The effect of gay marriage on marriage itself
-
According to an article by the huffington post, gay marriage in scandinavia is wrecking the foundations of marriage because less people are getting married. As cited from the christian post, "Since legalizing registered partnerships and gay marriage in Scandinavia, an overwhelming number of adults have simply stopped bothering to get married in the first place. 60% percent of children born in Denmark have been out of wedlock [[url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp]http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/are-the-gays-destroying-s_b_3549294.html
-
Pretty much everywhere has seen a drop in marriages. This trend has been going on for decades.
Some of the older people will remember the bizarre media battle that then Vice President Dan Quayle had with TV character Murphy Brown over having a baby out of wedlock.
-
While that may be true, I was simply noticing the trend in scandinavia in particular. People are getting married as much as because they are boycotting marriage. The article states "something that means everything, means nothing". It's like keeping up with Jones, people do something because it has exclusivity. When everyone does something it loses it appeal and they don't want it anymore. I could see a time where the gays fight so hard something only to have it end up as an antiquated concept. If the trend continues, maybe straight people will create something novel again.
-
Marriage as a concept should have never had the government involved in the first place.
As far as I'm concerned, "marriage" can stay in the church, I don't care, but the legal benefits of a civil domestic partnership should not be limited to the same standards of any one religious doctrine's idea of "marriage". I say we strip religious marriage of all its legal value, and relegate those benefits instead to a genderless, numberless domestic household contract.
-
That would defeat the purpose. Marriage is only Christian if you are christian. If you are not Christian, why bother. Civil unions are marriages without the church. Why not just write up a contract or trust, bequeathing your things to your partners - solver civil unions and tax purposes. Want to have visiting rights and say in their health at the hospital - create an advanced directive and give your partner power of attorney, which is stronger than the rights marriage gives.
-
A basic marriage or civil union (or civil partnership in the UK) is a lot cheaper and easier than having to get the countless legal documents needed to secure the same rights.
In the UK, the current price for marriage at the registrar office is £195. That's all in; everything included for up to 4 guests including the 2 witnesses. A basic Will will cost between £75 and £150, depending on where you live and if you are on welfare. This doesn't include the filing fee to make the Will official. I think we paid £35, about 6 years ago. So adjusting for price increases, that means that just doing a Will (not on welfare) costs more than getting married. Then of course you have to make up many more legal documents to cover the other things that are included in marriage.
Marriage can be fought based on an extremely limited set of grounds. Legal documents, however, can be fought on a multitude of grounds.
-
That would defeat the purpose. Marriage is only Christian if you are christian. If you are not Christian, why bother. Civil unions are marriages without the church. Why not just write up a contract or trust, bequeathing your things to your partners - solver civil unions and tax purposes. Want to have visiting rights and say in their health at the hospital - create an advanced directive and give your partner power of attorney, which is stronger than the rights marriage gives.
Except that:
- There are other religions besides Christianity, all with their own interpretation of the concept of "marriage";
- Straight atheists get married too; and
- Generic "civil unions", as they stand in most countries, are NOT equivalent in terms of legal value to a marriage license.
And no, it wouldn't "defeat" the purpose, it would actually CLARIFY the purpose of both religious "marriage" and of a domestic partnership/cohabitation contract. "Marriage", at least according to one popular Western religion, should be about one's partnership being sanctified under the observation of a deity, not about the government.
As far as I'm concerned, the only reason that "marriage" is an institution at all, at least in the United States, is because Christians are hell-bent on making sure that THEIR religion remains institutionalized within the government, which is really disgusting imo, especially considering that it is and has always been a nation of immigrants. Yet another example of socially-sanctioned white supremacism in this country. (I also firmly believe that this - or more accurately, the increasing number of people who realize this about marriage - is precisely why the trend of declining marriage around the industrialized world has been happening for so long, but that's a different discussion entirely)
-
The US is a nation of immigrants now, but it was founded by the English and the Dutch–hence, names like New Amsterdam, which was purchased by the English and renamed New York--with some aid from the French and with a prevailing God fearing people mainly of protestant [W.A.S.P. (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant)], congregationalist and other denominations of Christianity. Blue bloods. We allow foreigners (i.e., 1st, 2nd and 3rd generations), but the de facto language of the U.S. is English. The U.S. had an isolationist policy in the 1800s. We then started allowing more people in out of necessity for labour. They provided cheap labor. Even now, why do you think the U.S. outsources to India and China? Because they have extremely cheap labour. Why pay an American who will receive overtime and benefits and have unions breathing down your back when China and India and other third world countries just want your the good old greenback with no regard for human rights.
-
Since legalizing registered partnerships and gay marriage in Scandinavia, an overwhelming number of adults have simply stopped bothering to get married in the first place
This is cum hoc ergo propter hoc in all its splendor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
-
Of course, the article in the Huffington Post goes on to say
a) "It should be noted that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) also shows Sweden's marriage rates increasing since domestic partnership. The trend line is in the opposite direction than what the "Bishop" and O'Reilly claimed. "
b) Additionally, using the date of 2009, we see marriage rates decline and increase, with neither the highest nor lowest matching Sweden's highest or lowest marriage rates.
c) Denmark only legalized gay marriage last year, so there is no trend data. But recognizing same-sex partnerships didn't negatively impact the rate of marriage.
d) Ditto Norway
re: Marriage
You have two options here. Either strip marriage of all it's legal meaning and have it be a strictly religious title. Or let it have a legal meaning and open it to all consenting adults.
-
Since legalizing registered partnerships and gay marriage in Scandinavia, an overwhelming number of adults have simply stopped bothering to get married in the first place
This is cum hoc ergo propter hoc in all its splendor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Go on, do tell.
-
The USA has always skewed predominantly pro-marriage, much more so than Scandinavia, where like the rest of Europe, couples are more likely to live together and have children without ever marrying. So a look at the numbers would be helpful… to weed out the junk correlatives.
Marriage rates for the USA by state: 1990, 1995, and 1999 through 2011.
States where gay marriage was legal before 2011.
States where gay marriage was legal after 2011 (and thus, no data). -
1. Where is your statistics for scandinavia to compare to the U.S..
2. By Europe do you mean all of Europe, all Europeans have more unmarried cohabitation.
3. I meant explain your reasoning for stating it was a false cause fallacy from above. I hope you have a better source than wikipedia.
4. I never mentioned the effect on U.S. marriages. I only mentioned scandinavia. -
So a look at the numbers would be helpful… to weed out the junk correlatives.
Europe's marriage rate 1960–2012 (per 1,000 inhabitants) including countries with legal gay marriage
_YB14.jpg)
-
Correlation doesn't man causation
-
3. I meant explain your reasoning for stating it was a false cause fallacy from above. I hope you have a better source than wikipedia.
Again, I say cite your sources and explain your justification for the false cause fallacy. Anyone can post numbers, all I see is the number of marriages and not of cohabitation. If it says approximately 5 per 1000 are married in Sweden, then this doesn't mean that the other 995 per 1000 are cohabitating. That is a very weak induction. You can go from specific to general, but not general to specific (see square of opposition). The set membership comprising non-married includes single people and widows or widowers. This is still not proof of greater cohabitation in Europe. Since you like fallacies, this is a fallacy of division; something that is true for the whole class (non-married) is not true for all of its parts (cohabiters, etc.). Please list the junk correlatives. In addition, please provide evidence tying into your previous post about how many non-married Europeans are cohabitating in addition to having kids as well as those that don't.
-
-
Correlation doesn't man causation
That's true man!
Repeating what has been said, so intelligent. :cry2: :cry2:
