The End of Marriage

Braunwyn · Apr 22, 2009

Shane Roach said:
I give my personal story because it demonstrates a fundamental problem with families that are not intact, biological families. In my case, a fairly amicable divorce and subsequent remarriage of both my parents to different spouses led to conflict as each of my step parents always emphasized the role of my actual parent and de-emphasized their own role in any responsibilities concerning me. This demonstrates the natural bond of parents for their own offspring, and the innate jealousy and antipathy of step parents toward step children.

I had the same experiences with my folks and one of my step-parents but I disagree with you on "the natural bond of parents for their own offspring". My father is not my biological father but he raised me from birth until the divorce. It made/makes no difference that we aren't blood related. eta: I see you address this later in your post. OTOH, my step-father is just awesome. In a lot of ways, he has acted more like a father in my older years than my dad is capable. He has always relayed to me that I'm his daughter, that he loves me and he shows it. My relationships with my mom and two fathers are unique and precious. My step-mom is a wicked nut though.

The only measured success for family units outside of the natural family is children adopted before their 15th month of age, as far as I have been able to discover so far. Every single child caught up in a gay parental situation is in a less than ideal situation from the start. This does not need to be encouraged.

I agree with the first part, but the consequences of divorce on children and gay marriage are not the same issues. People with children that divorce probably should not have married to begin with. This won't be addressed by denying gays the right to marry.

Shane Roach · Apr 22, 2009

Braunwyn said:
I had the same experiences with my folks and one of my step-parents but I disagree with you on "the natural bond of parents for their own offspring". My father is not my biological father but he raised me from birth until the divorce. It made/makes no difference that we aren't blood related. eta: I see you address this later in your post. OTOH, my step-father is just awesome. In a lot of ways, he has acted more like a father in my older years than my dad is capable. He has always relayed to me that I'm his daughter, that he loves me and he shows it. My relationships with my mom and two fathers are unique and precious. My step-mom is a wicked nut though.

I agree with the first part, but the consequences of divorce on children and gay marriage are not the same issues. People with children that divorce probably should not have married to begin with. This won't be addressed by denying gays the right to marry.

Well, I have not said anything is 100%. The statistics showing how much better kids do with two parents, one of each gender, do not say you have a 90% chance to get an axe murderer any other way, but the point is that it is a measurable difference and that all signs lead to there being a real price to pay looking at family in all these alternate ways as if it were all the same to society. One of the underlying reasons for that is, in my opinion, the observable difference in the way parents treat their biological children in most instances. So the argument that goes, "well it's just about having two parents, and economic issues," does not wash when seen through the eyes of someone who has been there and done that. Both my parents were quite well to do. I did not want for material things. I wanted for fair treatment in my own family because I was not blood kin to all my parents.

I'm sure a lot of people have seen the National Geographic, or nature special (not sure who produced it now) that ran for some time on Discover or whatnot, but the one where young elephants were just wandering around, killing rhinos. They transplanted adult bull elephants in and it quelled the problem. Hardly anyone argues people do not need a mother when they grow up, but increasingly we are discovering we also need a father.

Inner city issues of broken marriages, single parents and specifically missing a father figure have, again, been observed and documented to have detrimental effects even when corrected for economic issues.

And what is the motivation for all of this change? The main one seems to be to stop some unfairness, some suffering, but no real suffering is being shown here -- more like an aggressive distaste for simple, decent behavior being considered a goal to aim for than anything else. I am really not seeing the upside to doing this. It looks, smells, feels, like a simple attack on Christianity brought on mostly by socialist politics.

It most assuredly is not a grass roots effort. It definitely has been selected by a significant number of powerful organizations as a banner cause, and the association with leftists is not exactly hard to make either.

Jade Margery · Apr 22, 2009

Shane Roach said:
In one of the various threads on homosexuality and gay marriage I explained my own personal experience growing up in a broken home. I was accused of saying that it was wrong to play the victim and then turn around and play the victim myself. I want to revisit this because it is a caricature of what I was saying, and I want to make very clear what the original point was.

