1

Come on, Joe. You yourself have written posts about the fallacy of confusing correlation with causation. The data from Scandinavian countries prove nothing. Using the same reasoning, I could prove that ice cream cones cause drowning since both statistics rise every summer.

From what I can tell, Blankenhorn is a conservative Christian. Here is another part of the interview cited above:

"If we adopt gay marriage, we will be saying to millions of believing Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others, that, as a matter of law, their deepest views about marriage -- its structure and purpose -- are beyond the pale of our civil society, pretty much the same as being an overt racist, or shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. As a result, many believers would likely have to have to choose between being a good believer and being a good citizen."

That statement reveals someone who is a bit out of touch with reality.

Can you provide evidence that he is "pro gay rights"?

Besides a masters degree, what are his qualifications?

2

Yoshiro's argument is weak to the extent that, because his "intellectual property" claim is only an analogy (he does not literally believe that the argument against marriage is a matter of intellectual property), using the details of IP law to knock it down is off the point. But his discussion of that law is fine as far as it goes. Your criticisms are incorrect.

Yoshiro did not say "no living individual" invented Coke - and IP law does not require that the inventor be living. Some individual certainly invented Coke, as no individual invented marriage. His reference to the ownership of Coke was also correct, though a bit ambiguous (you mis-read it as meaning "a single individual"; that is not what he said, but it could have been clearer). Though no single individual owns Coke, many individuals, collectively, do - the shareholders of the company; again, IP law does not hinge on whether an asset is owned by one person or many. In contrast, however, no person owns marriage in any way.

So his distinction between marriage, as a "valuable asset" that is not subject to IP law, and other property that is subject to such doctrines, is sound. It's just not a strong argument, because right-wing tantrums over marriage are only like IP "tarnishment" claims, they are not a literal instance of them. But his argument stands on its own terms.

As to the argumentum ad homophobia, it is also perfectly sound. (Hint: you're not supposed to be homophobic.) That someone's beliefs are homophobic is grounds for dismissing them; that homophobia is a central feature of a widespread religious doctrine is not a defense of that doctrine, but merely a self-accusation.

And, finally, as to the debasement of marriage as an institution by its being made non-discriminatory, some of us regard that as a feature, not a bug.

3

argumentum ad homophobia? Isn't that merely argumentum ad populum? Seems rather convenient to dismiss things so easily.

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

4

Take, for instance, his first claim that "No such claim can be made about state-sponsored marriage, because no individual invented marriage, and no individual owns it." That begs the question of how Coca-Cola was able to sue--and win--a tarnishment case when no one alive at the company invented the product and no single individual owns it.

Legally the company is 'alive' as a corporation which is a distinct legal entity that is treated seperately from the shareholders that own it.

More importantly look carefully at the word trademark: TRADE MARK. It is a 'mark' that indicates a 'trade'. Coca-Cola's mark indicates their trade (making soda). Marriage, though, is not a 'trademark'. I don't go to a store looking for a 'marriage' on a package. There are institutions involved in the 'trade' of marriages. All types of Churches from the most somber to Las Vegas 'quickie marriage' joints are in the trade as are city halls, independent ministers and so on. Perhaps someone could own the 'trade' of marriage if they patented it but as you know patents cannot be had for unoriginal inventions and even if someone did 'invent' marriage the patent would have expired long ago.

Coca-Cola doesn't own the trade of making soda. If tomorrow someone opened up a soda company called "Gay Soda" or even "Child Molester Soda" Coca-Cola couldn't claim tarnishment unless they used trademarks that might reasonably be seen as similar to Coca-Cola's.

To make this argument work Joe, you would need to imagine some type of gay group offering 'gay marriage' using a trademark symbol that looked like the symbols the Catholic Church uses or Baptists use (I know the Catholics have symbols but I don't know about everyone else). Then perhaps you could have an argument that the gay group is tarnishing the trademark of Catholic marriage or Baptist marriage but you can't argue that those groups get to monopolize all of marriage.

5

The data from Scandinavian countries prove nothing. Using the same reasoning, I could prove that ice cream cones cause drowning since both statistics rise every summer.

The problem with the Scandinavian countries is that in addition to introducing gay marriage they also introduced lots of variations on marriage so a couple there is confronted with numerous options between simply 'shacking up' and full blown traditional marriage. If people have various types of 'marriage-lite' to choose from (such as domestic partnerships where couples share certain benefits but not the full blown legal obligations of marriage) it isn't surprising that those choosing full blown traditional marriage will decrease.

This is a much more relevant variable IMO than hetrosexual couples in Scandinavian countries who are somehow repulsed by traditional marriage because a gay couple down the street has 'tarnished' it.

6

FYI, Joe, it's Yoshino, not Yoshiro.

7

Are you paying too much on online matrimonial web sites ?
If yes, then register your profile on Supershaadi.com. www.SuperShaadi.com a 100% FREE site including personalized email messages without paying anything. You can find hundreads of single from your area and from your community. register, Search and send an email on SuperShaadi.com just for FREE

8

You know, there have also been times in those countries that have gay marriage where the rates of heterosexual marriages actually went UP. Gay marriage must have caused that too eh?

Its not a straw man, its a whole straw house. And it flies apart at the merest breath of rationality or logic.

9

The question that needs to be asked is not what meaning we attribute to the marriage institution, as in a 'brand', but whether the marriage institution means something intrinsically. If there is a clear definition of the purpose and meaning of marriage between people one may then differentiate it from other sorts of partnerships and conclude whether something endangers the institution.

but I think most people would agree it is more of a matter than simply "cachet".

10

The question that needs to be asked is not what meaning we attribute to the marriage institution, as in a 'brand',

A good point but these days the right has taken the position that any argument will do as long as it produces the result they desire. Hence we get arguments like this that propose to treat marriage as if it was nothing more than a trademark...even in the world of intellectual property a copyright or patent at has a bit more respectability in that they are actually uniquely creative creations.

11

You've got it backwards Boonton. This trademark approach is an argument from the left, not the right.

12

The way I'm getting the jist of the argument against gay marriage, or any marriage not between a man and a woman, is that it would harm a marriage between a man and a woman, by virtue of harming the reputaion of the institution of marriage.

I assume we're talking about a "Christian" marriage, not a civil marriage. The joining of two individuals in a civil marriage is, in my opinion, none of my business.

As to the "Christian" marriage, I find this passage in Matthew 22:30 where Jesus Christ says "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." This tells us that marriage, even a marriage in a church is only an earthly institution as, in heaven, according to what Jesus Christ said, we will be "as the angels of God."

To bring the argument to absurdity, since President Bush is a Christian, as I am, and since President Bush is a male, as I am, and since President Bush is an American, as I am, and since President Bush is a Texan, as I am, and since President Bush is an idiot, does that also make me an idiot? I think not!

Love
David

13

And, finally, as to the debasement of marriage as an institution by its being made non-discriminatory, some of us regard that as a feature, not a bug.

Yes, that is the ultimate goal isn't it? De-institutionalization of marriage... eventually to paint married people and the idea of marriage as intrinsically disordered, then maybe even do away with the idea of mothers and fathers in favor of the generic term parental unit or perhaps chromosome donator.

14

The joining of two individuals in a civil marriage is, in my opinion, none of my business.

So then, does this mean you only partially reject God and his Son's definition of marriage?

15

Yes, that is the ultimate goal isn't it? De-institutionalization of marriage... eventually to paint married people and the idea of marriage as intrinsically disordered, then maybe even do away with the idea of mothers and fathers in favor of the generic term parental unit or perhaps chromosome donator.

