damage to the relationship.
There is no master plan, or fix-all to prevent divorce. Only the two people involved can make things work.
PAD,
I have an honest question and would really appreciate an answer. I don’t want to debate it, just to get a clear definition so that I can understand your position.
My question (ok, questions since I break it down into multiple parts) is this: What is the definition of marriage, at least in your opinion? What is the purpose of getting married in the first place? What, if any, limits would you impose? Does marriage only involve two people, or can there be more?
I am not asking you to defend your definition as right, I am just wanting to know if you reject marriage as being a union between a man and a woman, what then is marriage?
Thanks.
Iowa Jim
Personally I agree that supporters of gay marriage will be seen as having been on the right side of history…but the fact is, those of us who feel that way are very much in the minority, and may even be part of a smaller minority than before.
Fact- the Defense of Marriage Act passed 85-14. Normally you couldn’t get an act celebrating Mom & Apple Pie through congress with that margin. Fact-Every time they put banning Gay Marriage on the ballot it passes easily. Anecdote–I’ve seen a disticnt reversal in the last year in kids attitudes toward gays, expecially among African Americans. It’s distressing.
Maybe we need to go the civil union route to get people used to the idea, then push for full rights. It would also help, and I mean no disrespect to the poster who in in the three-person relationship, if there is not a big push to expand marriage rights to multiple partners. One fight at a time.
“My question (ok, questions since I break it down into multiple parts) is this: What is the definition of marriage, at least in your opinion?”
To declare before witnesses that you take this person to have and to hold, for richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health, so long as you both shall live.
“What is the purpose of getting married in the first place?”
To formalize the terms under which you and the other person are going to be with one another, in a manner that brings security, comfort and happiness to all concerned.
“What, if any, limits would you impose? Does marriage only involve two people, or can there be more?”
I don’t know. I’m not afraid to say “I don’t know.” To me, marriage is two people. I wouldn’t want or need more than that for myself. But if society begins to head toward group marriages, I wouldn’t stand in its way. I’m not one to say, “Oh my God, we must prevent “A” from happening because “B” might happen.” My attitude is, maybe “B” will happen, maybe it won’t. Right now my concern is “A”.
PAD
Bill,
You make a good point. Why is there such a widespread rejection of gay marriage and even homosexuality? 20 years ago I might have believed it was due to religious conservatives and traditional values. But there has been more than enough exposure through the media and other means. I personally know far more gay people than my parents ever did. Yet public opinion really has not budged much at all. Most do not want to see gays harmed or treated harshly. Most are somewhat willing to accept that a gay lifestyle is their choice. But many still doubt it is the best choice, and many still believe gay marriage is a good idea.
Obviously, the majority have been wrong before on other issues (such as slavery, etc.). But that is not my point. My question is why does the disagreement continue on such a deep level? I can only wish it was because of people like me who are conservative and/or religious. The reality is there is something else at work.
Iowa Jim
PAD,
Thanks for the answer.
Iowa Jim
My question is why does the disagreement continue on such a deep level?
That’s a really good question.
My hypothesis, and I’ll admit up front that it’s nothing more than that, is that it’s tied up into how strange most American attitudes about sex are already.
Most Americans (and probably quite a few Europeans, though others can address that way better than I can) get a little squeamish at the whole concept of talking about sex. It’s certainly a very personal topic for most people, and I think huge amounts of people conflate “personal” with “so private that it’s discussed with no one.”
As a result, somehow a lot of self-worth is tied into sexuality — just take a look at the mega-zillion-dollar industry of things designed to make people more sexually attractive, ranging from colognes to breast implants and Viagra.
Let’s also take it as a given that the majority of the population is heterosexual. (I think we can all agree on that point, at least.)
