Not too long ago, I scribbled a note to myself, observing that there was more serious debate on gay marriage on conservative blogs and other right-of-center websites (i.e., those of magazines and think tanks) than on left-of-center websites, even including those operated by gay individuals and institutions.
I’d certainly have to do a few google searches to make my case. Well, today, just going through the accumulated e-mail in my in-box has made that task a lot easier, at least for the first part of the equation.
The National Review posted Deroy Murdock’s response to Maggie Gallagher’s question, “if the word “marriage” can be redefined as a civil rights imperative, why balk at lesser ideas like ‘monogamy’ or ‘fidelity’?“ Deroy takes social conservatives to task for their silence on AshleyMadison.com, a web-site promotind extramarital affairs:
Clearly, straight-marriage fans fret about what two men wearing wedding bands might do to a man and woman with rings on their fingers. Whether this concern is scientific or superstitious, surely they must acknowledge that seeing Bob and Steve together in a porch swing is trivial compared to Adam philandering with his new AshleyMadison.com adulteress as Eve waits at home, watches dinner grow cold, and wonders why on Earth he’s so late.
Maggie contends she didn’t denounce the website as the publicity of her criticism might serve to “help pad their profits.” Instead, she would
Revive the old alienation-of-affections tort as a new “tort of adultery” directed at third parties who actively encourage and facilitate adultery. (We could limit it to “commercial enterprises.”) Then let the cuckolded husbands and abandoned wives, and children of divorce, recover some of that website’s profits.
In a further post, she offers that “scientific data confirms gay marriage and the ‘progressive’ attitudes towards family structure tend to go hand-in-hand — not only here, but everywhere around the world.”
To respond to Maggie’s second point, serious proponents of gay marriage should offer legislation which at the same time as it calls for state recognition of same-sex marriage strengthens the tort laws she mentions agove. Not just that, they could promote legislation eliminating no-fault divorce, making divorces more difficult to obtain.
It would be nice to see gay marriage advocates not only pushing for state recognition of same-sex marriage, but also for laws strengthening the institution itself. It would show that they’re serious about the object of their activism, that they understand marriage to be far more than just another in a series of “rights” designed to further “full equality.”
Gallagher’s proposal to make a tort of adultery sounds purely reactive to Murdock’s embarrassing her, and therefore lame.
Her point that “scientific data confirms [sic] gay marriage and the ‘progressive’ attitudes towards family structure tend to go hand-in-hand“ is even more lame. My response: So, what? I wouldn’t expect otherwise. People with sexually ‘progressive’ attitudes, for better or worse, are usually the first people to be able to wrap their minds around gay marriage. Observing that that is so, is on the order of an observation like ‘Scientific data confirm that conservatives tend to be conservative, liberals tend to be liberal.’ Again: So, what?
Gallagher also asks:
I can think of two answers, both equally likely to be true – and damaging to her case:
1) Yes. It is a coincidence. Or,
2) No it isn’t a coincidence… but not in the way she thinks. It means that heterosexuals have been entirely ignoring the *real* issues and reforms that are needed to save/restore marriage. Heterosexual marriage is in trouble, as an institution, because of heterosexuals. Gay marriage is a sideshow. Those who wish to protect heterosexual marriage should concentrate on abolishing no-fault divorce (or bringing back “fault” divorce) – and show their seriousness by sticking with it, over as many political cycles as it takes.
Of course gay marriage led to an increase in illegitimacy…it’s illegal in many states, therefore children of gay couples are illegitimate.
Why should gay couples be held to an impossible standard that heterosexuals are not held to and would never be able to live up to? This doesn’t mean there should be no standard of expectation whatsoever.
ILC is right. Heterosexuals are responsible for the state of heterosexual marriage. I wouldn’t mind banning no-fault divorce.
Well then, good on them. The divorce rate is down to around 33% and continues to fall, as it has been for decades. So they must be doing something right.
…I would suggest that the increased importance placed on traditional marriage values is the most likely reason.
Not sure how that helps your case though.
Would you be so kind as to provide a citation?
Ok, for those interested, we have a review of marriage and divorce rates summarized here: http://www.atypon-link.com/AEAP/doi/abs/10.1257/jep.21.2.27 It’s a test article for the service, so everybody should be able to view it.
The quick summary:
Divorce rates peaked in 1981, and have been dropping since. Interestingly, they claim that modern (1980+) divorce rates were predicted at the beginning of the century.