What I said was that homosexuals are not being victimized in any way by not being included in marriage. The only reason they never have been is because it would not occur to most people in most situations throughout history for them to need to be married. The current pretense that this is a civil rights issue, that gays are being victimized, etc, is a false claim. It is not to say there are no such things as legitimate victims. I am saying, given the fabulously inappropriate parades we are all subjected to yearly in every major city throughout the US, the argument that gays are victims of society in general is just absurd. If anything, they are all too happy to break with convention on a whole lot of issues to do with sexuality besides simply having sex with the same gender.

I went on to explain my personal experience in a broken home because people keep trying to imply that the multitude of studies out there showing kids do better if their parents stick together really just show the importance of having two parents, and that largely due to financial stability. Firstly, many studies correct for precisely that. Secondly, some of the studies are aimed at focusing on the benefits of each individual parent, both the father and the mother, on the child's development and health.

I give my personal story because it demonstrates a fundamental problem with families that are not intact, biological families. In my case, a fairly amicable divorce and subsequent remarriage of both my parents to different spouses led to conflict as each of my step parents always emphasized the role of my actual parent and de-emphasized their own role in any responsibilities concerning me. This demonstrates the natural bond of parents for their own offspring, and the innate jealousy and antipathy of step parents toward step children.

I am not looking for anyone's pity here. I am telling you flat out why my own personal experience bears out the claims against gay marriage and for preserving marriage as it is, and indeed strengthening social and perhaps even legal requirements concerning parents and their children, and concerning making frivolous divorce less easy to attain.

The only measured success for family units outside of the natural family is children adopted before their 15th month of age, as far as I have been able to discover so far. Every single child caught up in a gay parental situation is in a less than ideal situation from the start. This does not need to be encouraged.

It is perfectly understandable to use past personal experiences as comparisons for current issues; in fact, all of us must do it to a certain extent. Ultimately though, one experience--even your own one experience--cannot be considered hard evidence for any conclusion. If a scientist were to base a conclusion on a single data point, he'd be laughed out of his department. There are several billion people on this planet, many of whom went through similar things when they were young, all of whom have different ideas about it.

I, too, come from a broken family of sorts--parents divorced when I was nine, my mother remarried soon after--but it was a good experience. My parents were friends at first but not in love; by the end they could not stand each other and fought all the time. They married for exactly the same reasons you say people should stay married: they had me and my brother and wanted to give us a stable family. That stable family crumbled because they never really loved each other and were very unhappy together. True, the divorce was hard, but things got a lot better for everyone after that. My mom married someone she actually loved who was a great stepfather. My dad took longer to get back in the romance ring but he's dating now and pretty happy. For our family, divorce was the best thing that could have happened to us.

So you see, there are as many experiences out there as there are people. What is right or wrong for you may not be right or wrong for someone else, and based on this how can we tell anyone how they should live their lives or run their families or have their relationships?

And while you may be right about less ideal situations (may be right, mind you) for adopted kids, you must consider that a lot of children of gay couples will not be adopted, but be born by surrogate mothers or artificial insemination. Many women who want to give their kids up for adoption will even find a family before they give birth, so the baby is 'theirs' from the beginning. Even for adopted kids, older children are far better off with parents of any gender than no parents at all. If I were an orphan, I would just be glad that someone wanted to love and take care of me.

Obviously, the most ideal situation for a kid to grow up in would be a very well off household in a completely safe neighborhood with an excellent school program and two parents without any emotional or psychological issues who devote lots of time to the child's raising and make all their family meals from scratch. Number of children that actually have that? I've never met one. Less than ideal is no reason to stop people from raising kids.

Shane Roach · Apr 22, 2009

I was also very specific as to why I thought my experience was related to the studies which also indicate that kids do better in normal families. I am also convinced that a lot of times when people break up as you describe, it is actually not for the best. In your case, your father appears to have remained single for a very long time, thus you were not caught in the middle as I was. I have met others who were.

