Marriage & Family Under Attack.

[Hugo]

  i say enough of this nonsense to submerge one's own identity to fullfill or please another person or "we will work hard at our marrige", trying to so hard to salvage something that is destructive and unsatisfying or "we pledge to each other until death do us part" - how sentimental

Of course. Why work at a marriage? Why try and please anyone but yourself? Tell me - why don't you rob your parents blind? Why don't you steal candy from kids when their parents are not looking? The first time your boss looks cockeyed at you, I expect you'll quit and go on welfare, right? Why try at anything if it's not immediately beneficial to you and only you?

I'm sorry if this damages your 4-year-old's moral outlook, but self-sacrifice, compassion and empathy are actually important and human society depends upon them.

[RB]

look males usually benefit much MORE from marriage through social support in the relation, the female gets the lifestyle via economics which is in my view INSIGNIFICANT.

I oppose this role acceptance perceived and allotted to the female with nurture. i prefer really to see more tolerance of separated and shared interest, individuality and uniqueness on a person, mostly promote increased formation of satellite relations which will increase growth for the individual – men have explored extramarital relations forever, so should the women

I give little valve to the institution of marriage, and therefore encourage divorce and sub-nuclear family of one parent

the only criticism i have is that i remain very optimistic, of what it seem like destruction of family….considered mostly evil and even thought there is no preparation for emotions such as anger, and hostility maybe rejection and i don’t know how to reconcile such a conflict

[Hugo]

You've never been married, have you?

[RB]

three options for marriage for myself Abort, Retry, Fail?

traits of failure are analogous to computer usage

- Login incorrect

- Windows is never open

- Incompatible programs

- Operating systems continues to run on DOs

- Minimize button is use more than frequently

- Shutdown feature is in usage

- the network driver didn’t want to run in promiscuous mode, hence the systems hardware probe feature became less useful

- installshield feature is now used for protection, the option to be completely uninstalled if so desired without the loss of cache and other sys resources

- on the contrary, RAM is officially more important than ROM

- The motherboard did accept incompatible plugin

- "Don't remind me again" button was push to limit and expired

- "Abort" button was use carelessly

- backup to server was never in usage

- Server's poor response not quick enough for browsing. and usually times out

i am sure there are other wacky reasons, but i have no regrets and i was able to reconcile this with much more confidence

[Hugo]

What in the name of sanity are you talking about?

[Ronda]

men have explored extramarital relations forever, so should the women

I give little valve to the institution of marriage, and therefore encourage divorce and sub-nuclear family of one parent

Are you for real? Extra marital relations are actually not very enjoyable after the orgasm. Hate to burst your bubble. Most people are capable of making emotional commitments and therefore find it emotionally upsetting to break said commitments. Divorce is also very painful. For EVERYONE involved. Especially children. I can't even communicate how utterly absurd I find your outlook whilst keeping within the guidelines of this message board. Try marriage, try affairs and try divorce. After that, try being a single parent. Then we'll talk. Until then, please try to avoid impressionable minds.

[KrustyKidd]

But what an orgasm!

Rhonda, can't believe you responded to that. LOL Tommorow I think he'll be looking for the edit switch.

[RB]

well, i do recognize that a family is important for all the reasons listed since your threads such as for reproduction, socialization and maintenance of child, sexual control as in marriage (hope you said that one)

I don’t discount your arguments at all, I happen take a different view...a mere perspective…AN OPEN INQUIRY, and would like to reduce the role of tradition.

it is always troubling when the unanimous conclusive argument winds up in supporting men’s position in the family unit, this is from both men and women arguments. somehow, i feel that we always are more incline to give the correct answers, or give the normative societal replies rather than deviate to what we truly want to say for fear of non-acceptance.

I don’t have the percentage but I am nearly sure that greater than 60% men have had at least a sexual relationship outside of marriage, women much less for sure…so what is so wrong if we up the percentage to match that of men…not the old double standard now, mind you the reports actually say that there is a rather high number of women who actually do not make the orgasm, well I don’t disregard what is relevant.

Divorces, well the take is for it to become much more contemporary and sophisticated instead of emotional and drawn-out.

There are many theorists out there who actually support expansion of individuality and promotion of self-happiness, whatever makes an individual feel good. Maltase’s population theory would congratulate birth control, and other forms of keeping a sizable people

All I am proposing is exploration, and that these functions of a family can be performed separately and can be as efficient as in a family – family is just another instrument to keep institutions together such as: marriage, religion.

My question is who says this should be the only one way?

[FastNed]

RB, I don't have a cite but in a recent article "Sex without Guilt" stated that there were contemporary studies among younger married couples which indicated that 53 % of the women had explored extra-maritial sex and had at least one affair.

If true, "feel good" is now more important than "faithful".

[Ronda]

And I would wonder how many of these women actually feel good about what's happened after the fact? When the relationship with hubby is ruined and the lover is gone. Security has its bonuses and people who constantly abuse others' trust tend to not be very fulfilled individuals nor very happy in the long run.

[SirRiff]

doesnt all the stats showing the modern state of marriage just prove that given the choice, most people will not adhere to the 'traditional' roles of marriage?

i mean, women are liberated, they can leave as they want, they dont have to suffer abuse, they make enough to be financially independant, thier lives arent about reproduction, and so on and so on.

if SO MANY marraiges end in divorce, and many of the intact ones suffer from infidelity, we can only conclude that the institution of marraige was mostly held by imposing cultural and religious limits on personal freedoms. and that humans are completely unfit for that kind of strict interpretation of partnership to the exclusion of all others?

or maybe we would be able to stay married if our society wasnt so stressfull, hyper-sexually enticing, lacking in accountability or disposable.

or what i prefer to believe, that humans were never designed to live in such massive populations that our technology has brought, and so matter how complex we craft our societies, our neuro-biology is not up to the task.

its messed up.

SirRiff

[FastNed]

Two thoughts -Whatever marriage may have become, whatever meaning may be assigned to it when half of those who participate in this covenant no longer believe that "faithful" remains a mutual vow, the fact remains that it is a religious joining, a "Blessing" or "Sacrament" to those who participate. Failure to keep this covenant no more invalidates marriage than failure to keep a commandment invalidates the Ten Commandments. Failure or "Sin" is part of our religious traditions for while we are made in His image, we are not gifted with His perfection. That some of us sin and are imperfect in the execution of our covenant of marriage is no grounds for intrusion of the government into our religions to state we must allow homosexual marriages if they are forbidden by our dogma.

To Ronda, you are so correct. Having just experienced the tenth anniversary of the ending of my marriage by the death of my wife, when two have been made one and then one is gone, you are left with a very large hole in your heart and soul. There is nothing which can replace the love which is lost and nothing to fill that emptiness within.

[Ronda]

Article from Calgary Sun which raises a very interesting point:

By DR. ROGER GIBBINS -- For the Calgary Sun

The debate over legalization of gay marriages brings into focus a larger debate about the place of religious values in politics. In short, what values should legislators bring to the table in making public policy decisions?

Supporters of legalization have reacted with anger to the intervention of religious leaders, and particularly Catholic leaders such as the Pope and Calgary's Bishop Henry.

More importantly, they argue that MPs should leave their religious values at the door of the House of Commons when voting on legalization.

The message is clear: Politics and religion should not mix.

Now admittedly, this belief that politics and religion are the equivalent of oil and water is deeply embedded in western democratic states, which began to emerge at a time when religious wars were causing havoc in Europe. It is not surprising, therefore, that a means was sought to quell religious conflict. Religious conversion, it was decided, should not be pursued through or by the state.

However, does separation of church and state mean religious values should be taken off the table in the debate over gay marriages?

Before wading into this contentious issue, I should clarify my own position. My political values are liberal and secular, largely unshaped by religious values, although this is a statement of fact rather than one of pride. (Even as a statement of fact it is somewhat misleading in that liberal beliefs themselves are deeply rooted in Christian values and traditions.)

On the matter of gay marriages, civil unions sanctioned by the state should be open to a variety of relationships, and I am not offended by marriage as a state contract being open to gays.

At the same time, there should be no government pressure on religious communities with respect to the solemnization of marriage.

There is no inherent contradiction in the Government of Canada recognizing gay marriages, but the Muslim or Catholic communities refusing to do so. Separation of church and state must work both ways.

But, is there any reason why my secular beliefs should prevail over those who approach gay marriage from the standpoint of religious values? More generally, is it inappropriate to bring religious values into play when taking political positions?

I would argue no.

All would agree that political debate should not be devoid of values. The issue, then, is whether we can draw a line and say some values are legitimate while others are not. The proponents of legalization come from a value perspective that gives primacy to individual freedom and the universal application of human rights. However, I'm uneasy with the argument these values are legitimate, while values embedded in longstanding religions are not.

True, Canada is a deeply secular society that stands in increasingly sharp contrast to the U.S., where religious values are much more likely to inform public life.

Although the 1982 Constitution Act begins with the phrase "Whereas Can-ada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God ..." this is not a description Canadian governments or courts take seriously.

Yet does this mean secular values should trump religious values in political debates? If MPs should leave their religious values at the door of the House of Commons, then what values should they take inside? Why are some values legitimate and others not?

Or, if we expect our MPs to be devoid of values, then the only course open to them is to listen to their constituents and reflect their views, the ultimate dumbing down of representative democracy. This would also mean, and not incidentally, the proposed gay marriage legislation would fail as a slight plurality of Canadians now oppose legalization.

A final point in this difficult argument is the reality of a new multicultural Canada where many communities hold religious values dearly, and where the projection of these values onto the political world is seen as a personal responsibility. While Canadians as a whole may be largely secular, many Canadians are not.

Can we therefore say to such communities that it is illegitimate to have political viewpoints shaped by religious values? Can we say to First Nations that their religious beliefs have no political application? At the least, this would be inconsistent with freedom of speech and religion protections in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Where does this leave us? Over the next year Canadians will be engaged in an intense and often acrimonious debate over legalization of gay marriage, even though the courts are unlikely to be swayed by the democratic process.

This debate will engage strong convictions on all sides of the argument. So be it. However, to argue that only certain types of values should be brought into play makes no sense.

Values forged in the mosque or Sunday school are as legitimate as those forged reading the Globe and Mail over a cappuccino.

There is no reason why my values as a secular liberal should trump those of a traditional Muslim. To argue they should is to ignore the complex, multicultural community in which we live.

[JamesAllen]

"However, does separation of church and state mean religious values should be taken off the table in the debate over gay marriages? "

Absolutely not. I would even go so far as to suggest that the removal of religiously influenced morality from political decision making is not only impossible, but a little naive.

The minds of values of policy makers have been shaped, defined, or at the very least effected by the religious thought they have come into contact with. In most cases, this is primarily the religion they have grown up with.

The question then, is simple. Which values, and which religion are the values we should follow?

Obviously, most contributors to this forum are of a form of Christianity which not only does not recognize gay marriage, but believes it is a detriment to society. How? No one has said, but they believe it somehow is. Unfortunately, there are many Christian religious sects which do recognize gay marriage. There are also many other faiths which recognize gay marriage, or even just that gay marriage is not harmful in any way. Some quick examples....

Taoism, Buddhism, forms of Hinduism, most Pagan religions, The Unitarian Church, and a number of others.

... to be blunt… Whether or not gay marriage is immoral, is far from agreed upon. The opposition to Gay Marriage in Canada comes from the same place it always has. A very narrow bread of Christianity that believes it can force its morality down the throats of other Canadians.

This perception has been characterized in previous posts as ‘erosion’. This is bandied about a fair bit, but without explanation. What exactly is being eroded, how is it being eroded, and of what value is this thing that is being eroded? These questions lye unanswered in the wake of jingoistic abstraction like “Family Unit”, “Moral Fiber”, “Sacred Union”, and the like.

In the end, I have yet to hear a single, actual argument against Gay Marriage that doesn’t depend on the wrongful assumption that there are not gay “family units”; that being gay is actually immoral at all; and that a gay union isn’t as sacred as any other.

I think you should ask yourself why you would be against Gay Marriage.

[Greg]

Obviously, most contributors to this forum are of a form of Christianity which not only does not recognize gay marriage, but believes it is a detriment to society.

Please don't generalized the thoughts and opinions of everyone in these forums. Sweeping statements like this tend to exagerate the reality of the situation and do nothing but discredit your opinion.

[Hugo]

Here's one:

For gay marriage to be approved places a stamp of approval on the practice of homosexuality from the government, church or whatever other authority you choose to heed.

Homosexuality is harmful to health. It's a fact. The average gay man lives to only 41, is 27 times as likely to suffer a serious STD, and has a mere 9% chance of ever seeing retirement age. Lesbians don't have it much better.

Until we fully understand why homosexuals are so unhealthy and live such short lives, perhaps it might be prudent to withhold any endorsements? After all, promoting smoking before the health risks became clear caused many avoidable deaths.

[SirRiff]

Homosexuality is harmful to health. It's a fact. The average gay man lives to only 41, is 27 times as likely to suffer a serious STD, and has a mere 9% chance of ever seeing retirement age. Lesbians don't have it much better.

blacks live shorter lives then whites.

obese people die early.

native americans have very very high suicide rates.

smokers drain the health care system

if you are saying that unhealthy subpopulations are somehow immoral or less deserving of civil quality, the vast majority of north america can be targeted to some extreme or another.

thus there is no sane way that health can be used as qualification for equality. just doesnt make sense. a white man who sleeps with a filthy prostitute doesnt deserve to loss his basic equalities and protections. the argument just cant stand when you take it as a philosophy beyond just gays.

another point;

why are people so handcuffed to the idea that morality and reglion are one at the same??

in egypt, mothers loved thier children, fathers protected their family, they had laws and a complex society and stealing and killing were crimes.

the basic human functions know as morality were alive adn kicking when we were cavemen. the family unit was developed and we were advancing. jews and christians and islam all just took the reality of thier time and put them down on writing.

morality is just the byproduct of basic human nature. we value those related to us, and want to live without fear.

the basic functions of morality developed WELL before 1AD, and this idea that our society cant continue to evolve its morality without religion is nonsense.

SirRiff

[FastNed]

Hello James, welcome to the Forum. As Greg has pointed out, we are a very diverse group with opinions covering all spectrums and we have very informative discussions.

Perhaps the reason that morality and religion are so intertwined is the historical fact that despite the popularity of the fad of the day, our various religions have continued to maintain their vision of morality. Their message of what constitutes moral action remains as a consistent standard unaffected by contemporary events.

I believe it fair to say that the majority of people who hold religious beliefs do not wish to impose their religious views of what is "moral" upon others. This is true at least here in North America where freedom of religion is an essential element of our civilization. This concept is particular to democracies and does not appear to have validity under other forms of government. However well or poorly we practice our particular religion, common to us is the belief that you may condemn the sin but not the sinner. I believe we have matured in our religious views over this last half century or so and no longer expect our Laws to reflect our moral views in areas which could be called "personal privacy matters". As long as those involved are consenting adults, it really is none of our business what occurs in the privacy of someone's bedroom.

We will not, however, allow this claim of homosexual "rights" to be used to destroy our religions, to declare out holy literature to be "hate" speech or, to censor our religious authorities when they express the position of our religion. If our religion holds that homosexual activity is unnatural and a sin, our spiritual leaders may well continue to express the moral judgment of our religion on those who practice such acts. Bluntly, live with it. It is our "right" to hold moral opinions and no one in their right mind should expect us to disregard six thousand years of religious beliefs to make someone feel good.

"Marriage " is a term with deep religious significance and it should be left as a religious ceremony. If someone wishes to go to the Gay Bishop in New Hampshire and his Church allows Gay Marriage, fine because it is allowed by their religious doctrine. That is what religious freedom is all about. Those of us who hold other beliefs must have that same religious freedom.

The success of our civilization is that we accommodate many different views and we preserve the right of everyone to hold a minority view while living in peace with each other.

[Hugo]

Riff,

Nobody is talking about removing rights from gays. They already have all the same rights as straights.

You first made an analogy with blacks, which is invalid.

You then made an analogy with smokers, which is valid. So let's look at that. Smokers still have the right to vote, the right to life and all that, and they still have the right to smoke in private places. But nobody is about to tell the world that smoking is a safe and equal choice.

This is the attitude we need to take towards homosexuality. It is dangerous, it shortens your lifespan, and like smoking it is a behaviour that it is possible to avoid. So if people want to do it in private, let them, but only after you have advised them of the risks. Like smokers. A smoker can't really complain if he dies of lung cancer, since every cigarette packet he ever bought told him he probably would. Similarly, a homosexual who was properly informed of the risks of his behaviour can't complain when he dies of AIDS, as he was informed that he probably would.

Homosexuality is a health risk. There's no need to outlaw it, but let's at least make sure it's an informed risk that homosexuals take.

[Craig Read]

Hugo you will hurt Riff's and Lie-berals feelings with your hard logic and empirical backup.

After all there is no evidence, no reality, just platitudes and arm waving.

Riff style.

[Debo]

Riff,

Nobody is talking about removing rights from gays. They already have all the same rights as straights.

You first made an analogy with blacks, which is invalid.

You then made an analogy with smokers, which is valid. So let's look at that. Smokers still have the right to vote, the right to life and all that, and they still have the right to smoke in private places. But nobody is about to tell the world that smoking is a safe and equal choice.

This is the attitude we need to take towards homosexuality. It is dangerous, it shortens your lifespan, and like smoking it is a behaviour that it is possible to avoid. So if people want to do it in private, let them, but only after you have advised them of the risks. Like smokers. A smoker can't really complain if he dies of lung cancer, since every cigarette packet he ever bought told him he probably would. Similarly, a homosexual who was properly informed of the risks of his behaviour can't complain when he dies of AIDS, as he was informed that he probably would.