Well, given that, homosexuality is something most people fundamentally don’t understand on a basic level. Bill said something earlier to the effect of “if all the women died off tomorrow, it’d be a life of celibacy for me,” and I have to agree with him — I just don’t swing that way and can’t envision how I ever would find another male attractive. I have a hard enough time envisioning why women find ANY man anything other than silly-looking.
Thus, the idea of homosexuality is pretty seriously alien in some deep way to those who are straight. And if one thing has become patently clear over the last 5-10 years, it’s that Americans are, by and large, No Ðámņ Good at tolerating that which they do not understand.
So basically, I think a fear of the unknown is at the heart of most of it. I could certainly be wrong on that, but I’d be interested to see what other people think.
[Aside: does anyone else remember the late-term DS9 episode “Chimera”? It draws a superb parallel between Changelings and gay people in some ways, right down to Quark’s speech warning Odo that “this is no time for a Changeling Pride Parade on the Promenade.” I thought that was a beautifully textured approach to the subject.]
TWL
RE: Bigamy–I was not aware that it ONLY had to mean the criminal act of marrying without the others knowledge. I meant it in the sense of 2 and polygamy in the sense of 3 or more. So it was not intended to refer to the criminal act.
That’s what I figured, Jim. Just wanted to point it out, though, cause whatever the annotative meaning is, the connotative one most people will make is the legal one.
Having had experience with the polyamory community, I just know no one uses it in that sense, so it kinda leapt out at me. Not that (and I mean no negative connotations by this) I would expect you to have a great deal of knowledge of polyamorous relationships, Jim… 😉
(I will also further assume that you really meant to say that you saw ‘bigamy’ as being three people involved, and pologamy as four or more. Since two people involved in the realtionship would generally be what you would consider a ‘tradtional’ marriage. Unless there’s a whole other layer to your statement that I’m missing… 😉
\\’Fact- the Defense of Marriage Act passed 85-14. Normally you couldn’t get an act celebrating Mom & Apple Pie through congress with that margin. Fact-Every time they put banning Gay Marriage on the ballot it passes easily. Anecdote–I’ve seen a disticnt reversal in the last year in kids attitudes toward gays, expecially among African Americans. It’s distressing.”\\
Fact – if you demonize people, as many anti-gay marriage people do, then you get an increase of negative behavior (discrimination, beatings, etc) against those people.
\\Maybe we need to go the civil union route to get people used to the idea, then push for full rights\\
A) Again this is separate-but-equal territory, which has proven to be false, &
B) If the marriage amendment passes, civil unions will be worthless – see text of marriage amendment posted yesterday.
\\The reality is there is something else at work\\
Yes, it makes for a terrific distraction from issues that affect a larger number of us. Look at the last election & all the people who voted for Bush because he supported the marriage ban.
Iraq was a quagmire?
The economy is in the çráppër?
Our troops are being killed because of lies?
The country is the most divided it has been since the civil war?
But hey, gays want to get married & we HAVE to put a stop to THAT.
*****************
Also, and I ask this out of true curiosity & not to troll or be crude.
There were 2 earlier posts about marriages being eligible for dissolution because of not having any children. Do miscarriages and/or still births count as children? Especially since religions are always telling us life begins at conception?
Fact – if you demonize people, as many anti-gay marriage people do, then you get an increase of negative behavior (discrimination, beatings, etc) against those people.
But gays are far less demonized than they have been in the past. They used to show videos in school about how to watch out for gays. When they showed up on TV at all it was usually in the context of “Tonight, on a very special episode of Different Strokes–Willis gets groped by a gym teacher” kind of thing. Lesbians were found only in women’s prisons or vampire movies.
Nowadays you will get a hëll of a lot more criticism for a negative portrayal of a gay than for a positive one.
The country is the most divided it has been since the civil war
Joking, surely. Didn’t live through the 60s, eh?
So basically, I think a fear of the unknown is at the heart of most of it. I could certainly be wrong on that, but I’d be interested to see what other people think.