I am not saying it to prove statistics. I am explaining how understanding the personal conflicts inherent in divorce and remarriage relate to the statistics we already know.

People stayed married in higher numbers for centuries. People were held responsible for their own kids for centuries. The decline in marriage matches an increase in problems. Therefore, it would seem that the claim that divorce is better simply is not true.

There are obviously problems in some marriages. The question is not whether we should acknowledge that reality, the question is whether or not disassembling marriage is the answer. I have argued that that is not the case. I have quite a bit of research backing me, and I was trying to explain some of the connection I have to that research -- why I do not simply buy into ideas about everything hinging on simply being two parents, or simply having more money. There's more to life than simplistic numbers. Numbers are useful, but understanding them is the key.

peadar1987 · Apr 22, 2009

Shane Roach said:
People stayed married in higher numbers for centuries. People were held responsible for their own kids for centuries. The decline in marriage matches an increase in problems. Therefore, it would seem that the claim that divorce is better simply is not true.

Correlation does not imply causation. People stayed married in higher numbers for centuries because religion and society frowned upon divorce.

For example, 100 years ago it was still pretty common to regard a wife as property, and women were expected by society to stay in line. Nowadays this sort of attitude will generally result in divorce rather than the crushing of the woman's soul. I know which situation I prefer

beechy · Apr 22, 2009

Shane Roach said:
Hardly anyone argues people do not need a mother when they grow up, but increasingly we are discovering we also need a father.

Maybe the reason nobody argues that people don't need a mother is because historically (although there is evidence the trend may be changing in recent years) most children growing up in single parent households are being raised by their mothers. In other words, the VAST majority of single parent homes are led by women (something greater than 80%). As a result, research about the absence of a parent has focused on absence of the father. Similarly, there's not much out there regarding what happens to people who grow up in a household with two fathers.

Braunwyn · Apr 22, 2009

Shane Roach said:
Well, I have not said anything is 100%. The statistics showing how much better kids do with two parents, one of each gender, do not say you have a 90% chance to get an axe murderer any other way, but the point is that it is a measurable difference and that all signs lead to there being a real price to pay looking at family in all these alternate ways as if it were all the same to society. One of the underlying reasons for that is, in my opinion, the observable difference in the way parents treat their biological children in most instances. So the argument that goes, "well it's just about having two parents, and economic issues," does not wash when seen through the eyes of someone who has been there and done that. Both my parents were quite well to do. I did not want for material things. I wanted for fair treatment in my own family because I was not blood kin to all my parents.

This almost seems like a choice between the lesser of two evils. In an ideal world, bio and step parents would be rational, attentive and kind. The reality is that some, maybe even most, bio-parents will put their own needs ahead of their children and step parents take it to another level. At least if parents stay married they'd be more inclined to look after their own. This wouldn't necessarily be due to them having their stuff (emotional/psych stuff) together but rather it would be a matter of convenience. Divorce is inconvenient and it highlights where a parent's priorities lay. In short, a child might not suffer as much due to convenience but it doesn't change the fact that your (and mine) parents were less than ideal all on their own.

I'm sure a lot of people have seen the National Geographic, or nature special (not sure who produced it now) that ran for some time on Discover or whatnot, but the one where young elephants were just wandering around, killing rhinos. They transplanted adult bull elephants in and it quelled the problem. Hardly anyone argues people do not need a mother when they grow up, but increasingly we are discovering we also need a father.

Another poster noted that we don't always get what's best for us. I know this sounds cynical, but it's reality. I don't believe that denying gays the right to marry is going to help families in any way. All it does is distract from work. People are always so concerned with what their neighbors are doing and this contributes to neglectful attention in their own homes. At times it seems intentional. It's the attitude 'if he just stopped egging me on, or started doing that, etc, then I'd be ok', when that's clearly not how inner peace is wrought.

Inner city issues of broken marriages, single parents and specifically missing a father figure have, again, been observed and documented to have detrimental effects even when corrected for economic issues.

