07-29-2008, 04:23 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Illogic of Prop. 8
The most devastating attack ever on the institution of marriage was no fault divorce. Other tremendous blows included sophisticated forms of birth control, destigmatization by popular culture of pre-marital sex and common law arrangements, to some extent destigmatizing of adultery (comparing current attitudes to past times), and, to be honest, the normalization of gay sex. The spectacular ascendency of women in higher education and corporations and the professions, the two-working couple, and employment laws outlawing work place sexism have also facilitated divorce by making women more self-sufficient.
Yet despite this assault marriage continues to be the norm. Gays even want it now. Marriage is still strong. I could articulate a strong rationale for no-fault divorce threatening the institution of marriage, but I just don't get how gay marriage weakens it. All I hear are a bunch of conclusory assertions. Pretty words rationalizing hate. (I wonder if the LDS Church campaigned against no-fault divorce.)
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster Last edited by SeattleUte; 07-29-2008 at 04:28 PM. |
07-29-2008, 04:30 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Huh?
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
07-29-2008, 04:32 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
Having a sister that went through a no-fault divorce, I can say that the church didn't make it easy on her to get another temple marriage.
|
07-29-2008, 04:36 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
As long as gay marriage is not available.
Do you think it's easier now for a closet gay or lesbian to leave their marriage to pursue their natural form of romantic love? I do. As long as they can't remarry the fact thta this is not sitgmatized in many places or indeed illegal as it once was technically is an assault on marriage. (Again, however, marriage seems to be surviving just fine nevertheless.)
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
07-29-2008, 04:41 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
I'm making two points here. First, that a societal change might in theory damage the institution of marriage ought not be the be all and end all. I'm in favor of no-fault divorce and gender equality in academia and the work place.
Second, in any event, the rationale for Prop. 8 seems specious, because I defy anyone to even articulate a conceptual threat to marriage posed by gay marriage, and even so marriage has survived more formiddable threats that were ultimately sociatal goods.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
07-29-2008, 04:48 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
But I'll be the first to admit that this may be insufficient grounds for drawing the line in the sand HERE of all places.
__________________
εν αρχη ην ο λογος |
|
07-29-2008, 05:03 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
The purposes are not mutually exclusive, and nothing could have reinforced the idea that marriage is unavoidably at least in part about companionship more than no-fault divorce. Be that as it may, companionship is not an ignoble end of itself. I can't even dignify this "logic" enough to say it is strained.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
07-29-2008, 05:06 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,484
|
Quote:
You've set up the wrong test and you misapprehend why the Church opposes gay marriage. It's not that people will stop loving and wanting to commit to a life together. Selfless, committed love is a life force, and won't disappear. Second, more heterosexual couples won't get divorced. Actually, there may be a very small percentage who will: (1) a gay partner will finally feel free to get married to a person of his/her own sex, and will divorce; (2) the two partners could so virulently disagree over the issue of gay marriage, and have such tremendous rows over it, that it is the straw that breaks an already weakened camel's back. But in the end, the health of heterosexual marriages is not affected by gay marriage. The test for you is this, SU: You admit that the normalization of gay sex has weakened hetero marriage. How does the acceptance of gay marriage not further legitimize gay sex?
__________________
"Now I say that I know the meaning of my life: 'To live for God, for my soul.' And this meaning, in spite of its clearness, is mysterious and marvelous. Such is the meaning of all existence." Levin, Anna Karenina, Part 8, Chapter 12 Last edited by Levin; 07-29-2008 at 05:18 PM. Reason: My damn grammar |
|
07-29-2008, 05:12 PM | #9 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
I think the legitimization of gay sex is a good thing. I have not the least problem with it. I don't see a trade off here. You have a choice of letting someone fully realize the joys of matters of the heart, or live a life deprived of such. I don't believe being gay is a choice, and that is the crux of my position. If you can't disabuse me of that conviction we have no place to go in this discussion. So yes, even though normalization of gay sex may have resulted in more divorces, I say it's a societal good. Gay marriage will arguably repair whatever damage has been done to marriage by normalization of gay sex.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
07-29-2008, 05:16 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
I credit Levin for being honest. That's more than I can say for his church. People support Prop. 8 because they don't like gays. It's that simple, and Levin stated the true motivation precisely.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
Bookmarks |
|
|