There is something to what you say, Tim, but there is an interesting factor I’ve seen around here. This is conservative country and the kids I work with are hardly Big City Sophisticates, yet the only two teachers that are pretty much widely known as gay are accepted and, in fact, rather beloved. Similarly, I know of only a couple of kids at the school who are out, and they are, well, really out. Way out. Set off the fire sprinklers out. And interestingly, nobody seems to think it worth starting a fight over or anything.
I suspect they would be far far more upset and threatened to find out that a kid who doesn’t fit the stereotypes is gay.
Which makes me wonder–do gays who exhibit the kinds of behaviors that people associate with homosexuality do so out of choice or is it something some are pushed into–ie, does society encourage gay men to act “effeminate” (though I think that’s the wrong word–I don’t know any women who act like Jack on Will & Grace) and gay women to act “butch” or is this something that is just part of gay society?
And just to head off the obvious rejoinders from the well meaning, yeah, yeah, I KNOW that not all gays are dancing queens and Lina Wertmuller prison guards. Most of the friends I have who are gay are no more unusual acting than my other friends. No less either, too bad for them.
Iowa Jim:
“My question is why does the disagreement continue on such a deep level? I can only wish it was because of people like me who are conservative and/or religious. The reality is there is something else at work.”
Hi Jim,
With all respect for Tim Lynch’s theory about the fear of the unknown, which I share, I believe that there is something else at work as well.
As a straight guy the idea of the act of sex between two men is just… icky. And I don’t mean that in the “I just farted and someone called me a pig while laughing” kind of way. I mean that when I see two guys kiss on T.V. I get this little shiver and it’s not a happy one.
I do question my theory, though, because when it’s two women I’m not grossed out in the least. I often wonder if that makes me a hypocrite.
The weird part is that, while witnessing gay men merely kissing and getting grossed out, I have no problem at all with standing up for equal rights and protections for gays.
Screw it. I just don’t get me sometimes.
“Gays rank lower on the social scale of acceptability than pedophiles, murderers and rapists, and right on par with the thinking that made black and white relations a hanging offense a hundred years ago.”
A hundred years? PAD, Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967. At that point, sixteen states made it a criminal offense to marry someone who wasn’t the same shade as you. In several of those states, Strange Fruit was more than just a song…
Robnn, Google “polyamory”. You might be surprised.
\\But gays are far less demonized than they have been in the past\\
For the most part, yes. But when religious & political leaders go on & on about how gays –
* will destroy marriage
* will destroy society
* will destroy the military
* are equated to pedophiles
* are equated to beastality
Also, add how positive portrayals of gays are condemned by some religious leaders, and this will have a cumulative effect.
PAD, amazingly, said: But if society begins to head toward group marriages, I wouldn’t stand in its way.
No way, man. I would have to stand up against that. I can’t live in an Orgy society. Have to get new clothes, new furniture, buy all these stupid scented oils, a bunch of kooky candles, those f-ed up Tantric statues, buy stock in kimono clothing makers, and grow really bad mistakes. The list just goes on and on.
The line must be drawn NEEYAH!
There were 2 earlier posts about marriages being eligible for dissolution because of not having any children. Do miscarriages and/or still births count as children? Especially since religions are always telling us life begins at conception?
Again, I can only come at this from a jewish perspective, but that is a really good question. I’m not sure about the miscarriage bit, or the still birth, but without actually doing any additional research, I would say that they don’t count. At least not in Judaism. The reason: I’m not positive but I don’t think Judaism qualifies life begining at conception. As tradition dictates a child (well a boy anyway) is not named until the 8th day from the birth. back before modern medicine infant mortality rate wa higher (or is it lower? whichever one means more babies died – that could probably have been phrased more politely) and I think that’s why you had to wait; to make sure that the kid survived. Life begins after the birth (I remember once learing that it’s techinically a month after the birth, but I think i might be talking out of my ášš on that one).