And what is the motivation for all of this change? The main one seems to be to stop some unfairness, some suffering, but no real suffering is being shown here -- more like an aggressive distaste for simple, decent behavior being considered a goal to aim for than anything else. I am really not seeing the upside to doing this. It looks, smells, feels, like a simple attack on Christianity brought on mostly by socialist politics.

The only one making it an attack on Christianity is Christians looking for the burden, imo. We all have a vision about how our ideal world would be. As I'm sure you know, my ideal soley includes the softening of hearts towards animals. I would love nothing more than to see an end to animal torture and needless slaughter. But, my attempts to tell people what they should or shouldn't be doing, even though I have no doubt that I'm right, doesn't go over well. If people feel that have the right to blatently cause suffering, then I cannot fathom how anyone takes issue with people wanting the right to show their love, become legally bound and committed.

Shane Roach · Apr 23, 2009

Braunwyn said:
This almost seems like a choice between the lesser of two evils. In an ideal world, bio and step parents would be rational, attentive and kind. The reality is that some, maybe even most, bio-parents will put their own needs ahead of their children and step parents take it to another level. At least if parents stay married they'd be more inclined to look after their own. This wouldn't necessarily be due to them having their stuff (emotional/psych stuff) together but rather it would be a matter of convenience. Divorce is inconvenient and it highlights where a parent's priorities lay. In short, a child might not suffer as much due to convenience but it doesn't change the fact that your (and mine) parents were less than ideal all on their own.

Another poster noted that we don't always get what's best for us. I know this sounds cynical, but it's reality. I don't believe that denying gays the right to marry is going to help families in any way. All it does is distract from work. People are always so concerned with what their neighbors are doing and this contributes to neglectful attention in their own homes. At times it seems intentional. It's the attitude 'if he just stopped egging me on, or started doing that, etc, then I'd be ok', when that's clearly not how inner peace is wrought.

The only one making it an attack on Christianity is Christians looking for the burden, imo. We all have a vision about how our ideal world would be. As I'm sure you know, my ideal soley includes the softening of hearts towards animals. I would love nothing more than to see an end to animal torture and needless slaughter. But, my attempts to tell people what they should or shouldn't be doing, even though I have no doubt that I'm right, doesn't go over well. If people feel that have the right to blatently cause suffering, then I cannot fathom how anyone takes issue with people wanting the right to show their love, become legally bound and committed.

It's sort of surreal to watch you wend your way through so much stuff that is very sensitive and agreeable, only to end the speech with, "so anyhow, I don't care who it hurts, people should just be able to show their love, get legally bound and committed."

We can hardly expect people to strive toward the better model if we are not even willing to take a stand for it.

I've had the sad experience of meeting a number of people who love their animals more than they love other people. Not that that's you, and I adore animals of all sorts, but I am not sure how this comes up, and there are instances when people's emphasis on animal cruelty spooks me out.

I'm not big on animal experimentation for makeup. Beyond that, I lack any notable animal rights causes. I mean, specifically for food animals, a certain degree of humane treatment in both life and death would be appreciated too... I dunno.

Anyhow, thanks for dropping by.

Braunwyn · Apr 23, 2009

Shane Roach said:
It's sort of surreal to watch you wend your way through so much stuff that is very sensitive and agreeable, only to end the speech with, "so anyhow, I don't care who it hurts, people should just be able to show their love, get legally bound and committed."

I'm not saying that I don't care. Of course I care. I'm saying that Jane and Jill getting married or not getting married isn't going to make your or my parents better parents. And marriage isn't going to make Jane and Jill better parents. They're separate issues.

We can hardly expect people to strive toward the better model if we are not even willing to take a stand for it.

I think people should start striving for it in their own families. Ya know, personal responsibility.

I've had the sad experience of meeting a number of people who love their animals more than they love other people. Not that that's you, and I adore animals of all sorts, but I am not sure how this comes up, and there are instances when people's emphasis on animal cruelty spooks me out.

