The Institution of Marriage

Liebling

Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed.
Valued Senior Member
Why is it that gay marriage opponents incite the "Institution of Marriage" fallacy all of the time? We hear words like "sanctity" and "honor" and "immoral", and yet... We have a right to divorce.

Divorce goes against the "Institution of Marriage" more than anyone wanting to be married does. There is no sanctity, honor or morality about divorce. And the result of divorce is the ending of the such a union.

So why is it that people aren't trying to outlaw divorce to protect the sanctity of marriage?
 
I agree with what you have said. I think the issue of gay marriage is way over done. It the big scheme of things it is not as important in my book as it is being played in the media.

However, that said, there is a tradition around marriage that it is between a man and a woman. So if a male tells me he is going to invite his wife, I have a certian expection in my mind. If gay marriages are allowed, that expecation gets a little fuzy when people talk about their spouses.

From a legal point of view I see no reason why one would want to get married (gay or straight). Marriage brings about legal ties that might have to be undone later and at great financial risk. All of the legal advantages attained through marriage can be granted to gay couples or straight couples through legal devices other than marriage. Most major employers already offer benefits to domestic partners.
 
There is a "tradition" based on religious morality, but not on a humanist level. Because there are laws that ensure everyone's individual equality, there should be no laws that prohibit the same rights under laws to people regardless of their sexuality. No tax laws that benefit married couples but only if they are man and woman, no tax benefits granted to a married couple but only if they are man and woman, no heathcare benefits only for a married couple but only if they are man and woman, etc... I can go on for days. We can already debunk the fallacies about marriage and procreation, marriage and sex... since every married couple I know practices sodomy of some sort, and many marriages I know can't or don't have children, but those marriages are not disallowed and the argument itself has become absurd in it's illogical roots.

Because the word and therefore the notion of marriage is so deeply entrenched in our system of laws, finance, taxes and justice, excising it at this point to call it something else seems highly impractical and insurmountable. We would have to rewrite all of our laws, all of our tax codes not only at the federal level but at the state and local level as well.

But that's not my question.

My question is;

Why are people who oppose gay marriage because it goes against the insititution of marriage, not also standing up and opposing divorce for the same reason?
 
*************
M*W: I can't help but include a couple of points made by people who I don't remember saying:

"Marriage is a great institution, but who wants to live in an institution?"

"I'm all for legalizing gay marriage. Those people should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us are!"
 
In the 21st century, marriage is no more than a ceremony: having children together is more likely to keep a long-term couple from splitting up.
 
Hellbound hearts?

Liebling said:

So why is it that people aren't trying to outlaw divorce to protect the sanctity of marriage?

Because sanctity, honor, and morality aren't really what any of this is about.

Remember that many of the Christian churches that oppose the "lifestyle sin" of homosexuality also condone the "lifestyle sin" of adultery:

If you ask them about it, they'll say things like, "I used to sleep around but I was forgiven of that sin and now I don't do it anymore." However, ask them if a homosexual can be saved by God's grace, and they will say, "The gay man who does not turn from his homosexuality is choosing to live a lifestyle counter to God's laws and is not, therefore, saved by grace." What they conveniently forget is that 50% of them - those who count themselves among the Religious Right - are divorced, and more than 85% of those are remarried. What that means is, according to the Bible, that nearly 43% of the same people who condemn the gay man for his homosexuality choose to live in a lifestyle of adultery, a sin that ranks equal to homosexuality in God's eyes.

That's right. The very people who condemn one "sinful" lifestyle are practicing another.

You see, in the Bible Jesus said:

"Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

Luke 16:18​

And the Apostle Paul (who continued to sin himself) said:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10​

A divorced man who remarries is entering into an adulterous relationship. And it's not just a relationship; it's an adulterous lifestyle because the remarried man chooses to continue living in the adulterous relationship for the rest of his life (or until he divorces and remarries again). However, if you ask this adulterous man if he is still a Christian, he will say something like, "I believe God has forgiven me and I'm now living under his grace." And ask him if he's willing to leave his current wife in order to "turn from his adulterous lifestyle," and he will refuse because "God's grace has already saved him." But this is the same man who earlier claimed that the homosexual must turn from his "sinful" lifestyle as a condition of receiving God's grace.


(McKinley)

• • •​

Medicine Woman said:

I can't help but include a couple of points made by people who I don't remember saying:

"Marriage is a great institution, but who wants to live in an institution?"

And people wonder why "guys are afraid of commitment".
____________________

Notes:

McKinley, Brian E. "When Christ was Gay". (n.d.) Elroy.net. February 3, 2010. http://www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html
 
Because opposition to gay marriage is born of irrational hatred. We see the hypocrisies at work in the alarming number of people who oppose abortion at the same time that they support the death penalty. Apparently, all life is sacred... until you leave the womb, anyway. Then we can kill you.
 
Because sanctity, honor, and morality aren't really what any of this is about.

Remember that many of the Christian churches that oppose the "lifestyle sin" of homosexuality also condone the "lifestyle sin" of adultery...

the minister of the church I grew up in wouldn't marry anyone who had been divorced. He told them to either find another church or get married in a court house.
 
Why is it that gay marriage opponents incite the "Institution of Marriage" fallacy all of the time? We hear words like "sanctity" and "honor" and "immoral", and yet... We have a right to divorce.

Divorce goes against the "Institution of Marriage" more than anyone wanting to be married does. There is no sanctity, honor or morality about divorce. And the result of divorce is the ending of the such a union.

So why is it that people aren't trying to outlaw divorce to protect the sanctity of marriage?

From what I understand, a number of the more hardcore Christians are against no-fault divorce. Hell, I'm not a Christian, and I think no-fault divorce is a travesty.
 
Children are happier with separated, happy parents than they are with miserable parents who are not allowed to split up.
 
Children are happier with separated, happy parents than they are with miserable parents who are not allowed to split up.

Is that true? I would have guessed that children are happier for their parents to stay together, even if they fight

Random selection from google:

Constant fighting between parents had less adverse effects than parental separation, the end result on children was closer to that in "happy" families.



These are very serious findings which demand an urgent rethink about long term commitment in relationships before people get pregnant and have children. Dr Tripp is very clear that neither poverty nor conflict had caused the damage: It was the loss of a parent:



"What parents don't realise is that while they may have problems with each other, the children often have good relationships with both parents - and they lose that when the family breaks up. In addition the separation often did not end the conflict." In some cases the conflict was made worse because children were drawn into it for the first time.



Three out of four non-custodial parents said after putting their children through all this they now wished they had never divorced.

We need to get this message through to every family where parents are in difficulties. Separation is likely to significantly damage your children and looking back you may regret what you have done and wish you had tried a little harder to work it out, especially when you wake up to realise the price your children have paid.



Although the Exeter study made big headlines in the UK, another lesser known British study of 111 families in Edinburgh by Dr Ann Mitchell found similar things almost a decade earlier. She also found children prefer parents to stay together, even if they argue and fight. Her work was based on interviews of teenagers and their custodial parents five years after divorce. Children have such a powerful sense of belonging, linked to their own search for love. Children are also creatures of habit, as any child psychologist or parent knows, responding to routine, familiarity and disliking change.

http://www.parents4protest.co.uk/children_happy_parents.htm

Are there any studies to compare with?
 
Here's a good article on the general effects of divorce on children:

http://parenting247.org/article.cfm?ContentID=646

There's a theme in this and in the above: conflict between parents is not good for children. If divorce removes a large element of conflict, that can be better for children than living with parents who are in constant conflict.
 
And yet, even your link indicates that children from intact families are [even if marginally] better than those who have divorced parents

Children don't really have the option of moving on from a parent, so it stands to reason that separation would be more deleterious to them than staying together
 
SAM:

None of these studies compared children forced to stay with unhappy parents who are not allowed to divorce with children whose parents are allowed to divorce.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say children can't move on from a parent. They can and often do, particular where a parent is violent and/or abusive. In such cases, it stands to reasons that separation is far better than the parents staying together. See how "reason" works both ways when you engage your brain for half a second?
 
And yet, even your link indicates that children from intact families are [even if marginally] better than those who have divorced parents

Children don't really have the option of moving on from a parent, so it stands to reason that separation would be more deleterious to them than staying together
Agreed. This stuff about how terrible "conflict" is for children is just self serving rhetoric to justify doing what you're going to do anyway. The evidence shows that it's better for the chldren to stay together in all but the most severe cases.
 
SAM:

None of these studies compared children forced to stay with unhappy parents who are not allowed to divorce with children whose parents are allowed to divorce.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say children can't move on from a parent. They can and often do, particular where a parent is violent and/or abusive. In such cases, it stands to reasons that separation is far better than the parents staying together. See how "reason" works both ways when you engage your brain for half a second?

The Exeter study I linked to compared children of divorced parents with children of conflicted parents who stayed together.

"What parents don't realise is that while they may have problems with each other, the children often have good relationships with both parents - and they lose that when the family breaks up. In addition the separation often did not end the conflict." In some cases the conflict was made worse because children were drawn into it for the first time.

Children don't move on from abusive parents either. It scars them for life.

edit:

Okay I did find this:

A major study has just shown that this is based on a simple misunderstanding of the evidence. Professor Kelly Musick and Dr Ann Meier of Cornell University have carried out a study of children whose parents stay together for the sake of the kids. We all know some: parents who can't stand each other, but have made a hard-headed decision to stay together nonetheless. They are exactly the kind of people who would be glued back together by Cameron's policies if they succeeded in their goal.

It turns out their children do worse than any other group – including those of divorcees or single mums. If you are raised by arguing parents who stayed together only for you, then you are 33 per cent more likely to become a binge-drinking teen than if you have a single parent, for example. Having parents locked in live-in combat damages children more than having separated parents, or just one single parent – and the damage lasts well into adulthood. The offspring are more likely to have bad marriages themselves, and more likely to have children at a very young age.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...when-divorce-is-the-wiser-option-1719907.html

But how many couples who divorce does this define?

It appears that people don't want to know:

The prevailing view at the time, she says, was that divorce was no big deal for kids. So much for the power of positive thinking. "We began to get all these questions," Wallerstein remembers. "The children were sleepless. The children in the nursery school were aggressive. They were out of control." When Wallerstein hit the library for answers, she discovered there were none. The research hardly existed, so she decided to do her own. She had a hunch about what she would learn. "I saw a lot of children very upset," she says, "but I fully expected that it would be fleeting."

Her hunch was wrong. Paradise for kids from ruptured families wasn't easily regained. Once cast out of the domestic garden, kids dreamed of getting back in. The result more often than not was frustration and anxiety. Children of divorce suffer depression, learning difficulties and other psychological problems more frequently than those of intact families. Some of Wallerstein's colleagues, not to mention countless divorced parents, felt they were being guilt-tripped by a square. They didn't want to hear this somber news.

Now, decades later, some still don't want to hear her. For parents, her book's chief finding, to be sure, is hardly upbeat or very reassuring: children take a long time to get over divorce. Indeed, its most harmful and profound effects tend to show up as the children reach maturity and struggle to form their own adult relationships. They're gun-shy. The slightest conflict sends them running. Expecting disaster, they create disaster. "They look for love in strange places," Wallerstein says. "They make terrible errors of judgment in whom they choose."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,55072-2,00.html#ixzz0eXtxWOgb
 
Last edited:
Back
Top