I'm not sure what this even means. Whose 'ultimate goal'? Andrew Sullivan's? The couple down the street that just got their domestic partnership certified at the town hall? A local professor of sociology? Or a member of a activist group in NYC?

Is this just another retread of the 'gay agenda' canard whose argument was we cannot accept one argument no matter how well reasoned because they have a 'secret agenda' that somehow is automatically implemented if they win on even a single point?

16

"So then, does this mean you only partially reject God and his Son's definition of marriage?"

I d like someone to explain how one can reject th alledged statements of fictional characters.

17

David Perkins, pastor of the Church of the Divine Light, wrote:

since President Bush is an idiot, does that also make me an idiot? I think not!

Love
David

I have often thought that liberals have no sense of humor. It's actually more specific than that--they have no sense of irony.

Love,
jd

18

If you really want to target those who are tarnishing marriage, you should go after those who break their vows of "till death do us part." You know, folks like Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson.

19

jd

"David Perkins, pastor of the Church of the Divine Light" I like that! A lot! It's far better than "Jesus Christ Said" don't you think? And a LOT better than "pastor of the Church of the Divine Right!"

How about "pastor of the Church of the Divine left...behind to preach what Jesus Christ actually said?"

Wow, Thanks JD.

and as for a liberal with irony, JD, would you really steel my irony?

SMMTheory

You asked me "So then, does this mean you only partially reject God and his Son's definition of marriage?"

I looked in the Bible and I couldn't find a "definition" of marriage.

But watch out! And don't take things out of context when you're quoting the Bible. After all, there are at least two places where men are to enter into a marriage agreement with each other; 1 Kings, 3:1 "Solomon made a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt;" and 2 Chronicles 18:1 "Now Jehoshaphat had great riches and honor; and he made a marriage alliance with Ahab."

(Is that some more of your "irony" JD?)

However all of the descriptions of marriage in the Bible seem to be between a man and a woman. Or in the case of Jesus Christ in Revelation 19:7 "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." The key word there is "herself."

Does that mean that a church cannot marry anyone it chooses? I believe that's up to the church and the marrying pastor and what they are comfortable with.

I take up for the gays and lesbians, the same way I take up for any trod upon person or group because I believe when Jesus Christ said to us to take care of the least of these, he was including anyone like them, who are on the outside of society.

I would take up for the filthy rich too but they have so many lawyers to protect them (and there's always the promise of a presidential get-out-of-jail card if they are actually caught breaking our laws.) Anyway, the point is, I'd just be in their way!

But I've got to throw in here that I've never seen anyone as liberal as a conservative that's been harmed!

The Bible does say loud and clear that sex out of marriage is unholy (and yes I was guilty of this sin.) Perhaps that's a good argument for gays marrying.

What gets to me is the very harsh language that the conservatives want amended to our nation's constitution, a secular document, defining marriage as between a man and a woman only, when the Bible didn't even go that far. To me, it's just one more sign that conservatives don't care at all about what Jesus Christ actually said about "loving your neighbor" and "loving one another" and "love your enemies." It seems that conservatives care only about controlling other's behavior. I reject that as "Christian" living and "family values."

Love
David

20

"the right has taken the position that any argument will do as long as it produces the result they desire"
Point taken. Although to be fair all sides ought to confess to this one, don't you think?

Until we get to thinking what the institution of marriage actually consists of these days, we just aren't going to make any progress other than throwing brickbats from one side to the other.
I'm not going to get into it here, but the real problem for the conservative on this issue is the inroads of easy divorce. Gay marriage is only riding the tails of that.

I do believe we are going to also see the problems raised by polygamy more and more. It is a social economic problem in terms of our present laws, no matter what your ethos is on the practice itself... and gay marriage is the doorway to making allowances on that.Simply because it works by changing the presently understood definitions.

The dialogue on marriage almost always centers entirely around the couple,but what seems lost in the modern sense of marriage is the offspring. How much of marriage is defined by society's view of children? How much of the need for "children's rights" springs from this fracturing of the idea of what constitutes family, and how does this change the definition of marriage as the seedbed of family?

Indeed we are questioning the whole construct in some of our desires for a more liberal societal definition of marriage. Pretty soon what will it mean under these pressures? Another way to ask this question is where do we draw the line?

Ok, I don't mean to go all slippery slope on everyone here, but I have to ask.. does anyone else see the implications in our quasi socialism -oriented government "nets"? Once we officially change our definition of marriage, all the systems functioning upon that definition must change. Will we still be protecting those parts of the society which are factored into the institution of marriage, but vaguely or simply undefined by us?

21

Ex-preacher You yourself have written posts about the fallacy of confusing correlation with causation. The data from Scandinavian countries prove nothing.

While the data from the Scandinavian countries is not decisive proof, it is a bit of an overstatement to claim that it proves nothing. True, correlation does not prove causation. But when all other variables are the same and that is the only significant one that has changed, it is worth paying attention to.

From what I can tell, Blankenhorn is a conservative Christian.

Blankenhorn is indeed a Christian, but he's a liberal one. From his book "The Future of Marriage":

"I am a lifelong Democrat. Although my work on family issues sometimes prompts those who disagree with me to call me a conservative, I have always thought of myself as essentially a liberal." (pg. 2)

And then there is this:

"I am a Christian. I take the Bible seriously, and I know what the Bible says about homosexuality. I disagree with the Bible on this point."

Can you provide evidence that he is "pro gay rights"?

He told me so when I had dinner with him. Does that count as evidence?

Blakenhorn is a liberal. A real, old-school liberal, though, not the proto-libertarian brand that passes for "progressivism" these days.

Besides a masters degree, what are his qualifications?

Well, he's considered one of the country's leading family scholar's and for 20 years he's been the head of one of the best family issue think tanks in the country.

22

True, correlation does not prove causation. But when all other variables are the same and that is the only significant one that has changed, it is worth paying attention to.

All other variables are not the same. As I pointed out a major variable that did change was the introduction of various flavors of 'marriage-lite' that gave hetrosexual couples options that fell short of marriage. Even in the US we have a type of private sector 'marriage-lite' with domestic partnerships where unmarried couples can still share employer benefits.

While the data from the Scandinavian countries is not decisive proof, it is a bit of an overstatement to claim that it proves nothing.

On the contrary, if it doesn't prove something (which it doesn't) then it indeed proves nothing. Even if it did, though, it would be a very weak argument against gay marriage because it hints that a serious weakness exists in hetrosexual couples if they are so fickle as to ditch marriage just because a tiny portion of married people are gay.

Suppose a survey reveiled that many young people think of married people as fat and ugly, hence they would rather not get married because they want to be thin and beautiful. Would the solution be to tell the fat and ugly people to stop being selfish and forgo marriage for the sake of the rest of society or would the solution be to tell young people to stop being vein and arrogant?

In all honestly Joe, I think you have to agree if you love your wife even a tiny bit less or are even a tiny bit less inclined to serve as a good husband or good father just because there may be a gay couple in your neighborhood who has a legal marriage then it is you that is suffering from a serious problem.

If this was a serious theory the next question one would want to ask is why? Why would the existence of gay marriage for maybe 1-5% of the population (which assuming 50% took advantage of it would still only amount to maybe 2.5% of the whole population) would cause hetrosexual marriages to falter.

The 'transmission mechanism' you proposed in your post is 'tarnishment'....hetrosexuals wouldn't want to associate with anything that homosexuals take part in...even if it is marriage. That's sort of like the idea of 'white flight' from back in the 70's. If a single black family moved into the neighborhood many whites would seek to move as if the entire neighborhood had instantly turned into a ghetto.

