It seems Canada will do what the US refuses to do. Yet another difference between us.
Canadian court allows gay marriage
Equal rights eh?
-
benzocaine
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
- Location: St. Thomas
Agreed that the effect on society shouild be nil, but not (just) because the numbers are low. Consider:
--the people are already living together and functioning as a unit, and there's no data to suggest changing the name will change society
--they're already having sex, and marriage isn't going to increase the number of partners or risks by any means (for those who make public health arguments but happily let IV drug users marry whomever)
--there's no data that even if they were NOT already functioning as family units that letting them start would cause a problem.
--the experiment's been done elsewhere without reported problems. Just like there are integrated militaries elsewhere with narry a problem.
So the cost is low for the change; the cost is high for the individuals affected if there is no change.
--the people are already living together and functioning as a unit, and there's no data to suggest changing the name will change society
--they're already having sex, and marriage isn't going to increase the number of partners or risks by any means (for those who make public health arguments but happily let IV drug users marry whomever)
--there's no data that even if they were NOT already functioning as family units that letting them start would cause a problem.
--the experiment's been done elsewhere without reported problems. Just like there are integrated militaries elsewhere with narry a problem.
So the cost is low for the change; the cost is high for the individuals affected if there is no change.
--Ian
Reports from the Netherlands have a different angle.the experiment's been done elsewhere without reported problems
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kur ... 030910.asp
... small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Mttw 7:14
Not surprisingly, its an essay from an opponent and not a news item. Here're some excerpts:
"As everyone from religious traditionalists to cultural radicals has long understood, contraception is probably the single most important cause of modern marital decline."
Wait for gay marriage opponents to try to eventually foist a lot of other unusual ideas on the USA This is one. It'll never go anywhere, however, because everyone is already using it and losing this freedom will cost them something, whereas not giving someone else a freedom is perceived as free.
"Contrary to the claims of prominent American advocates of the "conservative case" for gay marriage, same-sex marriage [in Holland] is not taken as evidence that marriage is a superior family form."
Here the author may be unwittingly noting that the Dutch may view gay marriage in a different way. There movement and the response to it may be completely different.
"And Garssen explicitly rejects an explanation that might be offered by gay-marriage advocates. In 1996 the Dutch parliament approved a system of "registered partnerships," open to both homosexual and heterosexual couples. Registered partnerships went into effect in 1998, and formal same-sex marriage followed in 2000. So perhaps the recent surge in out-of-wedlock births was caused when registered partnerships drew heterosexual parents into non-marital unions. Yet Garssen notes that the number of registered heterosexual partnerships is too small to explain the surge in the out-of-wedlock birthrate."
Yes, the number of people actually IN those relationships is too small to account for all the out of wedlock births, BUT the same is true of gay marriage--THEY'RE not having the out of wedlock kids. The authors own idea is that new forms of relationships changed attitudes about old ones, which is exactly how this *could* be the cause, and the strength of his assertion about one is linked to the other.
"Who has the burden of proof here? I would argue that the burden lies with the advocates of radical change to the existing definition of marriage, one that no society we know of has embraced, to show that this kind of social experiment will do no harm."
This would have been a great argument for never legalizing contraception, intraracial marriage, and for that matter, moving away from marriage as business / ownership arrangement into marriage as love.
It's also worth noting that there's no discussion of Scandinavian marriage except to say that there's a lot of out-of-marriage kids there. Well, why? Is THAT from gay marriage too? Is there gay marriage in scandinavia? How might these neighbors affected the Dutch in recent years? No comment from the author, and no references, either. In fact, even though the article is about skyrocketing out of welock birth rates, we never actually get that rate. Should we care? What if it's 1% and rising to 1.02%? That might be statistically significant, culturally meaningless. What was the trend before then? May we see a graph? Is there an explanation why the out of wedlock birth rate is x times lower in Holland in the first place? Do we know that a country that would support gay marriage but where it is not legal won't have the same attitudinal changes and increased out of wedlock births anyway?
