The Purpose Of The Institution Of Marriage Why not have gay marriage?

[mitchellmckain 0]

This is topic may be too hot to handle. It deals with things which are very personal and so it has a tendency to offend people. And yet if we cannot discuss it then what are our alternatives to calling names and violence? I want everyone to recognize that people really have different views on this topic and ask people to keep it impersonal as you can. Share your views but don't call each other names.I definitely think that any group of people should have the right to be a family and get legal recognition for that status. But marriage.....I think marriage is about children. Perhaps in our self centered, sex obsessed society, this has changed or been forgotten. Marriage has become about satisfaction with ones sexual partner and children are just complications. And that is what has destroyed marriage. But that means that homosexual marriage is symptom of this destruction. It is only because this is what we have made marriage into, that it just seems natural that homosexuals should have the same right to this degraded institution as heterosexuals.I know that those in favor of homosexual marriage want to argue that homosexual couples can adopt children and thus there is no difference from couples bearing children. But I think this is rhetoric and nonsense. Single people can adopt children too, so I don't buy this argument and I don't see that adoption makes homosexual couples equivalent.With birth control and abortion, parenthood has changed from a lifestyle commitment to a choice much like buying a car and as such it is difficult to see any difference from adoption. But that does not really mean that they are equivalent. Adopted children often go looking for their birth mother and father, because the relationship between parent and child is more than just who raised you. And the opposite is true as well. Adopted children often feel deprived by the fact that their biological parents and those who raised them are not the same. The fact is, that adoption is not ideal but is making the best of a bad situation.So, I think marriage should still be about the lifestyle of parenthood - the commitment to be ready to take care of and raise the children that are concieved and born in the relationship between a man and a woman. And so I think that if homosexual couples want a piece of the degraded institution that is all about self satisfaction then perhaps we should call it something else. Just a suggestion, because I really don't know what to do about this. As I said, the real tragedy is already a forgone conclusion.I have been asked many times if I think that anything is wrong with homosexuality and my answer is always the same. I don't think that there is anything more wrong with homosexuality than there is with heterosexuality. But that is because I frankly dont think much of either one. I find the whole idea of sexual preference to be offensive. The dating game has become a marketplace full of all the deceptive advertising and customer disatisfaction that we find in the consumer market. Sexual preference, whether is it a choice between blonde and brunette or a choice between male and female treats people like product or produce and sounds just like a choice of ones favorite type of food or flavor of ice cream. To this nonsense about some people being born different I say that I too was born different because I cannot stand broccoli. The point is that I think homosexuality is just a symptom of the way our society has become self centered and obsessed with self satisfaction.Look I don't think we can legislate morality without destroying religious freedom. The fact is that the belief that homosexuality is wrong or a sin is primarily a religious belief and forcing that on everyone would be a violation of religious freedom. So the rights of people who practice homosexuality should be protected by the same laws which protect religious freedom. But if sexual preference is going to be given a status equal to sex and race then it is only fair that I get the same protections for my preference for zucchini over broccoli. I cannot help the fact that I love zucchini and cannot force myself to eat broccoli, I was born that way.

Edited May 12, 2006 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)

[Jeigh1405241495 0]

So, based on your argument that marriage should only be about children, does that mean that a sterile man or woman is never allowed to get married? Many know BEFORE getting married that children are simply not an option, yet they do so anyways. Then your theory would noy only ban homosexual marriages but also marriage to anyone sterile.Futhur, would that mean you are aopposed to all use of birth control? Since even if you have a child before starting to use it, you have once more begun picking and choosing what you want of marriage, and your spouse is a sexual entity without reprecussion.I understand your view I just feel it's flawed. I agree with the idea that there is nothing from with homosexuality and I really neither support it or oppose it... it simply exists. It isn't part of my lifestyle and I don't know many people that are homosexuals but that doesn't mean I care one way or the other. Live and let live. But if we can get married for the wrong reasons then nyes, I think they should be bale to as well. Many think this is horrible for me to say since it goes against my religion (Catholicism) but it's one area I don't see eye to eye with my church on. Frankly it should be an individuals choice... whether or not the church sees it as wrong shouldn't mean it shouldn't be a choice. That's not "choosing" to do the right thing, thats abolishing the ability to do wrongly.I always have weird feelings on these types of topics because I can't see why so many people care so strongly one way or the other. If two gay guys want to get married it won't affect me... In relation to the purpose of the institution of marriage, call me old fashioned or a romantic but I feel it is simply a lawful, official way of showing love for another. Children often are a result of this but I do not think they are the primary concern of marriage. Children are a biological directive not necessarily one of marriage.If you agree or disagree or don't know what I mean by anything, I'm more then willing to continue this topic in a rational manner. I love discussing topics that are less commonly touched upon in day to day conversation as long as everyone handles it in a mature manner.