But does this make any sense at all? All evidence is that homosexuals are more tolerated and accepted today than before. If hetrosexuals can be friends with homosexuals, work with them, even got to the gym and shower with them(!) all in the sudden they are going to shun marriage because it has 2.5% homosexuals? They don't shun Starbucks or Panara Bread even though I'm sure those places achieve a gayness percentage better than 2.5%!

23

Is this just another retread of the 'gay agenda' canard whose argument was we cannot accept one argument no matter how well reasoned because they have a 'secret agenda' that somehow is automatically implemented if they win on even a single point?

It's no secret Boonton. There are people who do wish to de-institutionalize marriage and are not secretive about their desires. White-washing this statement as a canard does not make it so. Even granting that the people who do desire it are fringe nihilistic anarchists does not make this a canard. When a person says that debasement of marriage is a perk of recognizing the gay relationship as marriage that is a vocalization (whether consciously or subconsciously) of the desire to de-institutionalize marriage.

24

I looked in the Bible and I couldn't find a "definition" of marriage.

Try toward the beginning of Matthew 19; verses 4 through 6.

25

There are people who do wish to de-institutionalize marriage and are not secretive about their desires. White-washing this statement as a canard does not make it so.

First of all I don't even understand what you people mean by 'de-institutionalize' marriage. Do you mean what Michael Kinsley advocated, a libertarian approach where the gov't has nothing to do with marriage? In that case marriages would be performed by Churches and other private organizations and it would hardly be 'de-institutionalized'. Do you mean a situation where no one would choose to get married but just kind of 'shack up'? Well people are perfectly free to do that now and advocates for that don't need legalized gay marriage.

Second of all so what? There are always people who wish to do all sorts of things. Probably the most elementary lesson you should know by now about democracy is that almost no one always gets everything they want. Communists in 1930 wanted the gov't to take over all heavy industry, what they got was unemployment insurance & the right to unionize. This is the problem with the whole 'first step' argument. It's very common to take a first step, very rare to take a second. It doesn't follow that because you agree with one plank of person's or group's agenda that you automatically sign on for the whole thing.

Even granting that the people who do desire it are fringe nihilistic anarchists does not make this a canard. When a person says that debasement of marriage is a perk of recognizing the gay relationship as marriage that is a vocalization (whether consciously or subconsciously) of the desire to de-institutionalize marriage

Actually David Blankenhorn's quote doesn't make much sense. Leaving aside the fact that I have no idea what he means by 'de-institutionalize', he seems to be saying marriage is bad thing but also saying it's unfair that gays are excluded in marriage? Then he seems to be saying to get rid of marriage you first have to get gays in marriage....doesn't follow. Imagine someone in 1860 saying to get rid of slavery you first have to let white people become slaves....

26

First of all I don't even understand what you people mean by 'de-institutionalize' marriage.

Marriage is a societal institution. People wish to remove it from society, not just from civil ordinance and administration. Considering the wide-spread societal acceptance of shacking-up, as soon as civil ordinance is adjusted to allow marriage-lite options (one of the results of the whole debate about neutering marriage, not the source btw), the more people will see a benefit to just shacking-up. This produces at least part of the shift away from marriage that is seen in European countries that introduce those options.

Actually David Blankenhorn's quote doesn't make much sense.

I was not referencing David Blankenhorn, but instead Kevin Keith's statement at the end of comment 2. You, on the other hand, have severely misquoted or misconstrued David Blankenhorn's whole premise. Imagine, if only somewhere, somehow people could have the debate about whether or not marriage should be neutered without one of the advocates for it making references to slavery.

27

Marriage is a societal institution. People wish to remove it from society, not just from civil ordinance and administration. Considering the wide-spread societal acceptance of shacking-up,..

In other words by 'de-institutionalize' you mean that people want to see people stop choosing to get married...sort of like how some dolphin lovers want people to stop choosing to eat tunafish because of the nets killing dolphins?

Now I have to say a big so what? The vast bulk of people will choose to get married at some point in their lives. Others will choose to marry several times over but only a tiny percentage will choose to never even consider marriage. If some people have this as a goal then they have a mighty road ahead of them, it would probably be easier to convince people to stop using cars. But what does that have to do with gay marriage? If anything you're adding to marriage rather than detracting from it.

That is unless you're going for the 'tarnishment' angle....unless you think people hate gays so much that they will flee marriage if even 2% of married couples are gay. But here in the normal world there is no such irrational hatred.

Imagine, if only somewhere, somehow people could have the debate about whether or not marriage should be neutered without one of the advocates for it making references to slavery.

I wasn't comparing anyone's position here to slavery. I was pointing out it's rather bizaar for a supposed advocate of getting rid of marriage to see a logical 'first step' as making it accessible to all. Seriously, if I wanted to neuter marriage I would take the opposite of all liberal positions on it. I would, for example, advocate the old laws banning interracial marriage. I would make divorce almost impossible and extremly messy. I would support the old laws that let husbands have automatic access to their wives bank accounts and so on. I would seek to make marriage seem so unpleasent, so old fashioned and out of touch that no one would want to even consider it.

Considering the wide-spread societal acceptance of shacking-up, as soon as civil ordinance is adjusted to allow marriage-lite options (one of the results of the whole debate about neutering marriage, not the source btw),

Shacking up became a thing a long, long time before anyone seriously considered or debated gay marriage or even 'marriage-lite'. It's interesting that it is those opposed to gay marriage who are pushing new 'marriage-lite' options like civil unions or types of contracts where the individual pieces of marriage (like making healthcare decisions for spouses who are too ill to speak for themselves) are broken up and can be assigned by individuals. More than a few have noted since these options would have to be available to heterosexual as well as gay couples it would be less damaging to just have gay marriage under the traditional rules.

28

But what does that have to do with gay marriage? If anything you're adding to marriage rather than detracting from it.

Institutionalizing sexual discrimination into marriage does not add to marriage in a positive way. Even overlooking the fact that I also do not believe total de-institutionalization of marriage will occur, you discount the disruptive nature of those attempts to do so because you are without understanding of the whole interconnection between marriage and society.

Seriously, if I wanted to neuter marriage I would take the opposite of all liberal positions on it.

You have no idea what I mean by that phrase. Think about pets. When you neuter pets, you remove part of their sexual organs to prevent them from procreating. That is the operative result of calling an obviously non-procreative combination (such as a homosexual couple) a marriage.

It's interesting that it is those opposed to gay marriage who are pushing new 'marriage-lite' options like civil unions

No, not all of those opposed to the farce of "gay marriage" are advocating marriage-lite options, and I really don't think it is a large percentage that are advocating marriage-lite options. I personally think the Powers-of-Attorney laws suffice for all the legal necessities that may arise from a homosexual relationship.

29

smmtheory

Institutionalizing sexual discrimination into marriage does not add to marriage in a positive way.

You gave a very clear definition of what you meant by deinstitutionalizing marriage...you meant having more people choosing options other than marriage (like 'shacking up'). Now whether or not you think gay couples are a positive addition to marriage the fact remains having it as a legal option for them does just the opposite of de-institutionalizing marriage. In fact it reinforces marriage as the default institution. Some gays have criticized pro-marriage gays like Andrew Sullivan on that very ground. They argue that gays should not try to copy straights.

you discount the disruptive nature of those attempts to do so because you are without understanding of the whole interconnection between marriage and society.

If you recall I asked for someone to try to articulate the 'transmission mechanism' between legal gay marriages and problems with straight marriages...that's basically asking the same thing as what you term the 'interconnection'. Please if you have this knowledge do share with us.

When you neuter pets, you remove part of their sexual organs to prevent them from procreating. That is the operative result of calling an obviously non-procreative combination (such as a homosexual couple) a marriage.