I’m not sure where life legally begins (according to jewish law that is). I’m not going to get into abortion issues because the reasons there are jews (at leat those knowledgable in jewish law) are opposed to abortion are different than the christian counterparts.
Anyone with a more extensive knowledge of Talmudic law, I’m always ready to learn more, feel free to correct any mistakes I might have made.
On a personal note, my favorite answer to when life begins: when the kids move out and the dog dies.
grow really bad mistakes.
that was supposed to say “really bad moustaches”. Kind of like rain on your wedding day, don’t you think?
Iowa Jim: For me, this is just common sense. How is our species propogated (at least the natural method for over 5,000 years of recorded history)? By having sex in order to have children. What institution/structure has been the primary vehicle to provide a place for children to be born and raised?
Luigi Novi: Except that people don
Thanks to A_Greene. I still learned somethings I didn’t know before.
Whoops. I stated above that the idea of first cousins producing genetically diseased kids is a myth, but forgot to verify that with reference before posting. Sorry about that. In fact, I see now it is more likely with recessive traits.
There were 2 earlier posts about marriages being eligible for dissolution because of not having any children. Do miscarriages and/or still births count as children? Especially since religions are always telling us life begins at conception?
At least one of those posts was suggesting an implication that supporters of traditional marriage do not say or believe. The fact that marriage is a union that provides a place to have and raise children does not mean that a couple who do not have children are not married. The reality that seems to be ignored is that only in very recent history (perhaps the last 100 years or less) was it possible for a couple who was regularly sexually active to have serious measures to prevent conception. Measures have existed throughout history, but until recently, they had a high failure rate. So choosing to not have kids is really a very recent phenomenon. (It is also true that a married couple who did not have kids was sometimes looked down upon. Not a good thing, and we know now, not fair in most cases. But it again shows the expectation that a normal marriage could not help but have kids.)
Bottom line, the fact that some choose to not have kids or are unable to have kids doesn’t change the fact that marriage is a place to bear and raise kids. There is no other human institutuion throughout history that has consistently served this purpose.
Iowa Jim
“A hundred years? PAD, Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967. At that point, sixteen states made it a criminal offense to marry someone who wasn’t the same shade as you.”
Interesting. That recently, eh? Okay, here’s a question: Of those sixteen states, was there any overlap with the eleven who just voted to ban gay marriage?
PAD
Iowa Jim:
Bottom line, the fact that some choose to not have kids or are unable to have kids doesn’t change the fact that marriage is a place to bear and raise kids. There is no other human institutuion throughout history that has consistently served this purpose.
The original purpose of marriage was to make sure of the origin of the children. A man would take a wife, which would become his property. Since he would not want any kids not of his loins to inherit, he had to make sure of the woman. Property to be inherited was the instigator of the concept of marriage, not the raising of children. Children were sent out to work as soon as they were able to contribute to the household. Before the advent fo DNA testing a man could not be sure the child was his, unless he kept a tight leash on a woman. Women are still second class citizens, but at least we aren’t 4th or 5th like homosexuals.
I can’t speak to what the original purpose of marriage was; I wasn’t there. But honestly, what’s the point? The original purpose of Frisbees was pie plates, but that doesn’t stop people from starting Ultimate leagues.
Whatever the origin of marriage, we’re not those people anymore. Our institutions have to accomodate US, not the other way around.
Rob
Michael Brunner,
Your welcome.
Okie dokie, I normally just lurk, but I gotta toss my two cents in here. First, the “Marriage has ALWAYS been one man and one woman” myth is one of the favorites of the anti-gay crusaders, but it’s so false that it’s not really worth going into here.
Secondly, I don’t see anyone who hides behind the flimsy “It’s just not natural” argument giving up their cars, guns, pasteurized dairy products or synthetic medicines, none of which are terribly “natural.”