[mitchellmckain 0]

So, based on your argument that marriage should only be about children, does that mean that a sterile man or woman is never allowed to get married? Many know BEFORE getting married that children are simply not an option, yet they do so anyways. Then your theory would noy only ban homosexual marriages but also marriage to anyone sterile.

Obviously you are right. Marriage is not just about children and you are right that the real issue of gay marriage is about who has the right to be married and obviously the ability to have children cannot be the determining factor.

Futhur, would that mean you are aopposed to all use of birth control? Since even if you have a child before starting to use it, you have once more begun picking and choosing what you want of marriage, and your spouse is a sexual entity without reprecussion.

As for birth control, I would not dream to dictate such a personal matters to other people and I am utterly appalled at U.S. interference in the the birth control measures of other countries. But it is true that me and my wife have not practiced any artificial means of birth control. I am Christian but not Catholic and although I admire the Catholic church in many many things I find this particular attitude of the Catholic church to be a bit obnoxious and an anathema, but I would defend their right to believe it with my life.

I understand your view I just feel it's flawed. I agree with the idea that there is nothing from with homosexuality and I really neither support it or oppose it... it simply exists. It isn't part of my lifestyle and I don't know many people that are homosexuals but that doesn't mean I care one way or the other. Live and let live. But if we can get married for the wrong reasons then nyes, I think they should be bale to as well. Many think this is horrible for me to say since it goes against my religion (Catholicism) but it's one area I don't see eye to eye with my church on. Frankly it should be an individuals choice... whether or not the church sees it as wrong shouldn't mean it shouldn't be a choice. That's not "choosing" to do the right thing, thats abolishing the ability to do wrongly.
In relation to the purpose of the institution of marriage, call me old fashioned or a romantic but I feel it is simply a lawful, official way of showing love for another. Children often are a result of this but I do not think they are the primary concern of marriage. Children are a biological directive not necessarily one of marriage.

To tell the truth my post was an attempt dig beneath and understand my own feelings about gay marriage and I agree that it is one sided or "flawed" as you say for you have made many good points. Obviously it is more about my own ideal of marriage which may be too far from any practical reality and more importantly too much idealization and not facing reality can be as much of a destroyer of marriage as anything which I mentioned in my first post.

I always have weird feelings on these types of topics because I can't see why so many people care so strongly one way or the other. If two gay guys want to get married it won't affect me...

As I said before, I don't care what other people do behind closed doors or even what they choose to call the themselves but unfortunately things are not quite so simple. There are a great many people out their who feel that they have the right to dictate what you can believe and want to legislate it. How would you feel, if in the process of pursuing your career and you were asked to take a test and if that test determined that you did not think that gay marriage was right or that homosexuality was a choice rather than fixed at birth, and because of that you were denied any advancement of your career? Sound wild? Well surprise because they have already been doing this sort of thing in California.

If you agree or disagree or don't know what I mean by anything, I'm more then willing to continue this topic in a rational manner. I love discussing topics that are less commonly touched upon in day to day conversation as long as everyone handles it in a mature manner.

I can hardly fault your caution because this topic has blown up in my face before in other forums. It is not an easy topic to discuss rationally between the extreme points of view on the issue.

[organicbmx 0]

i have a slightly different opinion on the institution of marriage. i dont particually want to discuss gay marriage much because i am not a fan of discrimination and i think that homosexuality is fine and not mine to judge. but i will give an example of a gay couple with adopted children that i have met. they are my 2nd cousins or something and i think they live in new mexico. they have adopted 2 orfans from india. while this seems quite bizzare in one way these children are happy and enjoying to love of parents. they are only young and too young to understand how 'different' they are but they are happy. now i cannot see any problem with this set up. two people in love looking after children in their protection that they love. this is far better than having no parents.but on the issue of the institution of marriage i think things are getting better not worse. there is no way that it is possible to say that marriage was a pure institiution up until the 20th century. ever since the invention of matrimony patriacal societys have married off their females for status and power. this goes against all that marriage stands for. many people, men and women, were forced into marriages against their will. in today's society that is illegal. this is progress. i believe that today there are less 'fake' marriages, more marriages are based on love not circumstance. however this does not account for the amount of divorce and the breakdown of many marriages. i think that this many be related to the fact that our genetic ancestors didnt mate for life. most species of moneys do not, however some do. so that couild be a possible reason for the problem of marriage breakdowns. it is only that today it is more possible to divorce and frowned upon to stay in a bad marriage.these are my points today. i would appresiate discussion