Procreative ability, though, is not a requirement for marriage. Sterile couples have always been free to marry. In fact, I've pointed out before we traditionally frown upon some procreative marriages. For example, when to very told people find each other late in life we feel good about such a marriage even though it is horrible from a procreative stance. But when we read about a 70 year old man marrying a 21 year old woman we usually frown despite the obvious fact that such a marriage is highly likely to be procreative.

Fundamentally the procreative aspect of marriage is that it provides support and stability for the adults inside of it. You need to have this before you even can think about having kids. This is why when you hear the phrase 'healthy marriage' the first thing that probably springs to mind is a marriage free of abuse, cheating, and other negative things...not simply a marriage with lots of kids. In this way even marriages that are not directly procreative are indirectly procreative by making it easier on everyone else. In other words, it's easier for you and your wife to have kids if Aunt Rose is supported by Uncle Jon and she can help you raise them rather than you having to help support her because she is alone. In that way their marriage is procreative even though they may have never had kids for whatever reason.

Regardless, if there's no transmission mechanism that disrupts straight marriages then you're talk of neutering marriage is meaningless. The 2.5% of gay marriages would be no different than the minority of childless straight marriages that we have always had. It might even improve some marriages if it reduces the number of gays who marry straights in an attempt to 'fit in'.

30

Now whether or not you think gay couples are a positive addition to marriage the fact remains having it as a legal option for them does just the opposite of de-institutionalizing marriage. In fact it reinforces marriage as the default institution. Some gays have criticized pro-marriage gays like Andrew Sullivan on that very ground. They argue that gays should not try to copy straights.

At 2.5 percent as you claim, they are barely worth notice when the divorce rate has at least 20 times more impact. But it is not about marriage. If really they wanted to get married, they would to the opposite sex. What it is really all about is societal blessing of their disordered appetites.

If you recall I asked for someone to try to articulate the 'transmission mechanism' between legal gay marriages and problems with straight marriages...that's basically asking the same thing as what you term the 'interconnection'. Please if you have this knowledge do share with us.

You are asking the wrong questions and trying to channel the answer or answers you want to hear. Ask instead what it is about normal heterogamous marriage that buttresses society that does not happen with the abnormal homogamous "marriage". Ask what it is about abnormal homogamous "marriage" that would benefit society more than repealing no-fault divorce laws.

31

At 2.5 percent as you claim, they are barely worth notice when the divorce rate has at least 20 times more impact. But it is not about marriage. If really they wanted to get married, they would to the opposite sex. What it is really all about is societal blessing of their disordered appetites.

It's a stretch to say that civil marriage is 'societal blessing'. People often look down upon marriages with extreme age differences (70 yr old man, 20 year old woman) but they are only denied legal recognition when minors are involved because we don't feel they can make an informed consent. No society doesn't recognize marriages legally in order to 'bless' them, it recognizes them because it is useful both to the parties getting married and to society as a whole. If your argument was valid then Catholics would have a legitimate beef with the US marriage system since it permits divorce and remarriage...something the Church does not.

You are asking the wrong questions and trying to channel the answer or answers you want to hear. Ask instead what it is about normal heterogamous marriage that buttresses society that does not happen with the abnormal homogamous "marriage".

I already gave you the answer. Just as in a 'normal' marriage a civil marriage provides a gay couple with an structure for stability and responsibility. This would seem much better than either:

1. Homosexuals marrying members of the opposite sex, as you suggest, thereby creating unhappy and dysfunctional marriages for both partners AND dramatically increasing the chance of children being born into unstable marriages.

2. Homosexuals having no societal support for monogamous relationship where partners take mutual responsibility for each other.

Ask what it is about abnormal homogamous "marriage" that would benefit society more than repealing no-fault divorce laws.

Repealing no-fault divorce might bring down the divorce rate but you're committing the folly of getting caught up in a metric. If you don't let bad marriages break up you're just going to end up with bad marriages and a general social ease with marriages being more of a formality (not unlike aristrocratic familes where marriages were arranged for political reasons and extramarital affairs were commonplace).

You can hitch your wagon to a bunch of right wing proposals to mandate counseling, waiting periods etc. before divorce is permitted but you're essentially missing something fundamental. The people who know the most about a marriage are the two people in it and the people that know the least are gov't policy makers far removed from them. The fundamental error most social conservatives make is that they are just acting as liberals but with right wing aims. They assume gov't knows best and they look to the gov't first and individuals last.

32

It's a stretch to say that civil marriage is 'societal blessing'.

Again, you misunderstand what I said. People that practice homosexual relationships and advocate for it, do believe that a civil "marriage" would be societal blessing of their disordered appetites. Why? Because the blessing sure isn't going to come from the Catholic Church, so they believe that society should be reshaped to wall off entities like the Catholic Church.

1. Homosexuals marrying members of the opposite sex, as you suggest, thereby creating unhappy and dysfunctional marriages for both partners AND dramatically increasing the chance of children being born into unstable marriages.

Since when did you become so gullible?

2. Homosexuals having no societal support for monogamous relationship where partners take mutual responsibility for each other.

What they really need from society instead is support to overcome their addiction to sex.

Repealing no-fault divorce might bring down the divorce rate but you're committing the folly of getting caught up in a metric.

Wrong. What it would prevent is starter marriages, and people from jumping into marriage with the attitude that they can divorce their spouse if their spouse doesn't make them happy all the time. It would restore the permanency to marriage and make people think about whether or not they can really make a long term commitment.

They assume gov't knows best and they look to the gov't first and individuals last.

No, if government really, really knew best then we wouldn't be talking about whether or not no-fault laws should be repealed, because they never would have happened in the first place.

33

Again, you misunderstand what I said. People that practice homosexual relationships and advocate for it, do believe that a civil "marriage" would be societal blessing of their disordered appetites.

So what? If you want to think that your marriage license from the town hall is not only legal proof that you're married but somehow a imaginary endorsement from all the town voters that they think you made a great choice...well that's your delusion. For those of us in the reality based zone we are quite familiar with the concept that a person can be legally married but many people may disapprove of the marriage (be they a Church, a sect or just a mother-in-law).

Why? Because the blessing sure isn't going to come from the Catholic Church, so they believe that society should be reshaped to wall off entities like the Catholic Church.

Does the fact that the Catholic Church prohibits remarriage after divorce mean that it is being 'walled off' because the law does? Those who feel it is important for the Catholich Church to recognize their marriage will comply with the Catholic Church's requirements. End of story. The civil laws do not have to mirror the Catholic Church's. AS a matter of fact they cannot since it would leave marriage unvailable to millions who are not Catholic.

Since when did you become so gullible?

You never heard of a gay person marrying a straight person, even having children with them yielding a dysfunctional marriage and poor environment for kids to be raised in. I suggest you look up the story of New Jersey's last governor if this seems like some far out scenero to you. Really, you should be quite familiar with this story from daytime television 101. I hope I don't need to send you remedial sessions of The Jerry Springer Show.

What they really need from society instead is support to overcome their addiction to sex.

Where did this come from? Yea some gays are 'addicted to sex' just as some straights are. I suppose any marriage where one or even two of the members are 'addicted to sex' has a problem...I see no evidence that a gay person who overcomes an 'addiction to sex' will suddenly become a straight person.

No-fault divorce:
Before continuing here I'm going to note you were partially successful in distracting the debate by tossing no-fault divorce into the mix. You were being challenged to show exactly how gay marriage would harm straight marriages and you dodged that important question by saying you were sure no-fault divorce was 20 times worse. You've failed to show why the first thing will be nbad to begin with so it's bad form to jump to a brand new argument...nonetheless....

Wrong. What it would prevent is starter marriages, and people from jumping into marriage with the attitude that they can divorce their spouse if their spouse doesn't make them happy all the time.

I don't think most people enter marriage with this mindset or if they do they are able to mature rather quickly. I've heard it said that on average marriages last as long as they used to, the difference is that in the older days marriages tended to end in death while today they end in divorce since people live longer.

Even if you're right, though, your solution would not work. If people expect their spouses to make them happy all the time then the problem is they are entering marriage with a totally unrealistic expectation of how wonderful their partner really is. In other words, if they already think their partner is somehow the greatest person in the world who will always make them happy what would they care about it being easy or hard to get a divorce? The problem is that they are thinking marriage is some type of magic spell. If anything they should take marriage a little less seriously, then at least they could maybe make an honest evaluation of what to realistically expect and not be disappointed when reality doesn't match fantasy.

No, if government really, really knew best then we wouldn't be talking about whether or not no-fault laws should be repealed, because they never would have happened in the first place.

In the last decade or so we've seen a slew of conservatives who basically take right wing ideas and marry them to left wing errors. Among the silly ideas I've seen is requirements for mandatory counselling before marriage or divorce, gov't run marriage thereapy etc. This is all nonsense whose premise is that the real action happens when some central authority figures rejiggers the rules to create just the right mix of incentives.

Or to put it more bluntly, no one put a law in place forcing anyone to get divorced. 'No-fault' does indeed make sense because quite often a marriage will break up not because one party did something to trigger it but because both parties fell apart. Trying to force blame on one side simply creates a situation where people will just play along in order to get the divorce to happen. The Catholic Church has the same problem with annulments. "ohhh well we don't have divorce but if you got into the marriage without being aware of what you were committing too it can be annulled!" "Ohhh yea well now that you mention it I guess I didn't know what marriage was when I got married...please do that!"

34

The civil laws do not have to mirror the Catholic Church's. AS a matter of fact they cannot since it would leave marriage unvailable to millions who are not Catholic.

For somebody who is supposedly in the reality based zone, your grasp of reality as displayed in the second sentence appears to be tenuous at best.

35

You never heard of a gay person marrying a straight person, even having children with them yielding a dysfunctional marriage and poor environment for kids to be raised in. I suggest you look up the story of New Jersey's last governor if this seems like some far out scenero to you. Really, you should be quite familiar with this story from daytime television 101. I hope I don't need to send you remedial sessions of The Jerry Springer Show.

No, I've heard about couples getting married and one of them deciding they want to chase the ultimate orgasm instead of being an adult. They sometimes decide that means they are "Gay". I personally have more respect for the person who decides they want to chase the ultimate orgasm instead of being an adult prior to getting married... but just marginally more. Before you keep harping on the story of the ex-Governor, yes I did hear all about it. There was no way to keep from hearing all about it because of the pressure on society to accept homogamous relationships as normal.

Where did this come from? Yea some gays are 'addicted to sex' just as some straights are. I suppose any marriage where one or even two of the members are 'addicted to sex' has a problem...I see no evidence that a gay person who overcomes an 'addiction to sex' will suddenly become a straight person.

Correction, some people are addicted to sex. Some of those people think of themselves as "Gay", "Bi-" or "Straight". The ones that don't lie to themselves and others about their "sexual orientation" realize they are just addicted to sex, or probably more appropriately, the orgasm.

36

Before continuing here I'm going to note you were partially successful in distracting the debate by tossing no-fault divorce into the mix.

Actually fellow, you mentioned divorce first, when you thought you were cleverly deflecting my charge that making marriage non-dependent on mixing the two sexes was neutering marriage. It is a simple fact that nearly 50 percent of people getting married now will get divorced. You make the claim that redefining marriage to include homogamous relationships adds to marriage rather than detracts from it and then you turn around and deny that those mock marriages affect real marriages. That is a contradiction. It is another simple fact that you want me to defend my de-institutionalization claim with a pro tarnishment argument when you have not even seen me utter that claim, so don't even tell me it's bad form to jump to a brand new argument.

If people expect their spouses to make them happy all the time then the problem is they are entering marriage with a totally unrealistic expectation of how wonderful their partner really is. In other words, if they already think their partner is somehow the greatest person in the world who will always make them happy what would they care about it being easy or hard to get a divorce? The problem is that they are thinking marriage is some type of magic spell. If anything they should take marriage a little less seriously, then at least they could maybe make an honest evaluation of what to realistically expect and not be disappointed when reality doesn't match fantasy.

You've not spent a lot of time around marriages in general have you? Taking marriage less seriously is what you and advocates for calling homogamous relationships marriage are doing.

In the last decade or so we've seen a slew of conservatives who basically take right wing ideas and marry them to left wing errors.

No-fault divorce laws allow one of the partners to unilaterally (according to Democrats, it's EVIL when Bush does it, right?) decide to end the marriage. The left wing error of no-fault divorce law needs to be fixed. How would you suggest it be fixed? Repeal, or legislate more laws?

37

The Catholic Church has the same problem with annulments. "ohhh well we don't have divorce but if you got into the marriage without being aware of what you were committing too it can be annulled!" "Ohhh yea well now that you mention it I guess I didn't know what marriage was when I got married...please do that!"

Same response as comment 34,
For somebody who is supposedly in the reality based zone, your grasp of reality as displayed in these sentences appears to be tenuous at best.

38

No, I've heard about couples getting married and one of them deciding they want to chase the ultimate orgasm instead of being an adult. They sometimes decide that means they are "Gay".

I haven't really spoken to many gay people about the details of their sex lives but this is probably the first time I've heard someone argue that orgasms are 'ultimate' when they result from gay sex rather than straight sex. I don't think gay people are really just straight people out looking for some type of ultimate orgasm.

Correction, some people are addicted to sex. Some of those people think of themselves as "Gay", "Bi-" or "Straight". The ones that don't lie to themselves and others about their "sexual orientation" realize they are just addicted to sex, or probably more appropriately, the orgasm.

OK, so you're not saying being gay is the same as being addicted to sex...well ok. You're just getting really weird with that whole argument.

Actually fellow, you mentioned divorce first, when you thought you were cleverly deflecting my charge that making marriage non-dependent on mixing the two sexes was neutering marriage. It is a simple fact that nearly 50 percent of people getting married now will get divorced. You make the claim that redefining marriage to include homogamous relationships adds to marriage rather than detracts from it and then you turn around and deny that those mock marriages affect real marriages. That is a contradiction.

Not at all. You argued that 'de-institutionalizing marriage' meant getting fewer and fewer people to choose marriage and opt for other things instead. The metric there would be does a policy increase or decrease the number of married people. In that gay marriage would increase the number of married people and, as far as I can tell, have no impact on already married people or people who were going to marry members of the opposite gender.

You've not spent a lot of time around marriages in general have you? Taking marriage less seriously is what you and advocates for calling homogamous relationships marriage are doing.

On the contrary, I've spent my whole life around them in one form or another.

The left wing error of no-fault divorce law needs to be fixed. How would you suggest it be fixed? Repeal, or legislate more laws?

You've presented no evidence that it needs to be fixed just as you have presented no evidence to support your position on gay marriage. Unilateral assertions from a blog commentator are not sufficient. I do not see a good argument for changing divorce law to make divorce harder.

Same response as comment 34,
For somebody who is supposedly in the reality based zone, your grasp of reality as displayed in these sentences appears to be tenuous at best.

You haven't paid much attention to the contraversy surrounding annulments in the Catholic Church have you? Many critics (often from the right) have pointed out that the entire system is close to degenerating into just divorce by another name.