Marriage rates are roughly constant, age at first marriage is increasing, and some groups of the population (Age 65+) are now more likely to be married than they ever were
Cohabitation before marriage happens in 59% of marriages, and couples that cohabitate are more likely to divorce than those who don’t – but they can’t tell if it’s because they cohabitated that they’re more likely to divorce, or couples who are less sure about marriage cohabitate first. They’re also not able to be definitive if couples that split while cohabitating are driving down the divorce rate because they don’t get married.
The raw numbers are interesting, anyway.
They are all over the place.
It would be nice to see gay marriage advocates not only pushing for state recognition of same-sex marriage, but also for laws strengthening the institution itself.It would show that they’re serious about the object of their activism, that they understand marriage to be far more than just another in a series of “rights†designed to further “full equality.â€
That’s another unnecessary, ridiculous demand. Why do gays have to demonstrate their seriousness about the issue? You don’t believe them?
Why do gays have to demonstrate their seriousness about the issue? You don’t believe them?
Nope.
Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.â€
Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.â€
Or:
I agree with Katz when he says that monogamy is “one of the pillars of heterosexual marriage and perhaps its key source of trauma.” It’s almost impossible for two people to be all things to each other sexually, and the expectation that two people can or should be all things to each other sexually — that they should never find another person attractive or act on that attraction — does a great deal of harm.
So you see, silly Levi boy, gay liberals and the gay community are already making it clear that monogamy is not only something they won’t do, but that they think is harmful to people. This is obvious to anyone that looks, so I think it’s quite clear that leftists like yourself who “support” gay marriage do so out of ulterior motives around destroying monogamy and marriage as a concept.
So you see, silly Levi boy, gay liberals and the gay community are already making it clear that monogamy is not only something they won’t do, but that they think is harmful to people. This is obvious to anyone that looks, so I think it’s quite clear that leftists like yourself who “support†gay marriage do so out of ulterior motives around destroying monogamy and marriage as a concept.
That’s absurd. One gay couple doesn’t speak for the entire gay community, does it? There are straight people that hold similar opinions, that doesn’t mean all straights should have their ability to marry revoked, right?
And dude, you have got to find something better to do if you’re actually of the belief that there are people out there plotting and scheming in the shadows against the concepts of monogamy and marriage. To what end? Why would someone want to eliminate marriage, why would they even want to try?
Thanks, guys. OK, so divorce rates remain at “historically high levels” in the words of the Freakonomics article; BUT, with heterosexuals having turned the corner on the worst of the 1970s excesses. That is wonderful.
Notice how it weakens Gallagher’s point, which is where I began at #1. Gallagher wanted to suggest that the very fact that we’ve been having this awful discussion about gay marriage the last 5 years undermines marriage, makes society worse, etc. As illustration, she tried to draw a connection to a recent uptick in out-of-wedlock childbirths (an uptick that is actually in line with pre-existing trends, see here: http://indegayforum.org/blog/show/31744.html). Looking at a different measure, divorce rates, Rob and AE have (perhaps unintentionally?) suggested the opposite: that marriage and society *have not* been getting worse. By that measure. Very interesting.
Why do liberals do any of the destructive things that they do?
Why do liberals do any of the destructive things that they do?
Well, what are they doing?
You know, when I say something like the Bush administration had ulterior motives for starting the Iraq war, I can back that up with something. It’s not like it’s a secret that Dick Cheney was the head of Halliburton, or that Halliburton received billions in no-bid contracts, and that the administration refused to investigate allegations of the company’s waste and fraud.
Now I’m sure that you think very highly of George Bush’s war and don’t want to hear any of that, but at least I can articulate something more than ‘the gays have ulterior motives.’ So what is it? Who is standing to benefit? Why would they be doing this?
Why do liberals do any of the destructive things that they do?
I don’t know, maybe they’re self-loathing.
One gay couple doesn’t speak for the entire gay community, does it?
One gay couple, Levi? Take a look at this signatories list — all of whom, in addition to having a very disdainful view of marriage’s value, also demand that marriage rights be given to parent-child, sibling, and, quote, “households in which there is more than one conjugal partner” relationships.
There are straight people that hold similar opinions, that doesn’t mean all straights should have their ability to marry revoked, right?