Homosexuality is a health risk. There's no need to outlaw it, but let's at least make sure it's an informed risk that homosexuals take.

No greater and more graciously fair a proposal can be made than this.

But I wonder should there be surgeon general warnings on condoms to this effect?

[SirRiff]

You first made an analogy with blacks, which is invalid.

You then made an analogy with smokers, which is valid. So let's look at that. Smokers still have the right to vote, the right to life and all that, and they still have the right to smoke in private places. But nobody is about to tell the world that smoking is a safe and equal choice.

Debo what you didnt notice in your rush to agree with hugo is the following implicit failure of his own logic.

smoking can not be done without harm.

gayness can be done without harm.

thus they cannot be equal.

otherwise you can condemn driving because some peope die. well yes, but since driving is still very safe if you make every efforts, the fact that it is done dangerously sometimes, does not mean that activity is "wrong".

so my original point is correct, that gayness is more like being black or being a women, something innate, that you have little control over, that determines how you are treated by society, that of itsself causes no harm, but based on unpredictability of people does not limit free will to cause disaster. in fact, the MAJORITY of gays live perfectly normal lives, just like everyone else.

and lets not forget any argument made because of someones perceived self injury can be made to some degree about anything. from being fat, to sleeping with lots of girls, to doing drugs, to driving fast, to smoking, to having too many children, and so on.

it may be appropriate to comdemn an activity that cannot be harmless like smoking, to some degree all smokers are harming their health (however its still thier health). but the same argument cannot be made against gays, becaus e self destructive behavior is not limited to gays it is present in every niche of society, and because perfectly reasonable behavior is not excluded from gays, it is also found in all of society.

in summery, gays are more comparable to blacks and women then to smokers because self risk is not implicitly linked to any sexual preference. its linked to the behaviors that are common in all aspects of society. the argument on self risk breaks down when you are forced to 1) logically seperate the observed gay risks from the multitide of other realized risks commonly seen in soceity, 2) defend societys historical judgement of violently oppressing minorites such as women and blacks immorally, and 3) explain how the right to intrude into personal risk is defined, limited, and decided ethically by society at large.

SirRiff

[Moderate Centrist]

"I have yet to hear a single, actual argument against Gay Marriage..."

James Allen

Well I can give you one -

This issue has no business being at the top of the governement agenda and taking up government time that could be better spent on real issues which affect many more Canadians.

The homosexual community is the most powerful minority group in history that has pretty much hijacked minority issues from groups with much more to complain about.

The government should be addressing the following:

The Canadian military,

The Economy,

Education,

Our aging population and the issues surrounding it.

The quality of Canada's water supply and it's ownership

Maintaining independance from the United States

These are just a few. Gays have all the rights that the rest of us have.

Let government ditch the fluff and get back to work.

[daniel]

Gays have all the rights that the rest of us have.

It may appear that way but it was only a few years back, when gays were still being beaten up because they were gay. It took a lot of political pressure to make the police look at gay-bashing as serious assault.

There may still be alot of rights and issues that gays don't have as compared to the rest of us and we'll never know what they are unless they continue to be vocal about it.

About marriage: There are rights that married people have that common-law people don't have (consult a lawyer because I don't readily know them). So if gays aren't allowed to marry, then they'll never have those rights either inspite of their mutual consent to marry.

The homosexual community is the most powerful minority group in history

Actually, the most powerful group is politicians. No other group can change laws (and therefore change your life, death, before and after with a stroke of a pen. They can also give themselves more rights and priviledges simply by consulting amongst themselves. What other group can give you a tax deduction because of your donations to them? Not any charity I know - they offer tax credits.

[Moderate Centrist]

Hi Daniel,

Firstly I do not condone violence against anyone nor make light of gay bashing.

Gays always had the right to pursue assault charges. If this wasn't being taken seriously it doesn't require more laws but rather that the police enforce the laws we already have and to be held accountable when they don't.

I think all assaults are pretty serious regardless of who they are against.

Marriage was traditionally looked on as the superior form of social commitment by the law and the public. I'm not saying this is right but it is true.

One of the reasons most people I know opt not to marry is because they don't want that level of commitment and want an out of their relationships if need be.

Politicians are not minority groups. Minority groups are smaller demographic communities within a larger one.

I'd hardly call politicians in a democracy powerful.