39

Correction, some people are addicted to sex. Some of those people think of themselves as "Gay", "Bi-" or "Straight". The ones that don't lie to themselves and others about their "sexual orientation" realize they are just addicted to sex, or probably more appropriately, the orgasm.

Since Joe's filter seems to be a bit more friendly today I'm going to risk another post. Smm makes it clear that he does not think all gays are 'addicted to sex' so whether 'sex addiction' is evenly spread out among all three types of people or in different proportions doesn't really matter here.

Is gay marriage a good think for gays who are 'sex addicted' and don't want to be different? Not really just as marriage itself isn't a great thing for a sex addicted straight person who wants to stay that way. In both cases marriage makes monogamy easier than promiscuity. It isn't so tight, though, as to make it impossible to have affairs or sleep around but it does make it easier to not do that. Even today a simple "I'm married" is almost always perfect to kill someone's unwanted advance. Of course "are you married?" isn't a perfect way to kill your attempt to advance on other people but one has to admit it does make things a bit trickier & at least forces some thought about it beforehand.

I think SMM is right that people who are 'sex addicted' (I'm using quotation marks because I'm deeply skeptical that it really is an addiction) are seeking something they aren't getting...an 'ultimate orgasm' or whatnot basically is the same as saying they are thriving on the challenge of getting sex but it isn't so much about sex itself. A 'sex addicted' person might, let's say, have two partners every week and make swinging his focus every night....a married person though might easily have sex three or more times a week and hardly thinks anything of it. Sex is normal, typical and not a big deal for the married person and that's exactly why 'sex addicted' person doesn't have much use for marriage. How can having sex be the focus of your life if all you have to do is basically roll over in bed to have it?

You may recall the episode of the Twilight Zone where a gangster type dies and ends up living in a swanky pad able to party and gamble as much as he wants. When he realizes it isn't so fun to always get everything he wants easily he tells the 'angel' that heaven isn't so great maybe he could try 'the other place' for a bit. The angel tells him "whoever said you were in heaven? This is the other place!"

I never dealt directly with a 'sex addicted' person but I have with people close to me who had serious problems with drug addiction. It seems from my observations they are as much addicted to the rush of getting the drug as the drug itself. They thrive on trying to hold their entire lives together by a thread as every day they have to elude the law to buy their drugs and then the financial problems they have from spending all their money and time on getting them.

People say addicts can't handle regular life but it seems like the opposite to me. Addicts have too easy a time handling regular life. They need to create a huge array of challenges, problems and crises every single day to keep their lives in a constant state of high drama. It seems a normal life where just about every day is basically the same and nothing much happens is unbearably boring to them. You don't need to get this constant drama from drugs, though. Your sterotypical overachieving yuppie who spends his days in frantic 'multi-tasking' may be seen as a pillar of the community and law abiding person but may very well be suffering from the same sickness.

Anyway, fundamentally marriage is the opposite of all this. Marriage is basically boring. Go to sleep at night, wake up in the morning, do the dishes etc. You don't 'hunt for prey' at trendy night spots...you're not likely to have someone storm into your business meeting and slap you accross the face because you didn't call them after the one night stand...basically it's the exact opposite of a drama filled life. Which is why TV watching ends up playing a big role...gotta get some drama somewhere right?

That's not necessarily a bad thing, though. In my experience I've found the ordinary quite often can be very interesting if you're able to look at it from a mature point of view. Craving constant 'special effects', IMO gets old fast.

Bringing this back to the discussion topic; Where's SMM's 'transmission mechanism' again? He has failed to show us how it will be bad for straight marriages now he alleges it boring old marriage will enable 'sex addiction'. How? Marriage is the very last thing that would enable sex addiction whether the person is straight, bi or gay.

40

Boonton,
Part of the problem with having a discussion with you is having to correct your faulty interpretations of what I am saying. I am not trying to be uncharitable when I say that you just cannot comprehend what I am saying while you are fixated on thinking that orientations ("Gay", "Bi", or "Straight") are a real distinction as opposed to a personal/political distinction. There is nothing biologically (basicly speaking) different between people who do and do not choose to identify themselves by what they do with their private parts. That is what I mean by the difference between grown-ups and those who assume one of those labels. The people who opt to use one of those political labels all the time indicate they are fixated on one thing, their addiction.

That is the foundation for my views on whether marriage should be redefined and administered civilly. It will never be redefined within my thinking. It is now and always will be one man and one woman. Two women (or men) could tell me they are married to each other, show me the civilly administered paper they obtained, and they still wouldn't be married as far as I'm concerned. If they want my respect, they will quit pretending.

That has nothing to do with 'transmission' which I never claimed, nor 'tarnishment' which I never claimed, so you can quit trying to bark up that tree. You can also get over your self imposed impression that I believe they will be de-institutionalizing marriage. Those poor saps might even believe they are trying to make it more of an institution or make it a stronger institution... try to make that case why don't you... show me the mechanism! More civilly married people is an illusory metric according to you, right? Homogamous couples also practice divorce (and at a higher rate, go figure)!

41

You haven't paid much attention to the contraversy surrounding annulments in the Catholic Church have you? Many critics (often from the right) have pointed out that the entire system is close to degenerating into just divorce by another name.

No I haven't paid any attention to the controversy, because it is generated by people who are only looking at it from the outside and have no understanding of the process. For somebody who believes no-fault divorce laws are necessary, you sure are making a big stink about it. That looks rather hypocritical to me.

42

There is nothing biologically (basicly speaking) different between people who do and do not choose to identify themselves by what they do with their private parts. That is what I mean by the difference between grown-ups and those who assume one of those labels. The people who opt to use one of those political labels all the time indicate they are fixated on one thing, their addiction.

By this reasoning it would seem for someone to call themselves a heterosexual they would also be 'fixated on one thing', namely what they do with their private parts.

In reality, though, psychology is part of biology. To me being heterosexual is more than simply wanting to have sex with women but is also part of my psychological make up. I would be heterosexual even if I decided I never wanted to have sex again, in other words. So I don't see it as an 'addiction' to say a person is psychologically straight or gay or bi but simply a statement of fact...

That is the foundation for my views on whether marriage should be redefined and administered civilly. It will never be redefined within my thinking. It is now and always will be one man and one woman. Two women (or men) could tell me they are married to each other, show me the civilly administered paper they obtained, and they still wouldn't be married as far as I'm concerned. If they want my respect, they will quit pretending.

Likewise a Catholic could scoff at the divorced and remarried couple who shows them their papers. But that doesn't mean the state should follow the Catholic doctrine nor does it mean because the state recognizes marriages the Catholic Church doesn't that it is somehow attacking or 'walling off' the Catholic Church.

More civilly married people is an illusory metric according to you, right? Homogamous couples also practice divorce (and at a higher rate, go figure)!

No it's not. I asked what was meant by 'de-institutionalize' and the answer I got was getting people to choose other things than marriage. Well more people choosing to marry would be the exact opposite.

Those poor saps might even believe they are trying to make it more of an institution or make it a stronger institution... try to make that case why don't you... show me the mechanism!

Actually I presented you with several 'transmission mechanisms' but that's a moot point. when two people get married they should get married for themselves. The point isn't to try to move society wide metrics up or down. If I told you interracial marriages have a higher divorce rate that would say nothing about whether the old bans on interracial marriage were justified or not. Likewise if interracial marriages had a lower divorce rate that also is not jusification for the state to try to promote interracial marriage.

No I haven't paid any attention to the controversy, because it is generated by people who are only looking at it from the outside and have no understanding of the process.

