The sanctity of marriage

[KellyW]

While we wait for the Massachusetts Court to decide on gay marriage, I wanted to vent on the subject of marriage. I hate the way marriage has been totally degraded in the last few years.

I firmly believe that if we really want to defend marriage in America. We need to take a stand against this abomination.

Marriage should never be used as a prize or contrived for a TV Show !

:mad:

[sirshack]

1. agreed.....

Frankly, I'm kind of indifferent to civil unions (the term "gay marriage" is kind of an oxymoron), so it's not an issue I pay much attention to. Frankly, my gay friends don't really seem to care one way or the other either....

But yeah, I hate the new "America chooses your wife/husband!" format all these networks are putting out.

[Liberal Veteran]

2. I'm a little confused....

Are you saying that using marriage as a game show prize is an abomination or gay marriage is an abomination? Or both?

[Paschall]

4. Me, too. (eom)

[KellyW]

5. Maybe I was being too subtle.

I support civil rights for everyone.

I have a problem with marriage game shows.
And I have a problem with all of these Repugs that want to “defend marriage” but don’t seem to notice how the big corporate media is devaluing it.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

12. Who Wants to Marry My Dad?

I'll be inundated with crap about this show because the Dad in question lives in suburban Cincinnati, and so the local network affiliate will spend half of its news time plugging the show. "Huh? War in Iraq? What?"

But what's really interesting is that all five of the divorced father's children attended Landmark Christian Academy in Cincinnati and either graduated from, or are current students at, Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Yeah, that Liberty University. The one founded and operated by Jerry Falwell.

So two gay men who are sincerely committed to a monogomous relationship are an abomination, but using the sacrement of holy matrimony as a game show prize isn't.

[DarienComp]

3. You bring up a good point,

and it completely exposes the hypocrisy of the right-wingers who believe that the degradation of marriage begins and ends with gay people who love each other and want the same rights as everyone else.

They really don't care about the degradation of marriage, real or percieved. They just want to deny the rights of gay people so that they can maintain their superior posture.

[Jack The Tab]

6. BINGO!

"They really don't care about the degradation of marriage, real or percieved."

You have it right there. It's not about defending the institution of marriage itself, but rather that once gay couples are granted the same "privileges" that hetero couples have, the whole of society and government has now accepted and "legitimized" homosexuality.

As it should. That anyone would argue against equal rights and privileges for two people that want to dedicate their lives to each other is obscene.

It's a religious issue (that Republicans cynically exploit, along with others) that continues to prove just how damaging organized religion is to civilized society. We all know right from wrong, and the fact that these institutions still hold some kind of sway over people is a real shame.

[Cronus Protagonist]

28. Jack, you da man!

Keep that hammer swingin' cuz you're hittin' the nail on the head wi dat.



http://kucinichforpresident.com - Kucinich Is The One
http://cronus.com/prayer - One of Kucinich's speeches

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13 - cute little buttons
http://bushspeaks.com - sardonic political toons
http://cronus.com - enlightening and educational liberal fun

Conceptual Guerilla

[radwriter0555]

7. What's to defend? Examination of the origins of marriage shows

that it was designed as a barter of property. Women were sold (dowry) into arranged marriages for the betterment of family and business ties and wealth. Hardly sanctified!

Humans are not genetically designed for monogamy; as in, their reproductive organs are not mechanically inclined to single partnerships.

To think that all people must only love and reproduce with one partner their entire life is just plain silly. Nice idea, but rather over-idealogical.

Think about it. Marriages, especially in the USA are based on marketing and shopping. White dresses? Symbolizing virginity? How silly! Bridesmaids? How many people do YOU know that have maids of any sort? The ceremony itself is a joke, only recently changing wording from 'man' to "husband," heretofor having placed the female in the completely subordinate position.

I LOVE the idea of people committing themselves to each other for life, but it's not particularly realistic. A legal agreement without all the pomp and christian based rhetoric is far more realistic. Call me a cynic.

[Blue_Chill]

11. I think that we have taught ourselves to believe what you just wrote

But I also think it's sad and pathetic that we have decided what makes us as human animals feel better, or that which is easier, is more important then our impact on society. Who gives a damn that kids with two parents are becoming rare, they don't need male and female role models anyway. Who cares if little boys have to learn to be men from what they see on TV or what mom tells them as she comes home from work tired as all hell.

Who cares, I mean why would we want to be Idealist anyway?

What matters is that OUR lives are made easier. The world be damned.

[Terran]

13. I agree with you in part

Our culture is decidely messed up when it comes to child rearing and generally organizing itself along family lines. But IMO that's mainly because we have so thoroughly bought into the idea that the nuclear family is the only way to go, despite the fact that that image describes a minority of our family units. I think it's clear that we could have alternatives involving extended family and clan living that would both encourage good child rearing and provide strong role models, and *also* allow for the fact that monogamy is not for everyone. Such arrangements would also have the effect of being supportive to our elders and valuing their experiences more than we do now; it would also likely lessen the huge amount of homelessness that we have now too.

[Interrobang]

22. Yeah, I agree with you.

"Intentional families" (ie. ones made of people you choose to be with) are, in many cases, better for you and more functional than blood families. Which is worse -- a one-parent family that works, or a two-parent family where no one gets along with anyone else? How about a three-parent family?

To all the social conservatives on this board, why would one need marriage if one were not religious? Secondly, if marriage is a religious function, why does it require state sanction? Thirdly, since marriage has a legal component, why is it a religious function? (Doesn't that mess around a little bit with the "establishment of religion" thing just a bit?)

Also, I fail to see why I should need the state, a church, or any other outside agency to legitimize my relationships, and I also fail to see why people in state/church-sanctioned relationships have different (usually better) status under and before the law.

I'm still waiting for an adequate answer for those ones...

[Friar]

19. having a little trouble with this issue?

What makes you think kids need a male role model to be male or a female role model to be female? It's innate! You need to read some stuff before you form an opinion. My daughter's first word was "No!" and my son's was "Helicopter!". I kid you not. I mean, after "Da da", of course. I talked to my kids a lot more than the old lady :)

[Blue_Chill]

23. No trouble with this issue at all.

I know exactly where I stand on it.

I'm sorry but I believe in the traditional family is best, but also agree that alternatives can be better at times as well. In your case "the old lady" obviously wasn't as commited to her family as perhaps she should have been.

As for children and needing role models, there are certain things that are innate and there are certain things that are learned. One's father for example shows a son by example what it means to be a man. You may think that comes naturally but look around you, see all those little goof balls that think "I pay for my child" means they are doing their job as a father.....10 to 1 they had a daddy just like that, none at all, or one that never gave them the time of day.

I don't trust the studies because you can find many proving opposite facts which leads me to the conclusion that studies prove what the researchers want them to.

[Iris]

24. wait a minute

Because Friar talked to his kids more than his wife did, that indicates that she wasn't as committed as she "should be"?

Maybe Friar is just more verbal than she is.

[Blue_Chill]

25. He stated in another thread

that she left them when they were 4 and 2 years of age.

[radwriter0555]

27. Then examine why a woman should for some reason be more

committed to her children than the man/father is...

What social reasoning is it that squarely lambasts a woman for not being a perfect mother, but having the sense to leave that job to the male parent?

Yet, by the same token, doesn't really care that males rarely get custody of their children...

Yet somehow, in the same breath, decries either or both parties for not forming the perfect union to raise said children?

This is why we need A VILLAGE to raise our children. We need communities, extended families, friends, nieghbors, to care for each other. Why force two people to represent the entire social strata a human will need to rely on and know, rather than involve and integrate ones family into an extended unit?

Divide and conquer. A factions of a rogue government can only take control if people are isolated, divided, unkind, uncaring and anti-social. Rather than worrying about what defines a family or a marriage, we'd be far better served to define what is best for the community and the people in it.

[ArkDem]

33. Yes,

marriage, family and religion are all outdated notions for undereducated people. All of the worlds problems can be traced to those three things.

[Friar]

29. No, he was right.

She was far less committed than me. We have a good relationship and I always encouraged the kids to be in contact with her. I do think kids should have two parents even if they don't live together. She just didn't have a strong maternal instinct, I guess. It's not a judgement against her. She's a fine person. And I'm not really all that verbal. I just loved those babies and talked to them and held them and read to them and and changed diapers and all that sappy stuff. I'd be a great GranPa :)In my mind, my kids are stuck at about four years old. I guess that's a typical parental thing.

[Iris]

30. sounds like your kids were pretty lucky to have a dad like you

O8)

[Friar]

26. You have a case there.

But I'm sure the incarcerated you refer to came from economically disadvantaged homes as well. I tend to think the socio-economic status of an individual is a far better indicator (or precursor, if you will) of criminal behavior than the number of parents in the home.

[Iris]

18. I love the "three months'" salary diamond ring "tradition"

Essentially, placing a young couple in debt before they even begin their lives together.

And what's better is the confusion about what to do with the ring if the couple breaks off the engagement. No one ever mentions that the origins of the engagement ring come from a time period when a broken engagement would mean financial ruin for the woman because it would mar any future attempts at marriage. The ring was a form of "insurance" that the man wouldn't break it off, and if he did, she would keep the ring as payment because she would probably not get another chance to marry.

And I won't even go into how diamonds are mined just so we can play our silly little engagement games.

[Blue_Chill]

8. I agree 100% however there is more to it then game shows

It also starts with the modren view of "whatever is best for me is what I shall do". The concept of loyalty is being lost in this country and all over the world.

"In good times and bad" means exactly jack shit.
"thru sickness and health" ask Newt neo-con poster boy about that one.

Too many people refuse to stick by eachother and just divorce. This says a lot about how pathetic we as a people have become. We are now little more then pleasure seekers that run at the first hint of pain.

No one stops to think how shitty it is for kids to grow up without mom or dad. In fact we even have bullshit studies that state it better for them because kids get hurt when their parents fight. Never do these studies take into account that the fights stop and that when they do the children are taught a valuable life lesson on loyalty.

Bah! Marriage in it's current state belongs on TV shows, because currently for most of America it's nothing more then a meaningless diversion anyway.

/rant

[Tigermoose]

16. Nicely said.

"Reap the whirlwind Sherrif Brady." -- Young Guns

[Brian Sweat]

9. While I agree that these "who wants to marry" shows are

a sad commentary on the state of our culture, I draw the line at any attempts to regulate them.

[misanthrope]

10. Then what about...

...people who marry for money? Or for social standing? Or political reasons? Or because they want to hide the fact that they are gay? Or procreative accidents? These all have a long tradition in a variety of cultures.

Let's face it folks, there is no sanctity in marriage. It has chiefly been a social contract carried out for a variety of reasons, a great deal of which have nothing to do with personal emotional attachment.

[elfling]

14. Other people's actions don't degrade my marriage

If two committed adults who happen to be the same sex wish to legally get married, and, I might add, voluntarily increase their tax burden, why should that damage my marriage in any way?

I am more offended by people who get drunk and have instant marriages in Vegas or elsewhere, or by the game show marriage contests, or by stupid rules that cause two-income married folk to pay more in taxes than two singles who live together.

I have no problem with religious marriages being limited in any particular way. It is a different kind of committment if one is married in a church vs. at the local government office. Why wouldn't someone's Catholic marriage be equally threatened by a Hindu or non-religious union?

[El Mariachi]

15. whats wrong with gay marraige?

its not like homosexuals are going to marry straight people anyway..

[blindpig]

17. marriage, who needs it?

Lame ol Michael Kinsey of Slate recently proposed the abolition of marriage as a civil institution. I think this is an excellent idea. If you want a religious ceremony, go for it.If you feel you need to make some sort of "statement" for your social circle, enjoy!Sometimes even the libertarians are right. The government has absolutly no place in my private life.Tammy & I have lived together for 20+ wilfully chidless years. We get totally pissed when these crackers throw that "commonlaw" bullshit on us.

[Friar]

20. you're absolutely right

Although as soon as she's storing tampons in my bathroom I considered myself "married" :)

[dsc]

21. When DOMA was in the news

I wrote my Congressman proposing DOMA 2 or the anti bimbo proliferation act. It would forbid any marriage between people who were dating each other while one or both were married to someone else. I suggested he have Newt sponser it. He thought I didn't take the issue seriously enough.

[oldcoot]

32. I love it

I think that you were taking the issue more seriously the Newt was.

[maggrwaggr]

31. Here's a good one for you --

I had the unfortunate experience of working for a show called "Married by America".

This show took people who had never even met, made them "engaged", then sent them to a big remote resort where they were immediately living together as husband and wife.

They were then encouraged by the producers to have sex. Hopefully in the rooms where the infrared cameras could watch them and record the activity. They were given sex toys, condoms, lingerie, and LOTS of alcohol.

The premise of the show was that it was about "romance" and "relationships" but it was really just a primetime excuse for bad porn.

And who brought this show to America?

The same people who bring you Faux News.

Hm, I wonder why the freeper types haven't figured this out. Fundies boycott Disney because of, hell, I can't even remember, I think it's the Rugrats. Or maybe it's Miramax films, or maybe both. But they continue to be huge fans of Faux News.

Yet another thing that just doesn't make sense.

Oh by the way, they did capture quite a bit of sex on video. Most of it they couldn't show of course, but they showed as much as they could.

If anyone's wondering I sure won't work for them again. I took the job having no idea what it was. The only thing someone would say was "I don't know, it's arranged marriages or something".

Hell, I'm a liberal and I found the whole thing disgusting.