[Jeigh1405241495 0]

organicbmx, while I would agree there is progress and that it is a GREAT thing that arranged marriages are no longer commonplace (although I think they still exist in some countries/cultures) I don't agree that less marriages are 'fake'. There is a reason the divorce rate is 50% or greater, too many people see marriage as the logical next step once they date someone for awhile, or after a girl gets pregnant. Not everyone does this, but alot of people marry someone way too early and I would think that is just as fake as an arranged marriage.I'll agree its getting better, simply because people are getting more and more control over marriage. Marriage is a personal choice, that's all it should be, government should do no more then keep a record of married couples

[mitchellmckain 0]

Obviously I agree with Jeigh that there is no reason to say that marriage has improved, yet I would like to share organicbmx's optimism that some improvements may lead to a better intitution in the future.Actually there is a lot of advantages to arranged marriage. It avoids all the market characteristics of the dating game with false advertising and the attitude of consumer dissatisfaction. Unconditional love has to play some role in marriage for it to work because people, all of them, have their flaws. Yet unless people participate completely 100% voluntarily the abuses possible in arranged marriage are quite horrific. Of course like many comparisons of cultural forms this exchanges some difficulties for others. Besides, this kind of voluntary arranged marriage was tried in Rev. Moon's Unification church and the success rate has not proven to be much better than the norm outside the Unification church.

[Jeigh1405241495 0]

I can't imagine arranged marriages working out in most situations. If anyone involved saw a marriage as anything more then a business deal then it's a really small chance that you would actually end up with someone you could spend your life with. Personally I know I have a severely small number of females I am compatible with over long periods of time, and its a part of my personality that causes the problem since I simply find reasons to stop wanting to be with them. I would never be able to handle arranged marriages... the statistical probability of me ending up with a proper mate would be slim to none.I'm surprised that its not much higher success rate though for the people who voluntarily do it. It seems like if you got to that point where you thought it was a good idea you'd be the prime candidate and it would work out. Guess that goes to show how bad of an idea it really is :|

[mitchellmckain 0]

I'm surprised that its not much higher success rate though for the people who voluntarily do it. It seems like if you got to that point where you thought it was a good idea you'd be the prime candidate and it would work out. Guess that goes to show how bad of an idea it really is :|

Well,..... the moonies claim a success rate of 90% but I have every reason to doubt their claim. They are not a particularly honest organization when it comes to such things, lying to themselves as much as they do to others. Google pulls up this interesting article http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_diov.htm which gives a divorce rate of 17% to the Unification church, only slightly better than the 21% for Catholics, Lutherans and atheists. The statistics on this site suggest a balance of two forces to me: pressure to get married which increases the rate of divorce and increased religious significance of marriage which tends to decrease the rate of divorse. In the Unification church, their arranged marriage is their baptism and when the marriage fails membership in the church tends to fail as well. The Mormons, to which the article gives a 24% divorce rate, also give a fairly high religious significance to marriage as well as a fairly high amount of pressure to get married.

The only other result of my google search is http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/, which suggests that the Unification church's success comes at a price. Of course no success rate is sufficient inducement to participate in Moon's church which is certainly towards the more tyrranical end of the religious spectrum somewhere between the LDS church and Islam. I personally know of 12 successes and 4 failures in the Unification church which is a success rate of 75% if that has any significance. Of the four failures, one never really got off the ground and another did not last very long, but two involved three or more children and were "fabulous" failures. In one of these two, the incompatabilities were extreme and obvious from the beginning and the other involved constant abuse.

Well obviously people are more often like you or perhaps even less compatable, whether they think so or not. People are capable of a rather large amount of self-delusion, and often approach relationships with a less than realistic attitude or wishful thinking. Then there are those people who are so incompatable that without an arranged marriage they may never succeed in starting a relationship in the first place. Anyway this is certainly an area of life that is ruled far more by human kind's irrational tendencies than by their capabilities for reason or even honesty.