Thirdly, and recently in the news locally in Indiana, is the excuse that gay couples cannot naturally have children. This, of course ties in with the first two as reasons to deny homosexuals their rights. Well, it would naturally follow that ANYONE who cannot produce a child should not be allowed to marry, including anyone with a vasectomy or tubal ligation, women past menopause, or anyone with any number of conditions causing sterility. Of course, when that particular hole is punched in the argument, they inevitably fall back on #1 or #2, which hold up even less.
Of course, the “argument” that I’ve seen on here that has caused me to chime in is that we have to “protect the children.” Please… We’re talking about a minority who, by their very nature, cannot have unwanted children. Also, as has been mentioned before, nobody seems to be proposing legislation preventing murderers, rapists, or child molesters from marrying.
Let’s take this desire to protect children a natural step or two further. What’s a definite hot point in child safety? GUNS. Seems to me a pretty simple way of keeping kids from shooting themselves and also preserving the right to bear arms that right-wingers are so fond of is to simply say that people who own guns are not allowed to marry. (Since the main reason to marry is to have kids, after all) That means police officers and most soldiers are out of luck. Heck, doubly so for those groups, since it’s SO important to a kid’s healthy development to have BOTH parents around, what with troops and cops getting shot in the line of duty all the time.
Ridiculous? Of course! But it’s no more ridiculous than barring loving, consenting adult couples from that “pursuit of happiness” the founding fathers seemed so keen on. Sadly, I’m beginning to think that our government won’t be able to pull itself out of the pit of bigotry it’s gotten itself into until some of the old farts running it die off and let some common sense into the upper levels of running things.
-Rex Hondo-
Jim, I’ve only done a very quick and unproductive search on historical contraception, but what’s your source for stating that contraceptive methods going back beyond 100 years were relatively unsuccessful? I’ve read various reports that, for all our modern contraceptive methods, and the condom comes to mind as the most effective modern tool, humanity in general had just as effective, and maybe even more effective, contraceptive methods that have been lost over time. I’m talking various herbal infusions that control or limit ovulation, spermacides, and learning the woman’s cycle to avoid sex during her fertile days. I don’t think those methods were really ineffective. More, just as improperly using a condom today eliminates it’s contraceptive value, it’s the misapplication of any method that results in failure, not the method itself.
Having just spent that last 2 years attempting to get my wife pregnant, I know how difficult it can be for some couples who are actively trying. And I also know how simple it is to predict a woman’s fertile days. Nothing hi-tech, just a simple thermometer. Absent that, just monitor when the woman’s temperature rises slightly. Technology and knowledge that goes back way beyond 100 years. So I’m kinda doubtful of the ineffectiveness of historical contraception as a fact supporting the idea that marriage is primarily a method for creating an environment for having children.
In addition, there’s very little, biologically or under current legal standards, preventing out-of-wedlock children. While other countries may stone women that get pregnant out of wedlock, the US doesn’t take that view. Many of those countries also still view women as property, but that’s sorta beside the point.
I think it’s more supportable to say that marriage, historically, was a way of claiming property. Less than 100 years ago, that was pretty much the main point of marriage here in the US. It’s only until very, very recently in history that marriage has been about love and union and true partnership anywhere in the world.
Luigi Novi: Except that people don
Jim, I’ve only done a very quick and unproductive search on historical contraception, but what’s your source for stating that contraceptive methods going back beyond 100 years were relatively unsuccessful?
Good question. It comes from general comments I have read about current contraceptive methods and a PBS special I saw a few years ago. (Yes, I do watch PBS on occasion!) I agree that contraception has been around for a long time. But my understanding is that the failure rate in the past was not just due to “user error” but also due to “material error.”
When I was getting married, I did read materials about various contraceptive methods. (Obviously, I am not a Catholic.) I seem to recall that the birth control pill had one of the highest success rates of any method, and that its introduction radically changed things. (I know you can still get pregnant on the pill — my sister-in-law did — but it is extremely rare unless you miss a dose.)