It comes up for me because it's one of the issues I'm very passionate about. I wouldn't say that I love animals more than people. Rather, I'm more inclined to value animals more than most are capable. It's sad that passion A/R people would spook you out. There's nothing to be spooked about and I certainly didn't intend to invoke that sense from you.

From my pov, it's pretty easy to be compassionate towards animals but as a society we fail on that end. If we are incapable of extending compassion when it's easy, it really isn't surprising that some aren't doing well on the human front. I guess this is OT but I can easily relate how we treat eachother with how we treat animals. We can be so careless. Thanks for reading.

Shane Roach · Apr 23, 2009

Braunwyn said:
It comes up for me because it's one of the issues I'm very passionate about. I wouldn't say that I love animals more than people. Rather, I'm more inclined to value animals more than most are capable. It's sad that passion A/R people would spook you out. There's nothing to be spooked about and I certainly didn't intend to invoke that sense from you.

Oh, you didn't. I was just mumbling because I had no idea what it had to do with the topic. Just responding as best I could. But you personally have not said anything spooky.

Shane Roach · Apr 23, 2009

Braunwyn said:
I'm not saying that I don't care. Of course I care. I'm saying that Jane and Jill getting married or not getting married isn't going to make your or my parents better parents. And marriage isn't going to make Jane and Jill better parents. They're separate issues.

Neither of these is what I have argued.

Jane and Jill marrying changes the legal framework of a set of laws meant to regulate families (thus the term "family law", right?). We have already seen how changes in law and our society have broken down that unit, so I do not see how one can argue that chances in laws cannot effect it. We also have seen the damage this change has done.

So to me, it's hard to understand how anyone could be casual about it. My personal experience only serves to illustrated precisely how a lax attitude toward the importance of solid family laws and regulation leads inexorably to poor parenting.

This is something that has been regulated in every society for all of history. I cannot imagine what it is that makes people think we don't need this now. As long as there are people having children, we need minimum standards as far as their expectations of each other, society's expectations of them, and so forth.

Braunwyn · Apr 25, 2009

Shane Roach said:
Neither of these is what I have argued.

Jane and Jill marrying changes the legal framework of a set of laws meant to regulate families (thus the term "family law", right?). We have already seen how changes in law and our society have broken down that unit, so I do not see how one can argue that chances in laws cannot effect it. We also have seen the damage this change has done.

I know you have posted quite a bit about family law, though I have to admit it really hasn't sunk in for me. I won't ask you to repeat yourself as I'm sure that would be annoying. Maybe I'll go back to some of your older posts in order to grasp your point.

Shane Roach · Apr 25, 2009

I'll possibly amend this at some point to get the portion that is specific to BigBadWlf out of it, but after addressing issues with some of his citations, the rest is pretty much all what you're looking for. Maybe.

I do seem to get the question a lot, so I took the step of bookmarking one of my replies.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-37/#post51432604

Futuwwa · Apr 25, 2009

Shane Roach said:
Another quite obvious result of this trend, about which liberals will no doubt hoot and jeer, is that a culture whose birth rates and social fabric are this weak cannot help but fall to the strong influence of a culture with a higher birth rate and stronger social mores and folkways. In Europe, there can be little doubt that this culture is broadly going to be Muslim. I know Muslim's who've lived in England who state large swaths of the cityscape are simply devoid of Europeans, and they are openly proud of their own unique heritage and the way in which they are more or less sweeping away the original inhabitants.

Mwahahahahoahaoahaahaaahahaha! Our family values can beat up your family values!

Shane Roach · Apr 25, 2009

Futuwwa said:
Mwahahahahoahaoahaahaaahahaha! Our family values can beat up your family values!

Heh, or lack thereof.

Slightly off topic, but are you familiar with a somewhat western-friendly version of Islam where the practitioners drink? There are a growing number of these folks, two of whom I have now met personally.

I wish I could remember the name of the sect, or whatever you would want to call it.

The End of Marriage

Braunwyn

Guest

Well-Known Member

Stranger in a strange land

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Braunwyn

Guest

Well-Known Member

Braunwyn

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Braunwyn

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads