« Discussing the Age of the Earth with Other Christians | Main | Links Mentioned on the 2/25/14 Show »

February 25, 2014

Comments

Children suffer already. Why not try something new?

Soon, government will have no legitimate interest in, or reason to care whether people are "married" or not, not any more than its interest in who your golf partner or bridge club associates are.

The whole reason for government involvement in marriage will have become pointless.

The problem is as always utopian theory evoloving more honsest relationships, and reality disaster dissolution and destruction. This lunacy isn't new in fact it's very old. See Greco-roman empire prior to collapse. But since dead white European males have nothing to teach us we will repeat the same stupidity and be shocked by the results. (oh, and then blame the Christians).

It's Carina Kolodny not Caria.

From the perspective of the Government (or society as a whole), the government should only be interested in marriage as far as it pertains to providing a stable environment in which children can grow up to become contributing members of society. To provide incentive for two people to provide a stable home for children, certain benefits from the government were written into law. When divorce is easy, and half of marriages end in divorce, the stability of the institution is questionable as is its benefit to society. At this point, there are 2 rational options available to the government. The first is to abandon recognition of the institution and remove any legal benefits to marriage (in which case marriage equality is achieved by default). The second is to make it much more difficult to get a divorce in order to preserve stability. This second option may have a lot of interesting effects and corollary arguments.

Thanks, Ron.

I tried to comment on the site but it wouldn't allow me.

I am glad homosexuals are finally being honest. I prefer that to the endless talk about rights being violated and equality that they don't have (supposedly) and all the rest!

Obviously every argument involving "same-sex" can equally be applied to "polygamous" and "incestuous" marriages. I am interested in seeing the liberal response when some of the Forbes 400 start marrying their children for inheritance purposes. If the state has no interest in deciding what marriage is, how will such a thing be prevented? It will be interesting to see how the reactions will look when the purpose of the certificate moves from state sanctioned sin to tax avoidance.

Brilliant Chad - hadn't heard of the incestuous inheritance tax-saving strategy before.

What a world we are heading for.

I don't know anything about Carina but I am going to make a prediction:

- Carina either grew up in a broken home or had a absentee/abusive father figure.

I find it interesting there are no same-sex marriage proponents on this thread denying the thesis of the article.

Apparently Carina is revealing the real strategy?

@ Ron H -

Anything to say on the content? Or just about minor typos?

I don't know who this woman is, but she doesn't speak for me. She doesn't speak for every gay couple. Did Fred Phelps speak for all Christians?

I've been partnered (monogamously) for over three years and have no interest in doing anything to "traditional" marriage.

I believe you that that isn't your intention, James. I don't think Kolodny shares the same intention as probably most gay couples. (Kolodny herself is not gay, as far as I know.) However, she has thought through the implications of changing the definition of marriage. She approves of those implications; many people haven't yet considered them let alone approve of them or intend them. But those implications will happen, whether anyone intends them to happen or not. Good intentions or bad intentions are irrelevant to what will happen. And this is something everyone--gay or straight--needs to consider.

You should consider that she isn't the only activist to say this (see the first link in the post). If you don't want those implications to happen, then I ask you to seriously consider not supporting changing the definition of marriage. There are many gay people who don't support a change in the definition for precisely these reasons.

I really appreciate your stopping by and taking the time to comment on this post.

Amy, the biggest threats to marriage have to do with a lack of regard for the notions of exclusivity and fidelity by heterosexuals. While the accessibility of divorce may have played a role in that, it's also perhaps because of the relatively new cultural expectation that women receive an education and be able to support themselves. Take away a woman's dependency on a man to survive and you remove the necessity that they stay with one purely for that reason.

We still have the issue regarding the existence of gay couples. They exist and will continue to do so. The question is whether they deserve some legal recognition or none. Marriage has benefits to society beyond merely providing an environment to raise children. Marital unions provide demonstrable benefits to their participants: namely, stability, companionship and financial support. This is even when children aren't present.

I have no problem with the creation of a legal union named something other than "marriage". My spouse would not be a "female". They would be a male. I have no interest in pretending that words don't have meaning. The problem is that most religious conservatives want no legal protections extended to gay couples at all.

The comments to this entry are closed.