In America, why is the divorce rate 50%? Should we work on those things before blaming possible future declines on same sex couples? Why must same sex unions be connected to the idea one needn't be married to have a kid? Are these things fundamentally connected or are they just ideas that tend to be shared, much as a belief that pot should be legalized is likely better linked to those who'd legalize gay marriage than those who'd oppose it? Does gay marriage cause pot smoking? How well have all those ideas about violent culture and gun ownership stacked up when we've compared different societies including the Japan where sexually violent cartoons are popular fare but where violence is nil, and most do not believe its because of the absence of guns? (In other words, how strong is the idea that we can make predictions and establish causes for cultural changes across the seas?)
Lastly, and in my mind most importantly, when two people elect to have a child, or an abortion, or live unmarried, who is responsible for their decision?
"As everyone from religious traditionalists to cultural radicals has long understood, contraception is probably the single most important cause of modern marital decline."
Wait for gay marriage opponents to try to eventually foist a lot of other unusual ideas on the USA This is one. It'll never go anywhere, however, because everyone is already using it and losing this freedom will cost them something, whereas not giving someone else a freedom is perceived as free.
"Contrary to the claims of prominent American advocates of the "conservative case" for gay marriage, same-sex marriage [in Holland] is not taken as evidence that marriage is a superior family form."
Here the author may be unwittingly noting that the Dutch may view gay marriage in a different way. There movement and the response to it may be completely different.
"And Garssen explicitly rejects an explanation that might be offered by gay-marriage advocates. In 1996 the Dutch parliament approved a system of "registered partnerships," open to both homosexual and heterosexual couples. Registered partnerships went into effect in 1998, and formal same-sex marriage followed in 2000. So perhaps the recent surge in out-of-wedlock births was caused when registered partnerships drew heterosexual parents into non-marital unions. Yet Garssen notes that the number of registered heterosexual partnerships is too small to explain the surge in the out-of-wedlock birthrate."
Yes, the number of people actually IN those relationships is too small to account for all the out of wedlock births, BUT the same is true of gay marriage--THEY'RE not having the out of wedlock kids. The authors own idea is that new forms of relationships changed attitudes about old ones, which is exactly how this *could* be the cause, and the strength of his assertion about one is linked to the other.
"Who has the burden of proof here? I would argue that the burden lies with the advocates of radical change to the existing definition of marriage, one that no society we know of has embraced, to show that this kind of social experiment will do no harm."
This would have been a great argument for never legalizing contraception, intraracial marriage, and for that matter, moving away from marriage as business / ownership arrangement into marriage as love.
It's also worth noting that there's no discussion of Scandinavian marriage except to say that there's a lot of out-of-marriage kids there. Well, why? Is THAT from gay marriage too? Is there gay marriage in scandinavia? How might these neighbors affected the Dutch in recent years? No comment from the author, and no references, either. In fact, even though the article is about skyrocketing out of welock birth rates, we never actually get that rate. Should we care? What if it's 1% and rising to 1.02%? That might be statistically significant, culturally meaningless. What was the trend before then? May we see a graph? Is there an explanation why the out of wedlock birth rate is x times lower in Holland in the first place? Do we know that a country that would support gay marriage but where it is not legal won't have the same attitudinal changes and increased out of wedlock births anyway?
In America, why is the divorce rate 50%? Should we work on those things before blaming possible future declines on same sex couples? Why must same sex unions be connected to the idea one needn't be married to have a kid? Are these things fundamentally connected or are they just ideas that tend to be shared, much as a belief that pot should be legalized is likely better linked to those who'd legalize gay marriage than those who'd oppose it? Does gay marriage cause pot smoking? How well have all those ideas about violent culture and gun ownership stacked up when we've compared different societies including the Japan where sexually violent cartoons are popular fare but where violence is nil, and most do not believe its because of the absence of guns? (In other words, how strong is the idea that we can make predictions and establish causes for cultural changes across the seas?)
Lastly, and in my mind most importantly, when two people elect to have a child, or an abortion, or live unmarried, who is responsible for their decision?
--Ian
I thought that someone would certainly mention the fact that in Massachusetts, barely eight months after the first gay marriages were allowed, the first gay divorces have been filed... As some have said, the whole marriage thing can be a knife that cuts both ways. From one case, in Suffolk county, evidently there is going to be one such divorce that appears it is pretty... ummmm... "heated".
Welcome to the Utopia... Oh well...
more alike than different...
Welcome to the Utopia... Oh well...
more alike than different...
Sadly true. Divorce prone people come in all varieties including same sexers who are not protected from marital discord or even bad taste. I AGREE that there are problems for society in modern threats to marriage and among them I point to Britney Spears and other idiots of all religions and backgrounds, and reality television shows etc that make a mockery of it.
I'd be most interested in hearing how those with different stories going in fared. My wager would be that those who have been waiting 20 years to get married would be doing better than those dating a month who jumped on the opportunity as a "rights" issue which some will. But it'd be very interesting to hear that marriage had disrupted a previously stable relationship. It's worth noting that I'm just an advocate of the option and have no plans to receive one. There was a time I dropped by a courthouse in Virginia trying to get a marriage license and wouldn't have regretted the union for a minute, although things changed for the other half and would have made me a divorcee. Such is life.
I'd be most interested in hearing how those with different stories going in fared. My wager would be that those who have been waiting 20 years to get married would be doing better than those dating a month who jumped on the opportunity as a "rights" issue which some will. But it'd be very interesting to hear that marriage had disrupted a previously stable relationship. It's worth noting that I'm just an advocate of the option and have no plans to receive one. There was a time I dropped by a courthouse in Virginia trying to get a marriage license and wouldn't have regretted the union for a minute, although things changed for the other half and would have made me a divorcee. Such is life.
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Hey Ian, you still a Boston resident? 
Q - How do you stop a Jewish girl from fornicating?
A - Marry her.
Marriage changes things. And there are no indicators I know of that predict which relationships will survive, and which ones won't.
C'est l'amour!
- Bill
Reminds me of an ethnic joke that I hope is not offensive.Ian wrote:But it'd be very interesting to hear that marriage had disrupted a previously stable relationship.
Q - How do you stop a Jewish girl from fornicating?
A - Marry her.
Marriage changes things. And there are no indicators I know of that predict which relationships will survive, and which ones won't.
C'est l'amour!
- Bill
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ggrade&e=4
Here's a piece of horrifying insight into that monolithic, immutable thing we call marriage that has existed since time began and same sexers are trying to fundamentally alter....
Here's a piece of horrifying insight into that monolithic, immutable thing we call marriage that has existed since time began and same sexers are trying to fundamentally alter....
--Ian
-
Stryke
-
benzocaine
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
- Location: St. Thomas
Actually, from what I've heard (and I have nothing to back it up but someone told me they read it in one of the local newspapers) one of the couples that are getting divorced were together for well over a decade and had been strong advocates of gay marriage. According to what I was told, they are breaking up because of infidelity.IJ wrote:I'd be most interested in hearing how those with different stories going in fared. My wager would be that those who have been waiting 20 years to get married would be doing better than those dating a month who jumped on the opportunity as a "rights" issue which some will. But it'd be very interesting to hear that marriage had disrupted a previously stable relationship.
Oh yeah... Sophia has always been... ummmm... sultry. Britney has her moments, but from some pics I've seen, she'll never age gracefully as the wonderful Sophia. Sophia is gorgeous regardless of makeup, age, and even moreso when she has that "just rolled out of bed" look. While there are some enticing pics of Britney, sometimes she looks "ravishing... like she was just ravished by the Hell's Angels!" As one of our Doctors on list used to say, "about as good as my chances with Uma Thurman"
But what makes for real beauty is knowing that the woman you love, loves you completely. (When she's a "hottie" who doesn't mind your cigars & scotch, likes guns and bikes and makes your eyes pop out when she wears that nice silk nightie.... well, that helps too... 
)