Key difference, Levi: there are umpteen bazillion organizations, groups, advocates, and whatnot of straight people who regularly state that monogamy is a good thing, that marriage is important, and that straight people who say otherwise are dead wrong — in fact, far, FAR greater in numbers than the straight people who say, as do the gay liberals you support, that monogamy is harmful.
You are attempting to compare what are ridiculously-fringe groups among heterosexuals to what is accepted and encouraged community dogma among gays and liberals such as yourself. And the reason you want to get rid of marriage is simple; you are demanding that the government give you the “rights” of marriage without you having to have a single one of the responsibilities.
One gay couple, Levi? Take a look at this signatories list — all of whom, in addition to having a very disdainful view of marriage’s value, also demand that marriage rights be given to parent-child, sibling, and, quote, “households in which there is more than one conjugal partner†relationships.
Isn’t that what the Utah, Salt Lake City, or whatever the proposal is called, also advocates? Yep, bad idea.
You are attempting to compare what are ridiculously-fringe groups among heterosexuals to what is accepted and encouraged community dogma among gays and liberals such as yourself.
That may be somewhat true. The sad fact is that in a significant percentage of marriages, there is one or both partners who have affairs. The big difference here is that, in general, gay couples are more open and honest about it. Don’t know if that makes it better or worse. But it’s simply not the case that married persons who commit adultery belong to some small fringe group.
And once again, we see the winning strategy of gay liberals: claim that married heterosexuals are adulterers, so it’s OK if gay couples do it, and it’s even better because gays are “open and honest” about it.
re: Comment by North Dallas Thirty: And once again, we see the winning strategy of gay liberals: claim that married heterosexuals are adulterers, so it’s OK if gay couples do it, and it’s even better because gays are “open and honest†about it.
Give it a rest. Until you fess up that heterosexuals have made a mockery of marriage, your argument is pathetic.
What you’re interested in, perserving the “institution” of heterosexual marriage, is simply enforcing discrimination. You’re ideas are bigoted. Shame on you.
Give it a rest. Until you fess up that heterosexuals have made a mockery of marriage, your argument is pathetic.
LOL…..how can you say that, buckeyenutlover, when you and your fellow gay marriage supporters insist that monogamy is “hurtful” and that adultery is not harmful to marriage? You are attacking heterosexuals for allegedly doing things that you and your fellow gay liberals fully endorse and support.
oh, so that’s bnl’s entire arguement? “You’re being mean to me, not letting me marry whatever I want wahhhhhhhh.”
*yawn* that’s been ripped to shreds so many times it’s not funny. Let me explain again. bnl, you are allowed to have a committed relationship with anyone. If you want the privilege of a state recognized partnership, you have to follow the guidelines, same as anyone.
That’s not discriminating. That’s life.
No, I made the point quite intentionally. I wasn’t defending Gallagher — I was simply pointing out that the state of marriage in America has been getting better, not worse since the 1970’s. And I suggest that it is so, precisely because of the increased emphasis placed on traditional marriage values.
But the fact that divorce rates are on the decline doesn’t mean people who aren’t married aren’t having more children out of wedlock. That could be entirely true as well, and probably is.
That simply suggests the people who value marriage are married, and people with more liberal, destructive views (yes, having children out of wedlock is destructive. statistics show its the leading indicator of poverty, crime, etc) are not getting married and making destructive, “alternative” choices.
I should probably read Gallager’s column, but frankly I’m not in the mood to right now. Im just commenting on the logic.
Its not that gays in and of themselves would necessarily harm the institution, its that same sex couples by definition mean a change in the focus of the institution, and also that same-sex marriage is, in reality associated with destructive liberal attitudes towards marriage that make it harmful to the institution.
Figure out a way to separate gay marriage from liberal attitudes towards marriage and you will figure out a way to have gay marriage without it harming the institution.
Which rather seems to be Dan’s point.
But good luck figuring out how to do that. Gays are more married to liberalism than they have ever been serious about marriage.
AE, the majority of what you just said fits with my points about Gallagher and my general thinking. Not 100%, but the majority. I’ve long said, even on this blog and in defense of GPW’s posts, that gay marriage advocates (such as myself) have a burden to put forth a positive and essentially conservative case for gay marriage.