I think it’s more supportable to say that marriage, historically, was a way of claiming property.
Explain how this did not involve kids? Did a man gain property by marrying a woman? That seems unlikely since women often were themselves considered property. Or is that what you mean? Marriage was a way to pass on property to the next generation. Marriage was a way to have kids to give the property to. What am I missing?
Iowa Jim
I don’t think you missed much, Jim. Marriage was a way to proclaim a woman not only as belonging to her husband, but also that the children produced from that marriage would inherit the man’s property upon his death. but the point of marriage wasn’t to have children, it was to have children that could legally inherit property. It was to resolve the legal question of who owned land after the man’s death. Providing a good environment for the child wasn’t a consideration.
A_Greene: It’s been a while since I learned this, but I’m pretty sure that at least in traditional Jewry, life begins at birth. It has to do with G-d breathing life into Adam’s nostrils; the *breath* of life was the defining factor.
I seem to also recall that by Talmudic law, if a man bumps into a woman and causes a miscarriage, he owes her a sum of money for her loss — but it’s not murder, or even accidental homicide, because the fetus is not a person.
Ah. A quick search in my Kitzur Chulchan Aruch reveals this, in talking about causing physical injury: “When a woman has severe pain in childbirth, the physician is permitted to destroy the child before its birth… for as long as it has not yet been born, it is not considered a living soul… However, as soon as it protrudes its head, it must not be touched, for one living soul must not be sacrificed to save another, and this is the way of nature.”
[b]IOWA JIM: Let’s start at the beginning. You suggest a couple gets married because they are in love. Fine. What does that mean? How is it different than liking others in the human race? It is different in that it is normally expressed in the most intimate forms of “love,” namely, sex. Unless there is a physical restriction that makes it impossible, we normally expect that a marriage would involve sex.[/b]
So, if I follow you, the only difference between being a friend and being a non-related loved one is having sex – and the means to that end (having a sexual partner) is marriage.
[b]IOWA JIM: What, then, is the normal outcome of sex, all things being equal? For most healthy people (and assuming it is a male and a female having the sex), they get pregnant. It takes artificial means (contraceptives) or a physical problem to avoid getting pregnant if you are having regular sex (again, in most cases, all things being equal).[/b]
I have to disagree here. As a mature man, I remember going through my teens and definitely NOT wanting to have sex to engender progeny. I’m afraid that my intentions were rather somewhat more base and self-satisfying – but procreation was definitely NOT what I was thinking of when I asked Beth M. to the prom!
Surely progeny is ONE desired outcome of sex, but not the only one. Not even necessarily the primary one, as many people do not believe in sex only to reproduce.
[b]IOWA JIM: Since marriage has normally been between a man and a woman, it also normally involves having a kid. The two ARE very directly related since sex is the normal activity of a married couple.[/b]
Well, I will allow that your conclusions follow very surely from your premises – but I’m not sure of the complete validity of your premises.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that people marry to have sex to have children – but again, I’m not sure that follows completely. People marry for love of each other all the time, and while sex is part of it, it isn’t the entire part of it. Shucks, I can assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt that I married my wife because of everything that goes on in our lives – including sex, but not limited to it, or even focused on it.
In our case, we married for love. I think that may be the point – again, unless I’m misunderstanding you (and I hope I’ve done the bolding right to get your quotes correctly.) Thank you for your consideration.
Eric L. Sofer
The Silver Age Fogey
x
Hi,
i just wanted to be poster 340
Joe V.
Yay,
i was poster 340 ( & now 341)
Joe V.
There is something to what you say, Tim, but there is an interesting factor I’ve seen around here. This is conservative country and the kids I work with are hardly Big City Sophisticates, yet the only two teachers that are pretty much widely known as gay are accepted and, in fact, rather beloved. Similarly, I know of only a couple of kids at the school who are out, and they are, well, really out. Way out. Set off the fire sprinklers out. And interestingly, nobody seems to think it worth starting a fight over or anything.
I don’t doubt it; I’ve seen the same thing in both my current and previous schools, though it could be argued in my case that the kids in many ways ARE “big city sophisticates.”
I guess the other half of the argument is that changes do occur from generation to generation — if a smaller percentage of kids born in 1980 are taught that homosexuality is some sort of horrific abomination than the percentage who were told that in 1950, then that generation is naturally more likely to consider homosexuality no big deal. The fear-of-the-unknown factor is still around, but becomes significantly less earth-shattering.
I didn’t know a single person in my HS who was gay — or more appropriately, didn’t know a single person there who I knew was gay. Similarly, while two friends of mine in college were gay, I didn’t find out about it until a couple of years after they’d graduated.
Now I have students who are quite publicly out — in fact, my previous school’s valedictorian one year said that his ultimate goal was “to be the first gay Jewish president.” [He might make it, too — really bright, really capable kid.]
I think the fear-of-the-unknown factor is what’s kept the progress pretty slow, but I also think it’ll gradually increase as the older generation starts to … well, to die off, to be blunt.
I could be wrong, of course — wouldn’t be the first time. But that’s how I see it.
TWL
I have to disagree here. As a mature man, I remember going through my teens and definitely NOT wanting to have sex to engender progeny. I’m afraid that my intentions were rather somewhat more base and self-satisfying – but procreation was definitely NOT what I was thinking of when I asked Beth M. to the prom!
I understand that. My point, though, is that if you want to make sure your wife or girlfriend does not get pregnant, you have to do something about it. I don’t think it is wrong to have sex for pleasure (in my view it should be within a marriage relationship). I am just saying that pregnancy is the whole point of sex from a strictly natural function standpoint. If you have sex at the same time and egg is ready, you will normally have a kid 9 months later.
Iowa Jim
Saulres, thanks for correction. I haven’t done any real studying for close to ten years now so I’m a bit rusty. Either way though, the answer to Michael Brunner is the same, in regards to misscarriages and still births (at least from the jewish perspective). I was almost positive there was some sort of time delay after the birth, but maybe I was thining only in terms of periods of mourning if the child doesn’t survive.
I have the entire talmud, mishna, Shulchan Aruch, and some others on a series of disks, unfotunately, I have an older iMac with out a floppy disk drive, so I can’t actually use them. Thanks again for your clarafication.
Wow, this is the first time I find myself agreeing with Iowa Jim.
IOWA JIM: What, then, is the normal outcome of sex, all things being equal? For most healthy people (and assuming it is a male and a female having the sex), they get pregnant. It takes artificial means (contraceptives) or a physical problem to avoid getting pregnant if you are having regular sex (again, in most cases, all things being equal).
Eric L.: I have to disagree here. As a mature man, I remember going through my teens and definitely NOT wanting to have sex to engender progeny. I’m afraid that my intentions were rather somewhat more base and self-satisfying – but procreation was definitely NOT what I was thinking of when I asked Beth M. to the prom!
Procration was not what you were thinking, I totally believe that, but there is a reason we are hard wired to desire sex, there is a reason sex feels as good as it does (if you do it right anyway). it’s just natures way of ensuring procreation. You might not have wanted to get your prom date pregnant, but your innate desire for sexual gratification is what has ultimately got us as a species al the way to the year 2005. If we didn’t have such a strong desire for sex, we probably would have died out as a speicies long ago.
My idea of marriage is different than that of Jim’s, which is why I support gay marriage and he does not. But his logic in regards to ones sex drive is on the money.
So, Jim, if I am digesting your breakdown (and I do appreciate the fact that you broke down how you feel about marriage the way that you did, I think I sort of understand it more and you are a far cry from most of the people who get their faces on tv spitting out talking points on the subject), your major objection to homosexual marriage would be because two people of the same gender cannot intentionally or accidentally produce offspring?