Actually the critics are mostly right wingers inside the Catholic Church. I have no idea what you mean by 'from the outside' unless you consider the inside to be the Biships grant annulments and the couples asking for them. Those outside the Catholic Church mostly support divorce to one degree or another so Catholic annulment policy would be of trivial importance for them.

43

Actually the critics are mostly right wingers inside the Catholic Church. I have no idea what you mean by 'from the outside' unless you consider the inside to be the Biships grant annulments and the couples asking for them.

How thoroughly absurd! I guess you have seen their VRWC membership cards, eh? Do you know of somebody prominent so that I can look them up? If not, and this is just a WAG of yours, you might want to consider verifying some of your claims before you pop off.

Those outside the Catholic Church mostly support divorce to one degree or another so Catholic annulment policy would be of trivial importance for them.

Nonsense, there are more than a few people outside of the Catholic Church that practically trip all over themselves to criticize the Catholic Church. The people that call themselves Reformed Catholics are especially prone to that. The erstwhile Catholics within the Church that loudly criticize the Church in public (especially in public forums) are not what I would call right-wingers.

No it's not. I asked what was meant by 'de-institutionalize' and the answer I got was getting people to choose other things than marriage. Well more people choosing to marry would be the exact opposite.

I said more like de-institutionalizing marriage was getting society to abandon marriage, not individual people. Even if marriage were de-institutionalized, individuals (particularly Christians) would still get married whether they were marginalized by society or not. Do you not understand the difference between society and people? So, you turned it right around and said that more people getting married would add to marriage, but deny that repealing no-fault divorce laws would add to marriage when that action would keep more people married. Explain that contradiction without relying on your gut feeling that repealing no-fault divorce laws would not be a good thing. You've got no proof that it would not be a good thing.

Actually I presented you with several 'transmission mechanisms' but that's a moot point. when two people get married they should get married for themselves. The point isn't to try to move society wide metrics up or down.

Except when it suits the purpose of your side of the argument... give me a break.

44

How thoroughly absurd! I guess you have seen their VRWC membership cards, eh? Do you know of somebody prominent so that I can look them up? If not, and this is just a WAG of yours, you might want to consider verifying some of your claims before you pop off.

I could look this up but you're the one who claimed critics of Catholic annulments were outsiders. Since you know show me these critics and how they are outside the Catholic Church? You go first then I'll go.

Nonsense, there are more than a few people outside of the Catholic Church that practically trip all over themselves to criticize the Catholic Church. The people that call themselves Reformed Catholics are especially prone to that.

Who are these Reformed Catholics who are advocating the Church clamp down on annulments?

I said more like de-institutionalizing marriage was getting society to abandon marriage, not individual people. Even if marriage were de-institutionalized, individuals (particularly Christians) would still get married whether they were marginalized by society or not.

So most people will get married but then get marginalized by society which by definition is made up of most people?

So, you turned it right around and said that more people getting married would add to marriage, but deny that repealing no-fault divorce laws would add to marriage when that action would keep more people married. Explain that contradiction without relying on your gut feeling that repealing no-fault divorce laws would not be a good thing. You've got no proof that it would not be a good thing.

Repealing no-fault divorce would make marriage less attractive (it would be harder to get out of) so I'd be inclined to guess it would cause more people to simply hook up and ignore getting married. Those who are inclined to get married and stay married for life already will choose to get married. So you're pinning your hopes on abolishing no-fault divorce to force unwilling people to stay married against their will. I think the issue of annullments and the Catholic Church indicates, though, that you may make people angry by forcing them to jump through loops but they will do it. Those trapped in an unhappy marriage will get out of it by finding a lawyer who will manufacture the fault that the courts will want and the courts will go along with it....you certainly don't expect them to be harder nosed than Catholic Biships are do you?

You may have a point if repealing no-fault divorce causes some couples who are marginally inclined to divorce to give it a second thought. I think, though, that benefit woudl be offset by larger numbers of couples who will shun marriage because it will be so hard to get out of it. This won't take the form of overt shunning but probably more along the lines of "let me take extra time to make sure this person is right". In the meantime as the couple lives together and even has kids the reasons to get married wane. Even if they do eventually marry you've feed into that idealization problem you cited before. "I looked for fifteen years to find Mr. Right, I'm expecting perfection!"

Except when it suits the purpose of your side of the argument... give me a break.

If you say X will be bad for marriage it's perfectly valid to point out some reasons why X might end up being good AND to demand that you demonstrate why X is bad for marriage. It doesn't follow that the good reasons I propose are in themselves justification for doing X.

45

I could look this up but you're the one who claimed critics of Catholic annulments were outsiders. Since you know show me these critics and how they are outside the Catholic Church? You go first then I'll go.

Are you claiming that you are an insider? Are you claiming that you are a Catholic that understands the annulment process and the doctrine behind it, or at least realizes that the Catholic Church has based the process on a sound theological foundation? Or are you claiming that you weren't really criticizing the Catholic Church with all those sarcastic remarks about the annulment process? Are you also claiming to be a right-winger?

Who are these Reformed Catholics who are advocating the Church clamp down on annulments?

Why don't you go back and re-read my comment a few times, then either cut and paste from it where I actually said that, or explain the thought process you used to map out that segue. I would like to know what I am doing wrong that causes such consistent misinterpretation of what I say.

So most people will get married but then get marginalized by society which by definition is made up of most people?

Do you honestly think most people will get married if married people are marginalized by society? What do you think would induce a majority of people to do something that was so widely unpopular in society should such unlikely event occur?

Repealing no-fault divorce would make marriage less attractive

According to whom? Some people believe it would make marriage more attractive.

So you're pinning your hopes on abolishing no-fault divorce to force unwilling people to stay married against their will.

Why do you think that?

46

OK smmtheory...you have nothing to support your assertion that critics of the annulment process in the Catholic Church are 'outsiders'.

Do you honestly think most people will get married if married people are marginalized by society?

No but why are people going to be marginalized by everyone in society and if someone wanted marriage to be marginalized why make it available to gay couples?

No fault divorce
According to whom? Some people believe it would make marriage more attractive.

Why would it be more attractive? If you wanted to have the option to get out of marriage getting rid of no-fault divorce would make it less attractive. If you never want to leave your marriage no fault divorce wouldn't matter since you're not going to use it even if it is available.

So you're pinning your hopes on abolishing no-fault divorce to force unwilling people to stay married against their will.

Why do you think that?

Who would be impacted by abolishing no-fault divorce? People who do not want to stay married, period. For people who want to stay married the divorce laws have no direct impact on them. Your position appears to me to be motivated by pure paternalism. You think you (or the gov't, provided it's run by people like you) know more about the marriages of people seeking divorce than the peole themselves.

47

OK smmtheory...you have nothing to support your assertion that critics of the annulment process in the Catholic Church are 'outsiders'.

Actually, you supported it with that response. Enjoy your status as an outsider.

No but why are people going to be marginalized by everyone in society and if someone wanted marriage to be marginalized why make it available to gay couples?

Hey! You're almost there.. let me tweak the question a little bit for you to get you on the right track. Why would people who want to de-institutionalize marriage jump on the band-wagon advocating civilly recognizing gay couples as married if doing so would actually help build up marriage?

So you're pinning your hopes on abolishing no-fault divorce to force unwilling people to stay married against their will.

Let me rephrase my question since I see I unintentionally left out part of it. Why do you think I am pinning my hopes repealing no-fault divorce to FORCE unwilling people to stay married? Why would I narrow my thinking to such an extent? That would be only one of the benefits of repealing no-fault. Society needs those kind of couples to serve as an example to growing children of the kind of commitment that is required in marriage for one thing. Even you have acknowledged that you would prefer not getting married if it meant you couldn't walk away from it whenever the relationship was not to your liking. In that kind of climate, a marital commitment starts off immediately with the additional stress from the background knowledge that tomorrow, or the next day, the partner might decide to bail out of the marriage, and leave the other high and dry. It hinders intimacy when a person has to worry about whether or not some little thing they do might trigger a precipitous decision from their partner to call it quits. It poisons a relationship from the very beginning when a person subconsciously thinks they won't be free to be themselves in the relationship.

If you never want to leave your marriage no fault divorce wouldn't matter since you're not going to use it even if it is available.

That describes the majority of the victims of no-fault divorce laws. They would never use it, but their partners sure did.

48

That describes the majority of the victims of no-fault divorce laws. They would never use it, but their partners sure did.

And why does that make them victims? I'm sure in some cases you have an abusive partner who doesn't want a divorce but you can't really say they are blameless because their spouse initiates a divorce?

But leave aside the issue of assigning blame. It takes two to make a marriage and if you only got one you don't have a marriage. While that may be sad and while that may not be the fault of the one left it is unfortunately a fact.

You may want to remember the Joe Kennedy annulment.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1634956,00.html?cnn=yes

The annulment was the subject of Rauch's 1997 book Shattered Faith, which lambasted her ex-husband and was severely critical of the Catholic Church's proceedings, which made the marriage (which had produced twin boys) null and void in the eyes of the church. Rauch argued that Kennedy was able to unilaterally "cancel" nearly 12 years of marriage because of his clan's influence in the church. Kennedy argued at the time that the annulment was the right thing to do in religious terms. Few observers thought the appeal to Rome by Rauch, an Episcopalian, had a chance against the well-connected Kennedy. With women's groups loudly on Rauch's side, the controversy may have contributed to Kennedy's decision to give up his plans to seek re-election to Congress in 1998.

I'll note there's little here to support your contention that Rauch is an 'outsider' to the Catholic Church...but she is honest about the fact that it takes two to have a marriage:

"I am very pleased," she told TIME. "There was a real marriage. It was a marriage that failed, but as grown-ups we need to take responsibility for that.

In other words the marriage ended even though she may not have wanted a divorce because you need TWO people who do not want a divorce to make a successful marriage...not one.

I don't see any value in going into your latest post on 'de-institutionalization'. Maybe some people do think marriage should be de-institutionalized and gay marriage is the way to do it. You implicitly assume these people are really smart and we should just assume that because they think this they are right about it so if we don't want to 'de-institutionalize' marriage we need to do the opposite of what they advocate.

Doesn't work this way. You've just set up a slightly more convoluted form of the argument from authority fallacy.

My enemy wants A to achieve B.
I don't want to achieve B
Therefore I should support 'not A'

Because you are implicitly assuming:
The enemy is an authority.
He says A causes B
Therefore A causes B

Nope, you have to show why A would cause B and if you can't it is not acceptable as an argument.

49

I'll note there's little here to support your contention that Rauch is an 'outsider' to the Catholic Church...

How about first you explain how Rauch being (according to the excerpt you quoted was at the time and presumably still is) a non-Catholic Episcopalian does not support my contention that the controversy over the Catholic Church's annulment process is generated by people who are only looking at it from the outside and have no understanding of the process.

You implicitly assume these people are really smart

No, it is you that implicitly assume those people are really smart, as do they themselves. I do not consider them smart at all, explicitly because of their position on this matter.

we should just assume that because they think this they are right about it so if we don't want to 'de-institutionalize' marriage we need to do the opposite of what they advocate.

No, I am merely using it to high-light the hubris in your line of thinking that you understand better than anybody else what will and what won't happen by entrenching the opening for segregation of the sexes in marriage, by making marriage a playground for misogyny and misoandry.

50

No, I am merely using it to high-light the hubris in your line of thinking that you understand better than anybody else what will and what won't happen by entrenching the opening for segregation of the sexes in marriage, by making marriage a playground for misogyny and misoandry.

What?

No, it is you that implicitly assume those people are really smart, as do they themselves. I do not consider them smart at all, explicitly because of their position on this matter.

I have no idea if David Blankenhorn thinks he is smart or not but the fact remains this argument has become beyond silly. From what I glean from http://www.amazon.com/Future-Marriage-David-Blankenhorn/dp/1594030812, Blankenhorn's argument is that making marriage gender neutral would deprive children of knowing who their mothers and fathers are. But children can only be made from straight couples so again where is the transmission mechanism. Why does the fact that down the street there is a married gay couple suddenly make it impossible for you to know who your mother and father are (assuming they are themselves happily married and present in yoru life)?

The only place where this may come into play are cases such as adoption or where people create children by surrogate. In the first case the straight couple has already failed to fulfill their responsiblities (granted this may be through no fault of their own). In the second case you already have a situation where children can be created outside of marriage. If a gay couple were to have a kid it is probably better it be inside a stable marriage than not.

How about first you explain how Rauch being (according to the excerpt you quoted was at the time and presumably still is) a non-Catholic Episcopalian does not support my contention that the controversy over the Catholic Church's annulment process is generated by people who are only looking at it from the outside and have no understanding of the process.

Yea I noticed she was an Episcopalian but it doesn't require a rocket scientist to find Catholic critics. You could start with http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n33_v34/ai_21013153 to learn that one of the critics was the previous Pope!

He joins Pope John Paul II's criticisms of the tribunal system in this country. In 1987 and '88 the pope said disapprovingly that the majority of annulments in America were being granted on psychological grounds that did not involve severe mental illness at the time wedding vows were exchanged. With the pope, Vasoli says the practice undermines the church teaching that marriages are indissoluble.

Perhaps this confusion is coming into place because you think I'm talking about critics of annulment as a doctrine. There I agree most people who are harsh critics of annulment as a doctrine are coming from outside the Church (although annulment exists in law and other Churches too, it just is rarely applied since divorce is so common).

51

I have no idea if David Blankenhorn thinks he is smart or not but the fact remains this argument has become beyond silly.

Blankenhorn does not advocate dis-institutionalization of marriage, so what reason do you have for making it look like he was a target of my comment? Are you trying to start some sort of bait-and-switch debate tactic?

The only place where this may come into play are cases such as adoption or where people create children by surrogate. In the first case the straight couple has already failed to fulfill their responsiblities (granted this may be through no fault of their own). In the second case you already have a situation where children can be created outside of marriage. If a gay couple were to have a kid it is probably better it be inside a stable marriage than not.

With this statement it becomes clear that you see no need to protect children or to protect the environment that is without a doubt the best environment for raising children. Perhaps the very idea that society should devise a method for protecting children and encouraging members of society to adhere to that standard is too nuanced for you.

Perhaps this confusion is coming into place because you think I'm talking about critics of annulment as a doctrine.

And how am I suppose to come to any other conclusion giving the comment you made as follows?

You haven't paid much attention to the contraversy surrounding annulments in the Catholic Church have you? Many critics (often from the right) have pointed out that the entire system is close to degenerating into just divorce by another name.

Even in the article you linked to, there is no controversy with Annulment doctrine, but with the alleged mis-application of the doctrine within the American Catholic Church. The people that want to cause trouble portray the variation in application between the Vatican and the American Catholic Church as a 'controversy' (as can be witnessed by your own snide comments regarding the annulment process in general). So too, the writer of the article you linked to wants to suggest that the Catholic Church should change doctrine based upon the 80 percent of divorced American Catholics that do NOT bother with the Annulment process before remarriage; and how this supports your claim that most of the critics are right-wingers I have no idea.