IF you’re talking about the change in focus that I think you’re talking about – shifting some weight to the adults-supporting-each-other ‘foot’, with correspondingly less on the adults-procreate-and-serve-the-new-generation ‘foot’: well, our society already got that change when heterosexuals made the “sexual revolution”, including no-fault divorce. Marriage licenses for same-sex couples are merely logical in the new reality that heterosexuals created. Of course, certain other aspects of State marriage still have not been changed and should not be: the fact that it is still about *couples* and commitment; the fact that it is how 2 unrelated people constitute themselves as a family in our society; the fact that the People should get to legislate the qualifications for it (should get to reject same-sex couples, if that is the People’s will); etc.
P.S. Now, as far as how the above fits (or doesn’t) with your point about traditional values and falling divorce rates: Please note, again, that divorce rates are still at “historically high levels” – in the words of your Freakonomics article citation. Those authors claimed the following:
1) That divorce rates were over-calculated. In other words, we got the famous 50% statistic from calculation errors, when the real rate was more like the high 30s.
2) That since 1981 (or as I put it, since the worst excesses of the 70s), the real rate has dropped to lower in the 30s.
That’s not a huge drop. It is a drop. But no-fault divorce is still with us, and its effects are still clear. I will believe heterosexuals are serious about your idea of traditional marriage when I see them go back to the old rules, i.e., when heterosexuals end no-fault divorce.
#18 buckeyenutlover proclaims:
Really? It’s official? All marriage is a mockery; it is a universal joke?
Why do gays want to force their way in for a ride in a clown car?
And once again, we see the winning strategy of gay liberals: claim that married heterosexuals are adulterers, so it’s OK if gay couples do it, and it’s even better because gays are “open and honest†about it.
NDT, a couple of things here. I don’t attempt to offer a winning strategy in every post I write here. As far as I know, that’s not a requirement. So stating what I believe is a fact was not offering a winning strategy. Thanks.
Second, if you reread my post, I did NOT say that it was okay for gay couples to cheat. Or say it was better because they were “open and honest” about it. In fact, I believe I wrote that I didn’t know if it was better or worse.
We’ve been over this before, NDT. I have no problem with disagreeing with what I have to say. But I still can’t figure out why you have to falsely attribute to things I didn’t say.
Interesting that you didn’t respond to what I actually wrote. For example, you didn’t respond to the point that I made was that married persons who commit adultery is not a small fringe group.*
*In case I have to spell this out again. This is not an offer of a winning strategy. And it’s not an excuse for gay persons to commit adultery.
One more thing, NDT. If you are really interested in what I believe is a winning strategy for same-sex marriage (instead of making one up, and then proceed to lump with your perceptions of a group), read ILC’s posts when he discusses what he believes is a winning strategy. I concur with almost all of what he has brought forth regarding his rationale and strategy for same-sex marriage.
What exactly is it that recognizing gay marriage will accomplish and how will it be of benefit to the society as a whole?
No-fault divorce is part of the liberalization of marriage that has been so harmful to the institution. Sure you can blame it on heterosexuals, since everything having to do with marriage by definition has to do with heterosexuals, but its more accurate to blame it on liberal attitudes towards marriage.
And in that light, you are essentially saying See! look how much liberalization of marriage has harmed the institution! So we might as well harm it more with more liberalization!
Not a very inspiring argument.
And again you are confusing the reasons individuals choose to get married with the reasons we have decided, through our representatives and our laws, that marriage is good for society and the reasons we have chosen to subsidize it. They are not the same thing.
Paris Hilton may marry a man because she thinks he goes well with her favorite shoes — that doesn’t mean that’s the reason we support marriage through our government. The reasons are made clear in statute, and I have posted them many times before. And the beauty of marriage is even IF paris hilton marries a man to compliment her wardrobe, she can still fulfill the societal purpose.
AE — i thought you guys on this site were all about “freedom,” whatever that means. isn’t restricting the circumstances under which a couple can freely choose to get a divorce restricting freedom?
bob, you boob!
You confuse freedom with license. Hit the dictionary and come back with your amended “thinking.”
or perhaps you’re just rationalizing, heliotrope, in light of the realization that your ideology is contradictory.
isn’t restricting the circumstances under which a couple can freely choose to get a divorce restricting freedom?
