Join The Debate!

Marriage?

Living together without marriage is living without meaningful commitment and an immensely selfish disposition because the issue of such a union does not have legally committed parents.

Sad.

Great column

So many people today just can't see these blatanly obvious facts, or they choose not to see them. I'd say it's probably the latter.

The joining of two, too become one

Marriage is the ultimate joining of two, a man and a woman, to become in flesh, to be fruitful and multiply, to bear off spring thus giving one to each other the most precious gift a man can share with a woman, a child, a life, a goal to flourish life with all the promise, a life can hold. A family. Many moons ago, people would often stop and talk, and could reconize people they have'nt seen in years, why because of nature, the noticeable likeness of the features of the family looks. What more natural human awareness, than a family conected through the natural course of the human family. Amen!!!!!

Minor Comment - Important Distinction

I loved your article. What you said parallels what I told my sone over 20 years ago when he and his girl friend (now wife) wanted o live together. One thing you say is incorrect, marriage is NOT forever - it is for a life time.

SInging to the choir?

Could your words be printed in a NOW or ACLU publication? I ran into a part of the national Life Chain prayer and poster reminder of the costs of abortion in Cortland, NY, Sunday, as a participant in the also national Crop Walk. Two different events, both of church basis and uncovered by the local and area news outlets. If you could get discovered by television commentators -- especially on those shows promoting viewer participation in designing the wedding cake, dress and clothes, honeymoon destination and date of marriage... maybe it would make a bigger impact. As for me? I am single and never married. It was an employment wage problem, never enough for my expenses.

I needed this!

After spending some hours yesterday watching the horror of the killings of the little Amish girls by that craven coward, and having that reality intrude on my thoughts last night, I badly needed this uplifting article this morning by Dennis Prager which raised my spirits. It is pretty clear that much of our society, not just in the U.S. but in most civilized countries, especially people in their late teen years, 20's, 30's and 40's, strongly believe not only that "living together" is just fine, but morally OK and is just as good as marriage. Besides, who do we "Christian zealots" think we are by trying to force our beliefs on these free thinkers. My only thought of such living arrangements, or "being engaged" as it is now called is "how sad" and that it shows a clear lack of respect for your partner, who is not good enough to be recognized as your legal spouse. My wife tells me to get with it, that it's just how society does things now, but that sure doesn't say much for society, does it?

Snot

The problem today is that commitment is view as a dirty word, to be avoided.

And this input from a 58 year old

divorcee.

The nature of woman is to be married in a monogomous relationship. I tried the "living together" thing after my divorce of a 28 year marriage. HE badgered ME to move in with him and after 5 years of being his housekeeper and everything else that goes with running a home, I realized that he gained everything and I got nothing in return in the way of a commitment. I realized I was worth more than that - I deserved the HONOR of being called his wife. And after I moved out and kicked him to the curb, he managed to get along just fine without me. When will we women learn that the old addage "why buy the cow....." still stands.

I predict that society, as we know it, with family units of mother, father and children will become archaic. Women will use men just like men use women - but the women will use them to beget the children that nature drives us to desire but they will not need (or want) the men to come along for the "rearing them" ride. What do you think?

Very well, but...

All well and good, but none of those arguments matter to me. My girlfriend & I have each been married; I enjoyed the experience, but have no desire to repeat it.
Were she to become pregnant, of course, we'd get married, but as such is impossible, we'll just keep living together. Neither of us wants to screw up a good thing.

Post-it

Sorry, that post had little to do with your post.

Post It

Ready for another shock? Last night our youngest daughter (age 19) told me that she just feels "so alone" because she feels exactly the same way you do!!! She's had many friends/dates but we are a family completely rooted in our Roman Catholicism. Our other daughters are married having found people like you!!! However. It's getting more difficult for the beautiful, smart, funny girls who won't "put out." Thank God she's also religious--the common denominator for all things "good."

CB: I LOVE talking about God. I can't separate who I am from what I believe. Sex outside of marriage is lack of respect for the other. Pure and simple. The truth is always pure and simple. That's why Jesus said that the "truth" is hidden from the very wise, but understood by the merest of children.

Feminists...

Unfortunately, there are many men out there who would love to get married but they see no future in it due to laws in place pushed by feminists. They see that the cards are stacked against them...so why bother getting married...because, "I'll lose everything". In order to restore the institution of marriage to its proper place in society...feminists, their laws and the politicians who pander to feminists need to be removed from power.

So true!

I have been maried for eleven years, and I can remember my wedding day like it was yesterday. I had uncles, aunts, cousins...family that I had not seen in years come from around the country to be part of it, and to welcome my new wife into our family.

Marriage is also a tie that binds much more than a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. When you marry the person you love, it is the ultimate commitment; you have pledged yourself to that person no matter what the circumstances that life throws at you. That type of commitment matters, and it is the ultimate expression IMO of what true love is.

marriage with short start

I was 38. A member of my church gave me the phone number of a girl about 2 hours away. I went and met her. BINGO! Just what I wanted.

After dating for 6 weeks I ask her to marry me. She said YES.

A week later we got married. No one knew we were getting married; no one in my family, no one in her family (not even her twin brother she was living with).

That was 29 years (and 3 kids ago).

Best decision I've ever made!

What's a Honeymoon for?

Interesting topic...

I have observed that most people draw from personal experience to deal with this topic. The only people with any regrets seem to be the ones who became sexually active early or the ones who had numerous partners.

My wife and I both waited until our wedding night for our first sexual experience. We recently celebrated our 7th anniversary. Two observations:

1> my wife thinks I'm a stud and I have tremendous confidence knowing I do not suffer by any negative comparisons, physical or sexual... 2> ALL of my sexual energy is totally focused on my wife; when I see a beautiful woman, I do not think about THAT woman - my thoughts immediately turn to my wife.

These are strictly personal and practical observations. But I believe intuitively that others couples who BOTH saved sex for their wedding night have experienced the same thing. Finally, I cannot remove the religious component. Our mutual faith is WHY we waited; our individual faiths gave us the POWER to wait.

My mother-in-law always says...

"Why buy the cow when you can get the
milk for free?"
Of course she is decribing the lack of responsibilty chosen by those who co-habitate.

Vacation experience

A while back my wife and I went to a resort in Antigua to celebrate our 5th anniversery. While we were there we recommitted our wedding vows, just the two of us, at the resort wedding chapel with the local chaplain.

A couple of days later, still at the resort, I was talking with another couple we just met over dinner about this event. The woman's eyes were just glowing as I related our story, and she pratically cooed about how romantic we were. I asked if they were married, and the they said no, but that they had been living together for the last 5 years. When asked if marriage was on their radar, the man said that they had "no reason to spoil a good thing".

I only knew these people for a few minutes, but I already suspected this woman wanted nothing more than to marry this man. Foolishly or not, I then related how I loved the imagry of weddings; how the bride is walked down the aisle on the arm of her father to be given to the groom, but how the groom stands alone at the alter, for, in marriage, a man gives himself to his bride.

At this, the woman started tearing up and the man looked at me like he wanted to hit me. End of conversation! It wasn't my intent to be judgemental, only relational, but I still sometimes wonder; is it judgemental to even relate the basis of my own happiness with someone who doesn't share my view, or is it merely perceived that way to be confronted with something we are all hard-wired to recognize as right, as Mr. Prager suggests, and yet deny?

Yesterday it was 30 years

I just can't help but brag. Yesterday was our 30th wedding anniversary. Through good times and bad. Our oldest daughter has had a chronic illness (raynaud's syndrome and scleroderma) for the past 21 years (almost all of our marriage). Except for our belief in God and inviting Him into the marriage at our wedding--I truly doubt that we would have made it through some of the worst trials. I thank God for the parents we each had who imparted the faith to us which we have, in turn, given to our girls. It just seems so simple to me. We make much ado about nothing in this world--why is it so easy to believe the lies of satan and so difficult to accept the truth of Christ?

City Upon The Hill

Bill Maher has a great take on marriage. Married people make a lousy advertisement for their own product.

There are sea-change demographic shifts happening in the modern culture.

1.) People are waiting longer each year to get married.
2.) People are having less kids.
3.) People are remaining single their entire lives.

This country tried to "Leave To Beaver" example projection back in the 1950s. It didn't work.

I'm reminded of Jonathan Winthrops "City Upon the Hill" sermon on the Mayflower and hundreds of years later, Ronald Reagans similar styled speech.

The Puritans actually believed that someone would want to like by them voluntarily if they simply led by example. Well the Puritans are no more. Who would want to live like a Puritan?

In some respects the Conservatives of this country are in a huge state of example denial. The average American loses their virginity before the age of eighteen and then doesn't get married, if they do get married, until the age of 28, or there abouts.

The times have changed. It use to be that women were 100% reliant on marriage for financial and social success. Of course they would get married. But that doesn't mean they were *happily* married. Trapped is more like it.

Now that women have options they are exercising them. What Prager, the Puritans and the Conservatives are in huge denial about is that the examples being set for their children to follow are not ones to aspire too or desire. Like Bill Maher humorously points out.

The complete lack of any liberal liking any example conservative on or about this board ought to tell you something about the "example" you all are setting. Why would anyone want to be like any of you or listen to some hateful person like Prager's proclamation of the merits of marriage?

Mr. Callahan noted:

"You're bringing the horror of it back to me. This is secretly an anti-marriage article, isn't it?"

ROFL. Yep, you _do_ marry the family. Unfortunately for me that just turned out to be _another_ nagging mother I had to try to keep happy.

Marriage. Hmmph. I kept the promise, but my best friend turned on me like a snake even when I supported here when she was down. Love never keeps score, but she always did.

I'm reminded of a personal ad my ex-wife once read me in an Israeli paper. It started: "In-law problems? Not with me! My parents are dead!"

Yet another broad brush

"The complete lack of any liberal liking any example conservative on or about this board ought to tell you something about the "example" you all are setting. Why would anyone want to be like any of you or listen to some hateful person like Prager's proclamation of the merits of marriage?"

I'm usually liberal and Mr. Prager's article brought back some powerful emotions from my wedding day. He makes a powerful argument for it. I wish my marriage hadn't failed, but guess what? People have problems with people to whom they're not married. People who live together don't fight? Tosh.

And Prager hateful in this article? I'm not seeing it. Please, do enlighten me.

Prager's point is well taken

but back in the day before cohabitation marriages didn't work out all that well. My wife and I got married at 21 years old in 1968. What % of people married in their ealy 20's in the late 60's are still together? We are but well less than 50 % are still together. We weren't Christians at the time. We are now. My point is that these couples cohabitating can't possibly do worse than our generation did. We'll probably find out that cohabitating couples do better in the future just because it has to get better or society is done. I don't think 2 failed marriages disqualify Prager from trying to help peopel from his experiences. This doesn't strike me as hypocrasy. Not even close.

And to Songo--I am a Christian and I believe homosexuality is a sin. But I don't believe it should be illegal which is the determination that mortals make. God gets to define sin. But I believe that governments should be out of the marriage business. They should only be concerned with civil contracts(unions) between 2 people. If a couple want to sanctify their vows before God to have a 'religious' marriage then they should go to a church. My proviso is that the church should only be required to perform the service voluntarily and not be forced to affirm something that is against their belief. There are plenty of liberal churches that will perform gay marriages. But Catholics and Evangelicals should be able to marry only heterosexual couples. And I don't believe that gays will mess up marriage any more than straights have. Kids are raised better by a mother and a father but welfare checks and feminism and the current society have screwed that up to.

liberal_dialogue, I agree and disagree

I agree with you the some married people do not make a great case for marriage. Many long time married people do not seem to be very happy in their marriage. In the past, people stayed married regardless of whether they were happy or not, and some people still do that because their cultural considerations tell them it is "right" to do it.

I have 3 responses to your observation. First, I question the idea that personal happiness should be the goal of life. Perhaps, the cultures that encourage lifelong marriage are have come about because they recognize the overall benefits that safe and secure families have for children and society in general. One of the lessons of commitment to marriage to consider that wants and desires of others, not just ourselves.

Second, I question whether it can be demonstrated that people who are in "bad" marriages would be happier if they were not in that marriage. In fact, I know of one study which showed that people who were unhappy in their marriage, but stayed married were actually happier 5 years later than those who were unhappy, but chose to divorce. Furthermore, any number of studies show that married people are in general happier and healthier than single people. Finally, I have rarely met a woman who is living with her boyfriend who does not want her boyfriend to marry her.

Third, I would challenge any living together couple to a happiness test, if such could be scientifically devised, with some long time married people that I know. I know a lot of people who have been married 25+ years, and who are still madly in love with one another. My parents now have over 40 years of marriage, and they love each other more now than ever. If you want to see some advertisements for happiness in marriage, then email me at littlemas2@google.com, and I will get you in touch with a whole bunch of them. I personally have been married to my wife for 8 1/2 years, and I have found my love for Traci grow every year. I am extremely happy in my marriage, (and that means in all areas :)

Marriage can be good, very good.

my spouse

had been severly abused--emotionally and physically-- in her previous marriage. She insisted that we live together for some time before she would discuss marriage. I was not thrilled with the idea, since I was raised to believe that co-habitation was wrong. I eventually agreed, when economic and family problems where she was (she was dealing with an alcoholic and mentally ill mother) necessitated that something be done. We did eventually marry, although we paid for it out of our pocket and only one person from my family showed up (not that we were that close anyway). I can't say I identify with the fairy tale that is described above, but it is nice that some people get to experience it.

michael

So if you don't want gay people to be married, then renounce all those wonderful SECULAR federal and state benefits you get. Otherwise, butt out.

Religion in the arguments

Michael - you're not seriously declaring your desire to return to the Levitical laws are you? I think you should read them all and see if you could avoid a stoning - most people couldn't. Even if you could avoid being stoned to death, are you arguing that you should get to throw those stones? How are you then any better that Islamic terrorists we are fighting? Is your god the true god and therefore you can kill others for transgressing the his laws? This is an unprofitable route for you (and your fellow-travelers) to take since I can't believe you seriously believe that God has granted you license to kill anyone that differs with you on this matter.

Prager made a perfect non-religious argument for why it is better to marry than to simply live together. You cannot accept his premise that there are non-religious reasons why marriage is better and simultaneously believe that gay folks that are living together would not benefit similarly. So, why, again, can society not opt to support the affirming state of marriage for all of its members?

sam allen

Hi! Interesting. It's rare that I see a non-invective post these days in pursuit of any actual discourse. Well, maybe that's because my time is limited on reading the posts. ha ha!

"First, I question the idea that personal happiness should be the goal of life."

You aren't thinking of joining the dark side are you and becoming a liberal? It is the way of Buddhism and Eastern Religions to believe that man's fate is only to suffer. *~smile*~ And when you do work off your karmic burden you leave the material plane for Nirvana! Suffer suffer suffer! Although having said that, I have to say, there are some benefits to being on the dark side. Like you aren't haunted by any demons because, well, you are one. wooo hooo!

This country was founded on the notion of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Life meaning health, liberty meaning the right to self-determination and not other determination by oppression or coercion, and pursuit of happiness being just that.

Buddists would surely smile that you have become enlightned enough to understand suffering is man's fate. :-)

Anyway, this country and Democracy does have happiness objectives. That means that pursuing happiness is an agreed upon objective of this culture and our government. As well as leading a life of self-determination. Both of which implies that any group claiming superiority in faith and philosophy will necessarily have to demonstrate the real works put into practice in order to attract people not by coercion but by a better happiness example. It is interesting to see the Conservatives these days lament and chastise those with whom the disagree with. Jesus did not go around saying be fishers of men by being an a**hole but rather by example. Turn the other cheek is not lesson of weakness, but a lesson of example. At some point a person who turns the other cheek to other people's lack of happiness becomes a happiness example.

I believe Reagan was an collosal failure as a President. But as a person I think Reagan believed in turning the other cheek in the right fashion. He embraced his enemies the Democrats and did not ridicule them even though he was relentlessy slapped in the face by his enemy's ridicule. His example of grace under pressure created a strong example that his enemies admired and some even aspired too. Being an atheist of course I don't believe in this stuff, but for Christians I believe Reagan was himself a shining city upon a hill as a person of character. He turned the other cheek in the right manner to demonstrate that his happiness in God allowed him not to respond to negativity not with negativity but rather with light. Alas, there no politicians that I can see who have such strength of character on the national front.

And so you have a lot of Democrats who loved and admired Reagan.

I guess to summarize, 1.) this country was founded upon the principle of pursuing happiness and 2.) Jesus, if you are a Christian, has commanded to minister by example in that those filled with the love of Jesus should use that love happiness to attract and convert the unbelievers. Christians convert by example not by sword and happiness is the key. Heaven, after all, is a happy place and H**l, well let's just say it depends on ones interpretation. For my money I'm truly hoping h**l is the place were there are no Christians because if I can't stand Christians for five minutes in my mortal existence one can only summarize that spending an eternity with a bunch of pompous a**es in Heaven is less than an ideal.

celtic-dragon

"So if you don't want gay people to be married, then renounce all those wonderful SECULAR federal and state benefits you get. Otherwise, butt out."

I would VERY happily give up all those secular benefits - if I were not taxed to support them. Suppose all Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgendered issues were decided/eliminated according to my system of values TODAY. I would still consider the present system, in which I pay - I don't have the figures in front of me, but I think it's about - $1.50 in taxes for $1.00 of benefits, amounts to government thievery. The other 50 cents is used mostly to pay the salaries of Federal and state bureaucrats, who produce neither useful product nor service. (They just push paper around from one desk to another.) As it is, I cannot afford to do as my principles would lead me to do.

It is interesting

The way they rhapsodize about marriage but don't want homosexuals to have it.

Skullcrusher

"Would any advocates of homosexual legitimacy and marriage please provide an argument in favor of the same that is not equally applicable to pedophilia, polyamory, and beastiality [or perhaps polyamorous pedophilic beastiality"

No, I'm tired of doing that. I would however like to hear your argument for heterosexual marriage that wouldn't be equally applicable to opposite-sex pedophilia.

"To those who say that because marriage is good for heterosexuals we should allow it for homosexuals, are you aware that your argument is a tautology..."

Of course, you're assuming that homosexuals are mentally ill, thus gay-marriage is bad thing (so it's more like I'm assuming that you're assumption is incorrect). You'd have a hard time convincing me that most people thing homosexuals are mentally ill.

"Who are the imaginary people who disapprove of homosexuality but want homosexuals to continue to sodomize each other monogamously? All the disapprovers I know of want homosexuals to cut it out and get some help, not limit their sodomy to fewer partners..."

I would imagine they are the same people that would disaprove of heterosexuals of "sleeping around" and would rather them be with their monogamous partner (given a choice between the two), a lower state of disaproval.

Yeah! Post-it and Chris---

Would to God more people were still being raised with these values and expectations.

krystalbird---not so much

Re: your "I agree 95%......
...but for 2 people to live together after their divorce from others, after the children are adults, I think is a different story."

What kind of a MESSAGE are you sending to your grandchildren? Do as I say, not as I do? Hard standards are important when you're young, but when you're older, taking the EASY ROUTE is okay?

And it's the penultimate sacrifice

Except for dying to save another person's life, there is no act that shows how you are giving up yourself for another, than marriage. Living together doesn't cut it; you can walk out so much more easily.

Marriage for all.

Lon,

Your point is right on the money. The fact that many gay people want to get married says something about the nature of their relationships, doesn't it? Not that the religious right would ever admit that.

Michael

You posted the comments from Leviticus not me. It is quite possible to infer from your posting that you supported the Bible's opinions about men and men getting together. I'm glad see that I was wrong.

You also seem to be of the opinion that christian marriage is the only marriage that we're talking about. I am not talking about christian, religious marriage. There is no part of our Consitution that gives to the government - state or federal - the responsibility to keep from harming homosexuals by allowing them to marry. You are conflating your interpretation of your christian duty to spread the gospel with the power of the state. You are on dangerous personal ground when you accept that the US government has that responsibility. Which version of christianity should it espouse? I think you'd have a cow if the liberal Episcopal church's hierarchy were consulted as to which biblical precepts were to be followed, which to be ignored, which to 'interpret' according to current social climate. Likewise I would bet that you'd shudder at the thought of the government looking to Rome or Constantinople to guide it in the awesome responsibility of raising all of its citizens in a proper christian ethic. Realizing this, you cannot but be left with the notion that it is not government's responsibility to foster any religion or religious belief in the people. You are left with a whole lot of religious sentiment with only the power of your words and the example of your life to show people the "right" way. Something about rendering to caesar and all that...

I have fought my whole life the internal battle of being gay. You have not. Yet you insist on believing that you know me. That you know best for me. That you also know the mind of God. That you know for a fact that I chose to be gay as a way to thwart God. That I am twisted and sick.

Arrogance is also a sin, my friend. It is the exact same sentiment that motivates our Islamic enemies, regardless whether you have the strenght of your convictions to crush my head with a rock.

As to my original post. You responded that our government is not letting me marry because it is trying to keep me from harming my immortal soul. How exactly is it within the government's competence to do this? It can't even keep the river from flooding New Orleans. It can't balance its own checkbook. Normally it can do nothing that will please most or its conservative critics (myself included). Yet you arrogate to it the responsibility for our souls. Yours too, I guess. Scary thought. Especially if we ever have a Democrat in the White House again.

There is such a thing as civil marriage in this country. Not all married people are married by a christian minister in a christian marriage. Do you argue that married Hindus or Muslims or Jews are not really married? Or do you relegate them to a lesser form of marriage-lite? Or do you implicitly (or explicitly) recognize civil marriage as distinct from religious marriage? If so, then I still don't understand why you would argue that gay folks are not "worthy" to partake of all the good that comes from being civilly married. You might as well advocate "unmarrying" all married non-christians so you can remain consistent.

What is living together?

To share the bills? To have on demand sex? To cook together? When did living together ever get popular? What has happened to us as a society? Who has negated what we will do and how we will do it? Hollywood? Friends? Family?

Living together is wrong, it is against God's plan and the 10 commandments he has bestowed upon us. God belongs in every conversation and in everything we do. WE are of God. God loved the Earth so much that he wanted to share it with others "like" him, he created man. We are of that same race, called man. He made man and then woman and they were to multiply. We multiply and should only multiply through marriage. Divorce should never be, what about the story of the woman at the well?

Don't we already know God is all knowing? He is the Supreme Being isn't He? So knowing this, don't you think he already knew that when man and woman come together in matrimony that they are already going to have diffences and that they need to work that together? God never commanded that we live in sin together then get married. That would totally be against God and what he send his son to earth to preach. You don't live with someone to test the waters and then make a decision. You don't use a gift and then regift it to someone. That is tacky and dirty. Marriage is a life time, not FOREVER. Forever, could me something different to everyone, life-time, is only one thing, because you only have one life.

You also make a life-time commitment to your children and if a divorce or separation occurs you do not interfer with your children's lives and bring another in to test the waters, unless it is done with modesty and abiding by the laws of God, or not at all. Our selfish lives are over once we have children, as adults, once we have kids, our lives need to be for those kids. I mean this, by not being selffish thinkers. Kids, teenagers, do not need a revolving door in their lives. They need stability and just because you cannot make up your mind on marriage or you don't understand the definition of committment then you know what? You don't need to be in a relationship. This is why we are where we are at today.

We have not yet touch the doors of evil and that is scary because you would think we would have with what is going on in today's world.

Gunther

I do not believe anyone is advocating turning over the responsibility for their souls to the government.....at least I hope not. The difference as I see it, is that the governments interest in hetero-marriage is continuation of the species. Hetero-relationships can produce children...without which this country(or any other) would cease to exist. The marriage between a man and a woman, or the traditional family unit is benificial to the raising of children, thereby helping to create a stable society. As such the government has an interest in protecting marriage, not because of religious reasons per say, but because of the benifit to society at large. Therefore, how could it be in societies best interest to strip marriage down to merely be a pre-qualification for receiving government benifits?

LNC

"liberal_dialog, you discuss a sea-change of demographics; however, you don’t tell us whether that sea-change is beneficial. "

Why did Prager write this article? I would gather that this article is not intended for the Townhall folks, most of whom are probably religious and believe marriage is desirable for religious reasons alone.

Why did Prager write this article? One can only surmise based upon the title and content it is to instruct those who are living in sin together. Clearly any Evangelical Christian who is living in sin knows that living together is just that and needs no five other non-religious reasons.

Prager is also on the record as saying, "I believe the Left has been wrong on virtually every great moral issue in the last 30 years."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/07/25/israels_war_separates_the_decent_left_from_the_indecent_left

When someone is "wrong" on a moral issue the word is immoral. Being immoral on virtually every great moral issue implies such people are evil and hate bating because one is painting people as evil.

The question remains. Why did Prager write this article?

The answer is that Conservatives have been arguing for quite some time that Marriage in this country is in a state of decline both in qualitative (sex before marriage, divorce, meaning in general) and quantitative.

Why is that? Given only 30% of American children today live with divorced or single parents, that means throughout the past few generations 70% have grown up with direct experience of having been raised with both parents. Given this direct experience why would Prager even need to write this article? After all, as a child one has ones own parents to see as example?

"liberal_dialog, you discuss a sea-change of demographics; however, you don’t tell us whether that sea-change is beneficial.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Religion is like that. Marriage models of staying a virgin until marriage, till death do you part are being challenged simply by the fact that people are living longer. People want to finish their college degrees and start a career before having kids. Why get married before then? Who is going to remain a virgin until you are 28? If you decide not to get married until you are 30, why rule out living with someone before then? The judgement of benefitial is hard to say given we are living under new conditions, mainly people are living long. If someone marry's happily at 30, raises a family etc, why were those years living together invalid or unbenefitial?

There are two themes here I'm intertwining. One is that the example parents are setting in current generations is obviously not compelling to the kids raised by those same parents such that they adopt their parent's behavior. The other is that Prager's example of blasting all lefty's as immoral on all the great issues and thus being greatly immoral and evil but then dispensing advice to said presume lefties who are non-religious living in sin types is a typical example of how not to be an example.

If you go around telling someone how much they are evil and hated the way righty's like Prager, Hannity and Limbaugh paint liberals, why would said evil hated people listen to you with five reasons for non-religious people to get married?

Why would Prager write this article? The choir already believes on religious grounds alone. The left already knows how much Prager hates them for their being wrong, immoral and hence evil on virtually all the great moral issues. Why this isn't just another moral issue, living in sin, the left is guilty of is beyond me? And why Prager would expect those on the left to not be virtually wrong on this great moral issue is beyond me as well.









Which kinda strikes at the heart of why Chrisianity is a false religion.

Leviticus

Most of the Levitical dietary laws can be traced back to food safety. As my father the professional chef used to say when he was teaching me to cook, "Fish done well is lovely; fish done poorly can kill you." Shrimp, improperly handed or undercooked, can kill you. Pork, improperly cooked, can kill you.

Now, I can't say why God didn't just plunk Moses down and explain germs, toxins and parasites to him. The product of the best educational system in the known world at that time (the court of Pharoah), I think Moses would have perhaps grasped the concepts. Would his people have understood? The product of slavery and likely mostly illiterate, they couldn't even settle interpersonal disputes without asking Moses' advice, so I think safe food handling might not have been all that well attended as a subject. "Don't eat it" might have been a better course of action. It sort of falls under the "Keep It Simple, Stupid" principle of education.

At a later time, as the Jews were moving into areas where food preparation was different and possibly safer, God told Peter that all those foods that had previously been banned were now okay. At no time did God ever say that homosexuality was okay. You're comparing bricks to butter.

Some who say they believe the Bible want to set the Old Testament, especially the Law, aside as somehow superceded by the New Testament, but that is never what Jesus or the NT writers intended. Jesus Himself quoted from every book of the Old Testament (except Esther, which is why there have been questions about the authority of this book) and He affirmed the Law on a number of occasions. He, however, calls Christians to view the Old Testament through the lens of His teachings as laid out in the Gospels and further explained by the Epistles.

I liked Michael's analogy of the mirror that allows us to see the dirt on our face. That's the Law. Within the New Testament, I guess you could say, is the cloth for washing the dirt away.

A couple of posters mentioned stoning, so I'm going to use Jesus' own example from John 8. A woman caught in adultery; the man evidently allowed to go free (by Levitical law, he should have been stoned as well). A group of men who planned to stone her knew that a good Jewish rabbi would know his Law. Jesus didn't say she hadn't committed adultery or that she had not sinned. He never even spoke to what Leviticus said, for He knew that the scribes (legal experts) and Pharisees wanted to catch Him misrepresenting the Law. He never said the Law was wrong because Jesus did not think the Law was wrong. He used it as the mirror it was intended to be. He said, "If you don't have sin, be the first to lob a stone at her." It's interesting to note that the oldest man left first. I guess he was more aware of his sin than the younger men. After they were all gone, Jesus dealt with the woman. He didn't say "You're fine. You did nothing wrong. Go back to your good life now."

Instead, He said "I don't hold your sin against you. Go and don't disobey God (which is the definition of sin) anymore."

Christians are called upon to follow the spirit of the Law, which means we have to know what the letter of the Law is. When we quote from Levitus, it means we're aware of the dirt, often on our own faces as well as on the faces of those we interact with. You'll never know your face is dirty if you don't look in the mirror. Once we know the dirt is there, we're expected to remove it. There were many good reasons for the Levitical laws (which I might blog on sometime), but we're discussing the 21st Century right now. Christians are not called upon to follow the Levitical law to the degree that the Israelites wandering in the desert after their release from slavery were. We see the dirt, we remove it. We see the dirt on the faces of our fellow believers and we draw attention to it so they can remove it. To non-believers, we echo Jesus in saying, "There is a better way to live. Look in the mirror; here's the wash cloth if you want to get the dirt off your face."

We're only doing what our Savior commands us to do. Some of us do it well, others of us do it poorly, and none of us do it 100 percent perfectly.

That doesn't mean we're not supposed to do it!

The Bible is remarkably consistent in its handling of sexual sins. Outside of societally recognized and church sanctified marriage between a man and a woman the Bible condemns it all. It is very strong in its statements against homosexuality, rape and adultery, but it's statements against unmarried sex are no less clear. God has said that it is all disobedience to Him and there will be consequences as a society for that mass sin.

All Christians are doing is holding up a mirror. We're not gathering stones. We're not called upon to do that. And, we're not qualified to do that. Christians are human beings too and that means we fail God all the time, whether we like it or not. God didn't call us because we were perfect. God does call us to lift the mirror high, so that those who don't know will know.

Not interferring!!!

We cannot tell our adult children what to do, but we can still talk to them. Our adult children's decisions also will reflect on the type of upbringing they had, as well. If you did not have a wave of communication with them about morality and values and respecting their bodies as well as their future spouses, well then, hey you have it...they will be coming to you and telling you they are going to move in together. No one feels sorry except God, he is sadden by this so called, "joyous" occasion.

There is another reason...

Totally agree with Dennis Prager...have just one more to add to his list....
In the event that one becomes less than enamored with with other there are legal bindings that will support the children (if any), financial and property issues are better settled, and if one of the partners has become disabled, the earning party must assume some of the finacial responsibility.
This issue is what makes the most sense to todays misguided youth. I would like it to be more of a religious experience for them, but that has been destroyed..so I hit them with the legal and financial stuff.

Aurorawatcher...

"Now, I can't say why God didn't just plunk Moses down and explain germs, toxins and parasites to him."

There's also the issue of pigs and people competing for limited food in a desert area. That's why you don't keep pigs in that part of the world. Goats eat what people can't. Pigs are competition.

liberal dialog re: puritans

I hope you're joking about the puritans. They didn't go anywhere; they still exist. They just have different names now, like "Baptist" and "Reformed" and "Calvinist" depending on their specific beliefs.

liberal dialog

From wiki: "Originally used to describe a third-century sect of rigorist heretics, the word "Puritan" is now applied unevenly to a number of Protestant churches from the late 16th century to the present."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan

Just because it's old doesn't mean it's dead.

Michael

If finding a corresponding reprisal of a Levitical law in the New Testement is key for knowing whether or not it is still applicable today, then why not just refer to the New Testement verse and leave the quotes from Leviticus in the book? So often, Leviticus is brought up in discussions about homosexuality as a sort of ultimate condemnation, yet these verses seem rather hollow when they're surrounded by ultimate condmenations about eating shrimp or wearing a cotton/poly blend shirt.

TriciaCT

"My answer to your 2 questions above:"

Sorry, those were rhetorical questions meant to highlight why the current generation is choosing to live together as opposed to imitating their parents. They do not reflect my own position. What they reflect are populace notions. My point about insanity is apparent in your response. Yes, you can cling to the notion that remaining a virgin until marriage is a requirement for a proper marriage. That's insane to the average person's way of thinking in this day and age; to remain a virgin until you are 30 or 40.

You should realize when in a public discussion the difference between someone's personal position and a rhetorical position clarifying existing conditions.

If the Christian religion wants to continue its march into the dust bin of history, something I whole heartedly encourage you all to do, just keep sticking with the insane positions outlayed in the Bible. What happens when people start living to 100 years? 150 years? Is marriage still till death do you part? See that's a rhetorical question meant to highlight the insanity of sticking with the same position of 2,000 years. Sticking with outdated positions today is failing to succeed in promoting Christianity in the modern world. Sticking with those said same positions in tomorrow's world of double the change then doubly so.

I'm not speaking for myself. I'm speaking for the populace at large. It is ironic that Christian's today are wagging fingers at the Muslims telling them they must change to the modern era and undergo a reformation the way Christianity did in 1400 or die. Yet Christianity itself is suffering the same fate. One could actually argue the Muslim position of wanting to keep the world's state of existence akin to a rural simple life in the year 600AD as dictated by Muhammed is at least religiously feesible. Christianity will either fade or change as the times change. Maintaining a "stay the course" philosophy on marriage and other moral issues is surely going to trend to more Christian irrelevance projecting the trends of the last 40 years.

liberal dialog

In your magnanimity to act as spokesperson for "the populace at large", you reveal in yourself many of the dogmas and intolerances which you ascribe to people of faith. You are a member of the Church of Secular Humanism, and tolerance and equality are "articles of faith" which hold greater value than those which underlie morality. Like it or not, people cannot avoid making judgments based on the truth. We all do it on a daily basis, and this is not a bad thing. In fact, it is imperative to our survival. Our laws and civilization are built on values and judgments about human behavior. Many atheists simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that they have less empirical evidence for the "non-existence" of God than people of faith have for his being.

Yes -- I too have met you before, because for many years I WAS you. I shall not judge you, but I suspect that I do understand you quite well. You are free to follow the path you are on. Surely by now life has taught you the consequences of breaking the law of gravity. Perhaps you will come to know the results of breaking God's moral law as well.

Liberal Dialogue

From Encarta:

The essence of Puritanism is an intense commitment to a morality, a form of worship, and a civil society strictly conforming to God's commandments.

Although most active Protestants and Baptists I know today wouldn't want to live in a civil society where strict morality was enforced, they attempt to conduct their own lives within the civil society by conforming to God's commandments, so I think puritanism exists in a modified form, we've just emphasized personal discipline over civil control.

What strikes me about your dialogue is that you seem to utterly hate people you know very little about. You characterize those who hold religious faith as important in their lives as, well, idiots who have their heads in the sand. I don't consider myself an idiot (my IQ and degrees would indicate I have a brain) and my eyes have been wide open since I was about 13. I wasn't raised a Christian; it was not something my parents taught me. I chose to become a Christian in my late-teens because I saw the rationality of the faith. I'm sure there are others who can tell a similar story, of their intellect coming into contact with reasonable arguments for the existence of God and that bringing them to the point where they would consider faith. Reason cannot bring us to God, but it can point out the path to Him.

As for traditional marriage, you offered strongly worded statements about how the longer people live the more likely monogamy will go by the wayside. I can only tell you what I know, which contradicts what you say. My parents were older when they had me and both were the children of their parents' later years. My maternal grandparents, both born in 1886, were proud of the fact that they were 25 years old when they married. They were both virgins (per their own report)on their wedding night (1912)and Grandma told a funny story that makes me think it was true. They had both lived independently of their parents' homes for a number of years prior to meeting one another. They both claimed to have remained monogamous until my grandfather's death and as far as I know, Mary Alyse didn't go looking for a lover afterward.

My aunt and her husband married young because he was going to work on a road project in another state and she wanted to go with him. I never got a straight answer out of Fred (Do you think I was handsome enough for a string of fillies? he'd answer), but Lu said she was a virgin on their wedding night. They were together 70 years when she died in 2001. At her wake Fred said he had not been with another woman in all that time. My brother asked him if he planned to make up for lost time now and Fred said "You think I'm handsome enough yet?"

Alan and Rhonda married in 1990. He was 36 years old; she was a couple of years younger. Both of them are in ministry. They met while teaching at a seminary. They were engaged two years. They claim to have been virgins when they married. Conversations we've had with them in private lead my husband and I to believe they were. They're still married and seem to be happy.

My husband and I have been married 21 years. Neither of us came from a Christian background, so we weren't virgins when we married, but we didn't sleep with each other or anyone else during our two-year courtship and engagement and, as far as I know, neither of us has cheated during our marriage. We're not planning a divorce and we enjoy one another's company in the bedroom.

I could name several dozen more couples that I know who assuaged the sex-before marriage route and who are not planning a divorce or cheating on one another. Some of those couples have been together longer than I've been alive. I know several young couples who are attempting to follow in these awe-inspiring footsteps.

So, LD, you asked what happens when people start living longer? They're already living longer (Fred's coming hard up on 100) and they're already choosing a lifestyle that doesn't include fornication and cohabitation. Yeah, we're the exceptions to the rule, but we didn't used to be. My grandparents took for granted that the people around them were not cheating on one another or planning to leave their marriages. Marriage was a sacred commitment to most of society back then. There were a few exceptions. My grandmother had a cousin who was married three times and spent the last years of his life living with a woman who was married to another man. It's notable that he made his living first as a teacher and then as a poet of some fame. The artists of that day and age did that sort of thing. The common folk shook their heads in disbelief and went back to the business of raising families.

Oh, and by the way, contrary to popular opinion, women of my grandparents' and parents' day were not dependent upon marriage to survive. When they met, my grandmother had a job that paid more than my grandfather's job. She ran the business end of their farm while he kept the crops and livestock alive. Lu married Fred in haste because he was taking a good job, but she ended up camp cook and made as much as he did. Although his income was higher than hers during most of their marriage, she was always employed outside the home. My parents ran a restaurant together. Dad couldn't do it without Mom.

Leave It to Beaver was an entertaining TV show, but it wasn't reality. If you don't know that, you might want to actually speak to a few elderly folks and ask them about their lives.

When you study history and not just an interpretation that suits your political agenda, you find out that there were good times and bad times back then and that people were no more perfect than they are today. However, they seem to have gotten a few things right that we might want to pay attention to.

Skullcrusher

OK, so adult consent is already required for marriage. There is the answer to you question as to how allowing two men or two women to marry would not be equally applicable to pedophilia.

An Urge and An Excuse.

I've been an Atheist and a Christian. The difference is that a Christian is a Mind, a Body, and a Soul. An Atheist is just a Mind and a Body, an urge and an excuse.

So I agree, it probably is near-impossible for an Atheist NOT to have sex out of wedlock, or to wait until they're 30. But, I also know from experience that it's just as impossible for a true Christian (and I don't care who this offends) to live a lifestyle where they do have sex out of wedlock.

I'm a 24 year old virgin who doesn't plan to marry or court seriously until my late twenties, early thirties. Frankly, it's easy. It's easier for me NOT to have sex out of wedlock.

Once you get past the early-teen confusion, and get healthy physically and spiritually, the clouds part and this whole argument becomes laughable.

There are very few men on the planet who would want their own daughters, sisters, and mothers treated like they treat their own girlfriends and wives; they know what they're doing is wrong. It's plain.

People who want the secular argument: could it be that reproductive organs are mainly for, y'know, reproducing? Could it be that there's nothing normal or natural about manufactured latex, chemical pills that make women infertile, and/or spiked suction machines? With complete scientific objectivity, might this just not be the best way for a society to thrive?

We're brewing up diseases, aborting millions; we've got unwanted children, fatherless homes, sham marriages, the divorce merry-go-round. There's the suicidal birth rate; the greatest cultures in the world are dying...for what? So we can pretend that sex doesn't have anything to do with family? Or isn't probably just that most of us just can't control ourselves, and don't really want to?

An urge and an excuse.

"Post-it"

Relieving yourself is a sin too....

Jimmy Carter partly right

Actually the 'half the marriages' is a slight exaggeration. About 43 % of all first marriages end in divorce (from the Marriage Project at Rutgers) and a successively higher proportion of each succeedig marriage does well. Fair enough. We wouldn't promote business investment in a country where there is a 43 % chance of failure, no enforcement of contracts, and laws that encourage one party to renege on the contract, would we? Promoting marriage to young men in America is that kinda bad advice too. These folks are enough social and girlfriend-pressure to get married...no need to further push them.

Noelegy

Noelegy writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 6:30 PM
Secular vs. religious issues
"Someone raised the point that not all marriages are done in churches. And even those that are performed in churches require the very secular, government-approved marriage license. I would imagine that most people who marry in churches do so for sentimental or traditional reasons, but in the end they're no more or less married than the couple who goes to the Justice of the Peace."

This is very true, partly because the idea of marriage transcends the various religions of the world (which is why it is present in every religion and culture the world over), and hence it is also good and to be encouraged even if one has no particular religious belief. The Christian explanation for this (the Jewish as well?), I believe, is that when God instituted marriage with Adam and Eve, they were representative of, and examples to, all of mankind, not merely to members of any one religion. Therefore, people do not have to have a certain kind of ceremony or belong to a certain religion in order to be married (which is why courthouse marriages are perfectly OK).

"Whoever said that you can't simultaneously defend marriage as the best of human relationships and then turn around and say that gays must keep "living in sin" as a result of their non-state-recognized relationships hit the nail on the head."

This is confusing two separate things. There are two components (from the Christian or biblical point of view) that must BOTH be present in order for sex to be blessed by God: it must be between a man and a woman AND they must be married. It is not an either/or proposition. The state could make same-sex marriage fully legal and fully equal with opposite-sex marriage, but that would not mean that gays who got married were no longer living in sin. Both Old and New Testaments specifically say that same-sex sex does not please God, no exceptions. The state's position, no matter what it is, does not change that. The state says whether something is legal or illegal, not whether it is sinful or not.

liberal_dialog

I shall address that long post of yours in reverse order.

First of all, then, that Chrisianity is a false religion: First of all, one basic (I think) tenet is that we are ALL sinners. "There is no man who lives and does not sin." Therefore, no Christian on earth practices Chrisianity perfectly; we all depend on repenting of our sins, as we become aware of them (that's why the Old Testament is still useful - that analogy of the mirror I laid out in an earlier post), asking God for mercy, and making a sincere effort to change, with God's help. If anyone says they're practicing Chrisianity perfectly, that they have no sin and no need to repent, it sounds like they're depending on their "works" for their salvation, and in that case they should read Galatians 2:16; also, much of Romans addresses this, from 3:21 to 11:10).

It is necessary to distinguish between two broad categories of Chrisianity: the Chrisianity as practiced by someone who sincerely tries to live a righteous life, to avoid sin in the first place and to change whatever sinful habits they may have. And the other category: the Chrisianity practiced by those who go to church every Sunday, maybe even some extra attendance at Christmas and Easter, but who run their lives the rest of the week as if they knew nothing of Chrisianity or its doctrines; these would likely say that they are Chrisians - they go to church every Sunday, after all - but their lives clearly indicate otherwise. For this second category, yes, their Chrisianity is false; it is only a mask (figuratively speaking) that they wear on Sunday mornings. But should all of Chrisianity be judged by them?

to the anti-feminists.

Although Praeger's column is a bit too rhapsodic, I agree
with what he says. Besides, I want to be on any side of
that issue that these ranting, cranky, foaming-at-the-mouth
anti feminists & George Maher are not.

I have been married for over 35 years. Can't say that I
have loved every minute of it, but I do consider myself
absolutely blessed. It has been time well spent. May there be many more years for us and our married kids.

I would like to address specifically a comment to the
anti-feminists. Perhaps if you were a nicer person, your
marriage would have been better. I doubt that you became
a ranter with a negative attitude overnight. I would
also like to say that considering how much time you
spend on this website, you probably have minimal social
skills. Look to yourself before you accuse the wicked
women of bringing you down.

liberal_dialog

"When someone is "wrong" on a moral issue the word is immoral."

Immoral means "Contrary to established morality" - I looked it up.

But we have another problem in this country, as well - being amoral: "not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments". Some Americans believe that there is no objective standard of right and wrong, in other words; so that they - or others - may "sleep together", "live together", do drugs, pursue all kinds of immoral activity, and say, "Well, there's nothing wrong with it."

So the question is, are we going to stick with the morality we had established until the 1940's or 1950's, maybe the 1960's - and recognize that "living together", "sleeping together", etc, are Immoral? or are we going to decide to become an amoral society and say that anything goes - eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die" (and if a man's idea of being merry is living together with every woman in town, and that results in spreading a lot of AIDS as well as other STD's, will you condemn that? On what basis? - if there are no moral standards, that is.)

The point is

Ok folks.

One of the lessons I've learned oh these many years hanging out with you folks is that 1.) anecdotes and personal stories are compelling above and beyond science and 2.) invalidating a person is the preferred way to invalidate an argument.

Attacking someone such as my self with free psychoanalysis may feel righteous to you, is a kindness to me for giving me what I would otherwise have to pay a shrink to get, and invalidates my arguments because I'm perceived as a crazed person, but in the long run is a losing proposition. From Rush Limbaugh to people on this board, the number favorite tactit to invalidate an argument is to invalidate the person.

Well, if you go back and reread my posts I'm not talking about preoffering my stance or my opinion with respect to marriage.

Marriage is not on the rocks because the end times are nigh, kids today are more evil, or some other religious nonsense. You are, after all, their parents.

No, times have changed. Applying the same old answer to a different set of circumstances and then expecting the old answer to work like it did in the past, when in the face of previous change it failed, is insanity.

From the advent of birth control to the extending of life span, people are faced with making decisions under different circumstances then when the Bible was written.

Take the Amish by way of example. They have frozen the rate of change in their culture so they could persumably mitigate influences not outlayed in the Bible.

There is nothing preventing you all from doing the same. For example, nothing in the U.S. Constitution prevents individual states from having a state wide religion. The last state to have a state religion gave it up by the will of the people in 1830.

Most legal decisions this day and age surrounding separation of church and state have to deal with agencies taking Federal money, like schools. However Nebraska who takes no Federal freeway money and hence has no speed limits is an example where any state can refuse Federal money for control over their lives.

Nothing is preventing any of you from setting up enclaves of like minded people with communities free of birth control, Hollywood, etc. and like the Puritans trying to set up models for the rest of the world to aspire too.

But then the question becomes who will want to live like the Amish? the Puritans or the religious enclave you all might ponder? Will that state of happiness be perceived as happiness people want or anything other than how the Amishh are peceived, an oddity.

The point of discussion here as I see it is not to invalidate you or me. Outside of snide remarks about Christianity and Christians being pompous a**ses that is clearly demonstrative here, I attack no one other than Prager. In this case Prager is acceptable to attack because he is offering strictly an opinion and not any study, like one that shows the average American loses there virginity before the age 18. And as an opinion it is impossible to understand why the choir needs to hear it and ridiculous to believe that those he ridicules as evil non-stop would put any importance his is opinion based on nothing than his own character.

Gunther

Yes, I did quote the passages from Leviticus, and I do support the Bible's opinions about men and men getting together. I only do not support the death penalty for those men "getting together" with men.

I am not really in favor of the Federal government regulating marriage, but the U.S. Supreme Court is backing us (me and conservatives like me) into a corner; the ruling concerning some homosexuals in Texas is the latest assault on us from them. It would be better for each state to regulate marriage, as it has always been, until the last few years.

Each state specifies how far apart two people must be on a family tree, to be allowed to marry: certainly a man may not marry his sister, or his mother or daughter; what about the sister of his father/mother? no. These are all - as far as I know, in every state - regarded as being too closely related. For the sake of lessening the occurrence of genetic-defect diseases in future generations, the state regulates these things. Could I, being a man, marry the daughter of my mother's/father's brother/sister (my cousin)? In some states, yes; in other states, no. Each state also regulates the minimum age for marriage. All of this is proper, and should be regulated by the states; I hope that the Federal government never gets involved with these things. The propsal now is to have each state also regulate same-sex marriages, as many already are. BUT the US Supreme Court, at one point, at least, was considering whether a homosexual couple, legitimately "married" in state A, who move to state B, would be afforded the same benefits as anyone married in state B, effectively negating state B's law against homosexual "marriage". To prevent this in advance, the Defense of Marriage Act, and a corresponding Amendment, are proposed. The Supreme Court's history of meddling with social issues just makes VERY many of us conservatives nervous.

No, I do not wish to see the Federal government, or even any state or local government, adopt one particular denomination, and its doctrines, rules, etc, as THE law. But certain things - like prohibition of homosexual marriage - are common to all/most Christian denominations, and Orthodox Judaism - I cannot speak for Reformed Judaism on this point - that homosexual marriage could be prohibited, and a majority of the people in that state would approve.

While I believe that homosexual activity does harm the immortal souls of those who participate, it is, indeed, outside the realm of our government to get involved in such matters. However, our government - state, if not Federal - gets involved with regulating who can smoke tobacco products, and who is allowed to drink alcoholic beverages, on the basis that smoking tobacco is harmful, and excessive alcohol consumption is harmful. Studies have been done in the Netherlands (for example), where homosexuality, same-sex "marriage", etc, have been accepted as normal for 15 or 20 years. The statistics are chilling, at least to some people: the average length of "committed relationships" - those where both partners say that they're committed to the relationship - was 18 MONTHS; that's one and a half years. Tell me again, what does "committed" mean? In addition, more than half - something like 60% to 70% - of children are living with only one of their parents; some 10% to 20% aren't even sure who their biological father is.

Yes, I know about civil marriages; and I also know that Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam have marriage ceremonies; I would be inclined - generally speaking - to accept a couple married in a ceremony in one of these religions, as "married", for intents and purposes such as "Married filing jointly/separately" on income tax; I do not know what rules these religions have regarding divorce, so, legally speaking, we may be opening another can of very tangled worms here. Due to the predominance of Christianity in this country, and because I hope it continues to predominate, I focus on Chritianity. Nevertheless, as far as I understand these things, each of these other religions puts value on married peole remaining faithful to each other, and, as I recall, civil marriage ceremonies - in most states, at least, again, this varies somewhat from state to state - include an admonition to the newly married couple to be faithful.

Aside from the value systems of various religions, our civil society used to have a value system that more or less reflected the Christian one; I would like to see us return to that. That would be a major improvement over what we have now: drifting toward complete amorality.

Noelegy #2 - Why redefine marriage?

Thanks for at least responding in the general vicinity of the question (unlike Underhill). You are still avoiding the heart of the matter however. You have abandoned the idea that heterosexuality is a precondition for marriage. Why? In your response you also appear to have abandoned the idea that monogamy is a precondition for marriage which is at least logically consistent. You have kept the idea of consenting adults. Why? Why is it OK to keep some of the preconditions and discard others? The traditional definition of marriage basically includes normal behavior and excludes abnormal/icky behavior. [Please don't detour into a side argument to claim sodomy is normal or good. As soon as parents start hoping their children grow up to be sodomites I will believe you. Until then stop kidding yourself.]
Now you are cherry picking which abnormalities you are going to allow to marry. Beastiality involves one consenting adult and an animal whose consent is not technically required (but may be as a practical matter unless you have a lot of rope and a muzzle). Sure, it is icky in a major way, but so is one guy doing another one up the *ss. Why do you want to support one but not the other? What if the child's guardian consents to the pedophilia? ("I think a good f**king would really improve little Ashley's mood. And doesn't she look cute in that lingerie!") Now you have two consenting adults and perhaps a consenting child as well. Is it OK then? Why not?

Is anything other than your misapplied compassion for homosexuals driving you to redefine marriage? Traditional marriage has God, nature, a lack of ickiness, and thousands of years of success on its side. What does your definition have going for it? How did you come to it? What are the reasons? Why is it so hard to get a serious answer to this question from supporters of homosexual marriage?

You people want to screw with (and basically discard) the most fundamental human institutions (marriage and religion), the only ones that predate even civilization and are found in EVERY culture. Is it too much to ask for a good reason or two? It appears that the only reasons you have are:
1) They make me feel bad
2) I don't like rules
Can anyone give me a grown-up reason? Anyone?

Skullcrusher

Uggg, fine I'll respond, even though (like Noelegy) the pedophilia comparison is so lame/tiring.

***Note, I, like Prager, am going to argue this from a governmental policy/societal angle, not from a religous one. I'm not interested in what Christianity has to say about marriage for this purpose, nor should our government (I might lose readers right here, but oh well).

Basically, your argument, stated simply, is that only marriage is marriage, and if you allow something that isn't currently marriage to be marriage, there is no stopping anything else from being marriage. Marriage rules currently (let me know if I'm forgetting something) are you have to have two living, opposite-gendered, consenting adults who aren't already married. Obviously, the definitions of "adult" has changed over the course of history, and your attempt to be absurd (with the consenting adult, consenting parent, and an under-age child) was actually a normal/frequent occurence at one time. Furthermore, not too long ago interracial marriage was against the rules, but now is OK.

OK, so basically we have a "If you change one thing (even though a couple rules have changed over time), you can't justify not changing anything else". This will lead to things like pedophilia, beastiality, or me marrying Bill Gates without his premission (so I can divorce him and take his money!). So, yes, if you allow gays to marry, you will not be able to use the excuse "We're not changing from the 2006 marriage rule set" to deny people from marrying anything imaginable. But, just as how a couple of rules have changed over history, you always have to have a rational reason for having/changing the rules (which should be how governmental policy is used). So, as long as people are aware that a 2 year old can't make a consenting decision on marriage, or that consent should even be a requirement, a rational marriage policy will be implemented. As far as gay marriage, there is no rational reason for denying this privilege, as all of the arguments against it are "It's been this way for 1000s of years, Leviticus..., "Ick!", etc.

Furthermore, what is "icky" is a poor guidence for what is right/wrong because it is very much driven by what is a societal norm (like monkey brains are icky, but sausage is yummy). Ask your grandparents if people thought it was "icky" decades ago to see a black man kissing a white women.

Anyway, I have to cut this short. Thanks.

Lisa missed the point

What Lisa misses in her otherwise well articulated comment is that our matrimonial laws are simply very biased. And they have been kept that way by an odd, unholy alliance of radical feminists and clueless traditionalists. THe breakdown of a marriage can be either party's or both's fault..after all we are human. But to penalize one party and reward the other is the depth of depravity. A lot of women, unfortunately, only realize it when the person thus crucified is their son or their brother. By that time it's too late and a good man has been robbed of his child, his income, his home to support a former wife and her boyfriend.

Such a bias is called bigotry. And in the legal system that is the only kind of bigotry still legal, celebrated, and loudly defended. After all, divorce is a 22 billion dollar industry!

Skullcrusher #2

I don't think I was trying to redefine marriage. "You have abandoned the idea that heterosexuality is a precondition for marriage." I posit that as John Underhill said, there's no rational reason to deny legal civil unions to homosexuals. Maybe we're playing to-may-to, to-mah-to here, but that's what I believe I'm trying to say.

I DO believe that monogamy is "a precondition for marriage which is at least logically consistent." Not all marriages are alike; not all infidelities automatically mean the end of a marriage. It depends on the couple.

No, there's nothing on our books recognizing a union of three and I don't even want to get into that right now! Talk about your cans of worms. I'm just saying that a polygamous union can involve consenting adults (I should say DOES involve, because a polygamous union where all the parties aren't consenting is just plain cheating).

I guess the heart of the matter is that you see homosexuality as an abnormality on par with bestiality and pedophilia, and I don't. If I honestly turn the argument around and see it through your eyes, I can see how you would object to same-sex marriages.

But let's take that slippery slope and apply it to something else. I asked in another response how far would we take the traditional idea of "marriage equals one man, one woman, for the purpose of procreation"? According to some religious beliefs, it's a sin to have sex without the possibility of conception. I have heard that some Catholic churches will refuse to marry couples in which one person or both is infertile. How about couples who have no plans to have children? Should they be allowed to marry?

"Is anything other than your misapplied compassion for homosexuals driving you to refine marriage?"

That's a bit of a loaded question, but the best way I can answer it is that I see no rational or non-religious reason NOT to allow them civil unions and equal (not extra) protection under the law.

"You people want to screw with (and basically disregard) the most fundamental human institutions (marriage and religion)."

No. No, I don't. I was raised in a strong religious environment, and consider myself happily married. And I know that these are fundamental institutions in our society, and every culture for that matter. Furthermore, I'd argue that marriage and religion are constructs that are capable either of causing great joy or great sorrow.

"It appears that the only reasons you have are:
1) They make me feel bad
2) I don't like rules."

I don't believe I've said that in any of my posts, and I'm pretty far from an anarchist.

Sexual Mythology

Liberal Dialogue insists that times have changed and that's why there are no virgins anymore.

Yeah, well, times have changed but so has the message of the world. There was a time when sex had physical and societal consequences, so the message of society as a whole was sex was best kept in marriage. Then the physical consequences were mostly removed (although they're coming back now) and we went through the Boomer-driven "if it feels good, do it" revolution. Being a later-Boomer, I can say that my brother's half of the generation really foisted a lot of myths on my half of the generation.

By the time I got to high school (1975), you were expected to have sex. Guys who didn't were gay and girls who didn't were frigid. We were told we needed to play the field so we would have experience, that we needed to test-drive our future mates, that we should live together to make sure we could stay married.

In some ways, these sexual myths are similar to the drug myths they handled down to us as well and we're still reaping the same harvest of broken promises from those myths.

Statistics (Barna) show that truly monogamous marriages (neither couple has been with anyone else) last. Marriages where both partners played the field prior to marriage are at risk and marriages where the couple lived together break up far more often than those where the couple did not live together prior to marriage.

The myths were wrong. Previous generations had it right. Their marriages lasted because of commitment, but also because of monogamy in the true sense of the word.

LD challenges us to turn back the clock. Actually, I think he's suggesting we move to Lancaster County. I'm not Amish and I don't want to be. It's not that I don't admire them. I just think God doesn't require Christians to freeze their society in the 1830s in order to be right with Him. We can still look at them as an example. I would be willing to bet that most Amish are virgins when they marry and they don't cheat once they are. Their society controls the message their young people hear, so the young people turn out (by and large, I'm sure there are exceptions) as the society wants. We're teaching our children our values on sex and marriage, but my husband and I are not the only messengers my children hear. Especially our 13-year-old daughter is hearing the myths of the early-Boomers, who are the administrators of our school district. So far, she's recognizing it as myth and she's seeing the consequences already evident in her classmates' lives, but that's after eight years of Christian school. If she'd been in the public schools since kindergarten, she would have heard the myths over and over by now and who knows if she would believe us or her teachers.

This nation is destroying itself because we believe myths which all evidence shows are untrue. Are we so stubborn that we cannot admit that the Sexual Revolution was a really stupid idea thought up by adolescents? How long will we reap the harvest we have sown? And, how long before people like LD realize that they might actually be wrong and somebody else might actually be right?

Skullcrusher

I just have a minute (and thanks also for the reply by the way).
Here's a quick answer to you question of why gay marriage would be beneficial to society. Homosexuals are allowed to be homosexual in our society now. Since they obviously aren't going to cease to be homosexual (nor should we should ask them to), would you rather them be encouraged to live in a committed, loving monogamous relationship (with all the added benefits that Prager describes), or have them participate in lives of sexual promiscuity that they are so infamous in these forums for? That's 1-10% of the population who have their lives enhanced, as Prager describes. Also, it probably seems like such a "why the heck not" idea to me since the usual detractions seem so preposterous (societies fabric will crumble, we'll have to allow people to marry sheep,...). There is no drawback in my opinion (with consenting adults, nobody's harmed, loving relationships, etc.), whereas I shouldn't have to really go into why pedophilia is wrong.

And I'll still stand by my statement that "ickiness" is a terrible reason to ban things. I'm not really interested in banning people from sucking the head of a crawfish, or my grandparents from having sex if they want. There are rational reasons why those other things (beastiality, necrophilia or cannibalism) are wrong (other than being icky). Beastiality is animal cruelty, cannibalism is murder, and necrophilia is against the wishes of the deceased (unless they signed their "organ" donor card).