And to the poster who made the point waaaay back up there somewhere that a woman who got pregnant after being raped shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion because (paraphrasing here) “just because you’re dad was an áššhølë doesn’t mean you should die.” I appreciate that point and hadn’t thought of it in that light, but what about that child? What kind of emmotional and mental scarring would that child have if it knows it was a product of rape? I suppose it could boil down to how the mother raises the child. I did know a woman a while back who was raped and had a child, which she immediately gave up for adoption (I think she was only 15 at the time). When her son was older, he eventually sought her out and he clearly had issues. He made strange sexual allusions to her, made some violent comments I believe, and eventually killed himself shortly after meeting her. The foster parents blamed her (and for the record she was extremely devastated) not only for the child’s problems and suicide, but also seemed to hold her in contempt for conceiving the child and then “abandoning” it.
Anywhat, I’ve been sick and I’m feeling incoherent, so I’ll go back to lurking again.
Monkeys.
For what it’s worth, my mom felt incredibly loved that her mother loved her so much despite her parentage. But then, my grandmother was remarkable woman…
Iowa Jim,
buddy, i share your thought as i’m also from the midwest. i live in south dakota so i completly understand & empetize w/ your views. But i think it’s time to call this contest a draw. i’ve seen you go 1 on 1 with everyone for like 4 days and i notice no one is giving up (now that is conviction), and perhaps we should let the argument go.
like you i believe marriage is between 1 man & 1 woman. like you i believe in God, like you i live in the plains. we both support Bush, we’re both republicans so i share a lot of your views.
one of the things i do is i no longer try to defend God’s existence. That is a matter of faith. I’ve always believed that God gives us free will to accept him or deny him. to believe in him or not. In my opinion, the all mighty doesn’t need me to defend him. He created the universe so i’m sure he can defend himself. In the end we will all ultimatly find the truth. We will die and then we’ll see who’s right & who’s not right. Unless people really study the bible and theology, it’s very hard to explain, or even for people to understand why God is “silent” for the last 2,400 years.
another thing that turns people off christianity is all the hyppocrasy going on in the modern church. I refer to the people that i call sunday christians, meaning they are christians on sunday only, the rest of the week they live very un christian like. they gossip & curse, say off color jokes, drink & eat excessivly. when the secular world sees that, they, & probably rightly so, get turned off by their behavior.
seeing the scandals of the catholic priests, jim stewart & jim baker don’t exactly help.
1 thing i hope people understand is just like everywhere else in life, there are zealots, but ultimatly we are just like everyone else. we don’t believe we are perfect or above the law. we just believe we are forgiven. that’s all.
i say we call this argument a draw, & move one to talking comics for a bit. that always seems to bring us a little bit together.
peace out & signing out.
Joe V.
ps
PAD, I heard rumor you are taking fallen angel to idw. is that true?
PAD: Interesting. That recently, eh? Okay, here’s a question: Of those sixteen states, was there any overlap with the eleven who just voted to ban gay marriage?
There was an overlap of five states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. A purely random sampling of the 50 states would likely produce three or four.
Incidentally, the 16 states in question represented all eleven states of the old Confederacy, plus Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, and West Virginia.
By that reasoning, the marriage between a black man and white woman should automatically have been endorsed, instead of being met with hostility and bigotry…
Actually, the argument made by Virginia in defending its anti-miscegenation law leaned *heavily* on childbirth. And they were very openly racist:
(The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia) concluded that the State’s legitimate purposes were “to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens,” and to prevent “the corruption of blood,” “a mongrel breed of citizens,” and “the obliteration of racial pride,” obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy.
At least in Virginia’s case, the law only criminalized a white person marrying a non-white person. Intermarriage between minorities was perfectly legal. A black person marrying an Asian person (and procreating thereafter) was OK, which further showed that the state was only concerned with “mongrel breeds” when they involved the “corruption” of white blood.