Actually, “no-fault” divorce has nothing to do with restricting the circumstances; it simply reduces the penalties for unilateral behavior. You can still walk out on your lovers whenever you find new ones, boob; it’s just that, without no-fault, you actually have to pay for the privilege under abandonment rules.
well whatever, NDT. the point is that the government is making a choice of yours more difficult (in this case, more expensive). somehow i imagine if the democrats proposed a bill that would make obtaining a license for a gun 10 times more expensive, you all would be screaming about your “freedom” being violated on this site.
#31 bob.
I cannot quite fathom the meaning of your comment.
Maybe this will help clarify any confusions you may have. I am not gay. Therefore, I do not have the confusions and complications of being gay as I make my way through this life. I do not have any animus toward gays who live a conservative life style. I oppose gay militancy. I oppose “outing” people. I oppose gay license in public places. I don’t know where I am “rationalizing” here or where my “ideology is contradictory.”
To really irk you, I will add that you have 100% of the civil rights that I have. You just have to find a woman to marry.
um…actually, heliotrope, our conversation didn’t involve “gayness” at all. we were talking about “freedom” and the conservatives on this blog wanting to get rid of no-fault divorce. my point was that restricting this choice (no-fault divorce), or at least making it more difficult, seems to contradict the constant cries of “more freedom!” that i always hear here.
wow.
and also, i’ve discussed why your argument for sham marriages is specious on several occasions. i’m not sure such a ridiculous argument deserves anymore of my time.
i hope you also realize that about 99% of gay people go about their lives quietly, not drawing attention to their sexuality and not being “public” about it. i would argue that holding hands with your partner is not “in-your-face” as some conservatives would claim, but that’s for a different argument. when you walk down the street and pass a gay guy who is not flaming and is not doing something that clearly identifies himself as gay, you do not make a mental note of this because you don’t even realize he’s gay. pretty much all the gay guys i’ve dated in my life have not been noticeably gay. can you start to understand why you might have a distorted sense of what gay people are like?
#31 bob answered me thus
I still can not fathom the meaning of this statement. I thought perhaps bob’s reference to my having a “contradictory ideology” (an oxymoron of the first order) was based on his belief that I was gay and opposing the gay “agenda.”
This all began with my cautioning bob that
So after an exchange, we are back to square one. What I am “rationalizing” when I charge bob with confusing freedom with license is, well, not something that can be addressed with logic. Apparently bob has come to the “realization” that my “ideology is contradictory.” Now that is a phrase, as the bard would put it, “full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.” The bard attributed his reference to a tale told by an idiot. I will refrain from any attributions.
If bob can explain what he has spoken in tongues and what meaning(s) a mere moral should grasp from it, I stand ready to learn and examine his point. Meanwhile, the snot of the whale has ruined the dandruff and the snow will not fall.
#36 bob notes
I won’t quibble with your 99% number, because we both know you pulled that out of your ear. I wish it were so.
I do not hang around with flamers, but I know a few. Suffice it to say, when I read the littleletterpeople on this site, they do not come across as Mr. Everyman who is content with the status quo. That would include you, bob. You have some political gay agenda issues that can only be pursued by putting being gay ahead of “living your life quietly, not drawing attention to your sexuality and not being ‘public’ about it.”
Now I smell a bit of contradiction in the air.
I have many gay friends and associates. We get along very well and have for many, many years. We are all adults and we don’t step on land mines. I was in Cabo recently, and one of my gay friends has a timeshare there. I asked him if I would like it. He said, “no.” Did I need to ask why?
wow, maybe i should just use smaller words so you can comprehend, heliogrope. my comment had nothing to do with your sexuality. the contradiction was explained by me as follows (i’m going to copy and paste):
we were talking about “freedom†and the conservatives on this blog wanting to get rid of no-fault divorce. my point was that restricting this choice (no-fault divorce), or at least making it more difficult, seems to contradict the constant cries of “more freedom!†that i always hear here.
in other words, which is it: do you want to intrude into peoples’ personal lives like most social conservatives do, or do you want “freedom”?
dense much?
heliotrope says: I do not hang around with flamers, but I know a few. Suffice it to say, when I read the littleletterpeople on this site, they do not come across as Mr. Everyman who is content with the status quo. That would include you, bob. You have some political gay agenda issues that can only be pursued by putting being gay ahead of “living your life quietly, not drawing attention to your sexuality and not being ‘public’ about it.â€
oh, where to begin. first of all, just because someone is not “content with the status quo”, that does not mean that he is a radical of some sort as you seem to imply. am i okay with not being able to get married someday (a non-sham marriage)? of course not. do i think having a dialogue on this topic is important? yes.
if you saw me walking down the street, or if you had a conversation with me waiting in line somewhere, you would likely have no idea that i’m gay. i’m in a long-term, committed and monogamous relationship, yet i don’t hold my boyfriend’s hand in public or show any signs of affection (despite constantly seeing, and being okay with, straight people showing modest signs of affection). no one in my family knows that i’m gay or knows that i’m in a serious relationship. i don’t bring my boyfriend to holiday dinners unlike my other similar-aged cousins/relatives. i am the very antithesis of “in-your-face”. despite my somewhat tersely-worded rants on here sometimes, i am an extremely even-tempered (almost to a fault), mainstream person who happens to be attracted to other guys. i am only “out” to a very select few.
i’m telling you this because you seem to think any gay person who doesn’t want to sit back and take the religious right’s bigotry in the chin like a little bitch is some sort of radical. guess what, we’re normal people like everyone else. what we’re sick of is people like you: people who obviously don’t have the foggiest idea about what being gay even means.
so to recap, heliotrope:
AmericanElephant made some comment about how the liberalizing of marriage by virtue of no-fault divorce was a bad thing. i then questioned AE (notice, i wasn’t even referencing anything you said at this point) about this seeming contradiction. he wants “more freedom” (or at least that’s a slogan i hear a lot around here), but he wants to get rid of no-fault divorce (i.e., he wants the government to make it harder/more expensive for two consenting adults to end a contractual agreement).
then you chimed in w/ some ridiculous comment that started with a little ad hominem and then progressed into something merely pointless about freedom and license and a reference to dictionaries.
i then responded that perhaps your mindless comment there was an attempt to rationalize a contradictory ideology conservatives often have about freedom: “get the government out of markets and off my income statement; let my company pollute however much we want; taxes are evil, etc.” followed by support for sodomy laws (restricting what consenting adults do in private), trying to have the government determine which relationships are worthy of a civil marriage contract, restricting a women’s right to choose, giving the government wiretapping authority to spy without a warrant, kidnap and detainee people w/o habeas corpus, etc…and in this instance, as AE was arguing, making divorce more difficult/expensive for couples.
is the contradiction more clear now?
moron.
*hands heliotrope his ass*
Thanks, bob, I completely understand your ability to reason. You can not tell the difference between freedom and license. I suspected as much, but you have gone out of your way to prove it.
As they say at K-Mart, “have a nice day.”
careful there, heliotrope, you’re not on the clock right now. wouldn’t want to do your job w/o pay!
and the fact that you didn’t address the substantive points in this argument is telling…
What boob will never realize, heliotrope, is that restricting divorce is only a limitation on freedom if marriage is an unavoidable state. But, since marriage is a choice freely entered that grants benefits and privileges, one would expect that the recipients thereof would be required to uphold their end of the bargain, just as with any contract.
The fact that boob and his fellow gay leftists shriek against no-fault divorce as being against their “freedom” shows the obsession that boob and his leftist ilk have with twisting marriage. They have no intention of honoring commitment; they want promiscuous sex with as many people as possible, and they want their “spouses” unable to take legal recourse against them for doing it.
Meanwhile, boob’s constant attempts to insult heliotrope just demonstrate more and more heliotrope’s point, that boob is a hateful bigot with an agenda who screams insults and namecalls anyone who dares disagree.
Why should we believe that boob behaves any differently in public that he does here? Wouldn’t that make boob a hypocrite and contradictory?
perhaps. or perhaps it makes you a liar and a sociopath.
NDT: “The fact that boob and his fellow gay leftists shriek against no-fault divorce as being against their “freedom†shows the obsession that boob and his leftist ilk have with twisting marriage. They have no intention of honoring commitment; they want promiscuous sex with as many people as possible, and they want their “spouses†unable to take legal recourse against them for doing it.”
1) i was not giving my opinion of no-fault divorce in that argument; i was pointing out a contradiction.
2) last i checked, no-fault divorce was implemented by heterosexuals for heterosexual marriage.
3) number of times i have cheated on someone: zero.
moving on… in #48 you call me a “hateful bigot” who insults anyone who disagrees with me…and then you…insult me…for…disagreeing with you.
w.o.w.
and you wonder why even the conservatives on this blog think you’re crazy.
Boob,
As Heliotrope and NDT have very eloquently addressed, there is nothing about my position that restricts freedom. Marriage is a voluntary institution. If you don’t want to commit, don’t get married.
However, what liberals seek to do is not protect freedom, but undermine commitment. Just as they want the Constitution to be a “living breathing” document that means whatever the hell they want it to mean, instead of a contractual commitment, or the way liberals insist election laws are meaningless when they lose, likewise they advanced “no-fault” divorce.
But voluntary commitment is essential to maintaining freedom. Freedom is illusory in a society where rules don’t mean what they say and contracts aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. That would be anarchy, and anarchy is only a temporary state that always leads to tyranny.
You are free to purse happiness because we all agreed to forgo the freedom to kill you should the idea tickle our fancy. Marriage is likewise strengthened by commitment. And liberalism has only harmed marriage and harmed society by undermining that commitment.
The rest of your examples are dull witted non-sequiturs that I’m not even going to bother with.
i’m all for commitment, AE, but i also believe in individual choice (yes, that can be a liberal principle as well). true, people could choose not to commit in the first place, but over here in the real world, we recognize that circumstances change, and the government has no business telling adult, consenting couples what they do with their relationship. sometimes people make bad choices. sometimes circumstances change. sometimes staying married is a worse alternative than getting a divorce, even despite all the negative consequences of divorce. this is a complex world in which we live, AE, and with all due respect (i mean that sincerely) i think your thought process w/r/t no-fault divorce is a bit simplistic, and frankly, backward.
translation: Boob is all for commitment so long as it doesn’t mean actually committing!
What is simplistic and frankly immature is the unwillingness to commit without an “out”.
Don’t get married, Boob. You aren’t mature enough.
there is a difference between the “ideal” and the real world, AE. the fact that i’m pragmatic and realize that sometimes divorce is better than staying in a destructive marriage doesn’t mean i’m less in favor of commitment.
the government has no business telling adult, consenting couples what they do with their relationship.
Tell us, boob, do you believe that organizations that receive tax exemptions should be required to follow certain rules or have their exemptions stripped? If so, why don’t you think that “adult, consenting couples” that receive benefits from the government should have to do the same?
the fact that i’m pragmatic and realize that sometimes divorce is better than staying in a destructive marriage doesn’t mean i’m less in favor of commitment.
The problem here, boob, is that you consider your spouse not being attractive enough to be a “destructive marriage”. No-fault divorce did not add the capability to divorce an abusive or adulterous spouse; it simply made it easy for liberal cads to ditch one and start over again without the previous one’s consent.
continuing your logic, NDT, if an organization receives tax exemptions, should it not later be allowed to stop doing business at some point?
oh, and thanks for once again proving you are the king of making shit up and setting up strawmen.
the fact that i’m pragmatic and realize that sometimes divorce is better than staying in a destructive marriage doesn’t mean i’m less in favor of commitment.
Define destructive, bob. Abuse? Grounds for divorce. Adultry? Grounds for divorce. My second marriage ended in dissolution because I didn’t want anything from her, except the divorce. If I had been forced to bring it to a divorce court, I was prepared to go after the house, and bring as much of the scene and as many people into court as possible. I made it clear I was going to make life for her and I in Ohio look like Atlanta after Sherman was done. Then I could move to FL and start over.
Sorry, still bitter.
My point is, a ‘destructive’ relationship is grounds for divorce. So how does your statement matter a whit to no fault divorce?
continuing your logic, NDT, if an organization receives tax exemptions, should it not later be allowed to stop doing business at some point?
Absolutely. However, it should not be allowed to stiff all its creditors for no reason and skip away without penalty, which is what no-fault divorce does.
The problem here, Livewire, is that boob and his leftist ilk want the pay without having to do the work.
when a company that has certain tax exemptions later goes out of business, it doesn’t have to retroactively pay back the tax exemptions, you ass.
This may be hard for a liberal like you to understand, boob, but when you give someone a tax exemption, you’re not assessing tax on them in the first place. There’s nothing to repay; you didn’t lend them any money.
However, if that company has assets that it accumulated, those can be sold off to pay off its creditors, especially if the company has broken its contracts. This is no different than the bank repossessing your house because you failed to keep up your end of the contract. No-fault divorce essentially is the equivalent of allowing you to not make the payments, but then insist that the house is still yours.