The future of marriage

Good on ya. That's commendable. I leave them alone. Is it me who is imposing my beliefs on them, or is it them imposing their beliefs on me? Try to remember that its not I who defined marriage. This was established long before your great-great-great-great-great grandfather was a twinkle in his daddy's eye. Therefore, the imposition is all on their side of the table. So who isn't leaving who alone?Am I not afforded the right to speak for my beliefs? Is this not the age tolerance where we all can believe as we see fit? If homosexuals want to be together, that's on them. You won't see me flouting and jeering as they walk hand in hand down the street. If they want to establish their own kind of legal union, take it up with the courts. But please don't redefine marriage to suit an agenda. Wow, there must be connection. And I commend you on that rarity. Then let them be together until they die. Do you see me pushing for legislature to ban homosexuality? No. Just don't encroach on marriage and impose your views on the rest of the world, that decided a long time ago, that homosexuality is an aberration. See, the problem with opening the door this, it opens the door to all sorts of other redefining. You might say, "oh, that's sill." But, it was absurd to think that members of the opposite sex had unnatural unions just a few years ago. I don't think you can erase thousands of years of people being weirded out by homosexuality. And while there are certain places in certain times that condoned homosexuality, there has never been an acceptance that lasts more than a few generations. Don't you think there is a legitimate reason for that? I mean, this aversion extends past cultures, past religions, past borders, and countries throughout time. For face value, could you understand why its viewed as being highly irregular by most civilizations?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Well, are they trying to force you to be married to a man, or are you trying to prevent them from being married to each other?Let the outcome be your guide if you really aren't sure who's trying to force what on whom.

Bullshit.Sin has nothing to do with rights. And homosexuality is not a sin in the first place except in the minds of SOME folk.The duty of a Christian is NOT to "extricate people from their sins because they care enough about them not to allow follow their desires down the primrose path". The duty of a Christian is to try to live their own lives as best they can.Your life. Not others lives. No I would not agree. Sorry but that is just more NONSENSE for Jesus. Notice I did not say you are lying because I imagine you actually believe that bullshit.You said, "Secular law defines marriage as being a man and a woman, not a man and man, a woman and a woman, a man and a dog, a woman and a goat, or a man and a tree." If that were true there would be no need for all you bigots to propose NEW laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman. In reality, that is absolutely false statement and you have been told before that it is a false statement and the fact that bigots like you support NEW laws to define marriage as between a man and a woman totally refutes your assertion.You also try the old conman trick of trying to misdirect the readers attention while you palm the pea. No one is talking about a man and a dog or a man and a tree. To introduce such things is just plain dishonest. Again, just another FALSE statement for Jesus. In reality, that is absolutely false statement and you have been told before that it is a false statement and the fact that bigots like you support NEW laws to define marriage as between a man and a woman totally refutes your assertion. If you think homosexuality is a sin, then do not commit homosexual acts.The only sins you business dealing with are YOUR sins. Other peoples sins are none of your damn business

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let me ask even more bluntly then. Is the article geared towards a shift in views on marriage? IOW, is the NYT attempting to show how traditional views on marriage is growing obsolete, or do you think that its just telling you how many women don't live with their spouse?Lets look at is again:

quote:

---

" Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.

​

Several factors are driving the statistical shift. At one end of the age spectrum, women are marrying later or living with unmarried partners more often and for longer periods. At the other end, women are living longer as widows and, after a divorce, are more likely than men to delay remarriage, sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom... “For better or worse, women are less dependent on men or the institution of marriage,” Dr. Frey said. “Younger women understand this better, and are preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone or with nonmarried partners. For many older boomer and senior women, the institution of marriage did not hold the promise they might have hoped for, growing up in an ”Ozzie and Harriet’ era.”

---

And then there is this:"Men also remarry more quickly than women after a divorce."Hmmmm? But who are they marrying? Women! Marriage doesn't take place in a vacuum. And since the average is that the human population is comprised of 52% women and 48% men, that means there couldn't possibly be more married men than there are married. That means this study is completely fallacious, otherwise, the number of unmarried men would outnumber the amount of unmarried women."The entire story (based on the work of one ax-grinding, irresponsible, agenda-driven journalist for the New York Times) has been cooked up from willful, blatant and shameful distortions. Amazingly enough, none of the most respected and purportedly responsible media authorities have taken the trouble to call him on it...

​

According to the most recent available figures (from 2005), a clear majority (56%) of all women over the age of 20 are currently married. Moreover, nearly all women in this country will get married at one time or another. Among those above the age of 50 (a group that includes the celebrated Baby Boomers of the famously revolutionary ”60’s generation), an astonishing 94% have been married at one time or another and some 79% are either currently married or widowed.

​

Even including the younger, supposedly “post-marriage” generation, and considering all women above the age of 30, some 61% are currently married and another 12% are widowed. In other words, nearly three-fourths (73%, a crushing majority) of all women who have reached the tender age of 30 now occupy a traditional female role as either current wives or widows - avoiding the supposedly trendy status of divorced, separated, co-habiting or single.

​

How, then, could America’s “Journal of Record,” the New York Times, possibly peddle the ridiculously distorted story that most females now count as unattached?

​

Reporter Sam Roberts begins his tendentious account with the following declarations: “For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results. In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.”

​

This conclusion provided a shocking front-page headline (“51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse”) that gave rise to considerable cluck-clucking and tut-tting throughout the media echo-chamber.

​

So how could reporter Roberts read the same Census figures that any American can view (“according to a New York Times analysis”) and come up with such bizarre conclusions?

​

It’s all based on a fundamentally dishonest decision that Roberts never acknowledges in the entire course of his lengthy article. It turns out that in his analysis he chose to count some 10,154,000 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 as “women.” It should come as no surprise that this vast group of teenagers (yes, teenagers, most of whom live at home) are officially classified as “single.” In fact, 97% of the 15 to 19 year olds identify themselves as “never married.” The Census Bureau, by the way, doesn’t call these youngsters “women” - it labels them “females” (a far more appropriate designation).

​

Yet even the ridiculous inclusion of his ten million unmarried teenagers couldn’t give Sam Roberts the story he wanted to report - that most American “women” are now unmarried. As a matter of fact, the Census Bureau shows that among all females above 15 the majority (51%!) are still classified as “married.”

​

So the New York Times required yet another sneaky distortion to shave off that last 2% from the married majority, though this bit of statistical sleight-of-hand Sam Roberts had the decency to acknowledge. “In a relatively small number of cases, the living arrangement is temporary, because the husbands are working out of town, are in the military, or are institutionalized,” he writes. In other words, in his brave new majority of “women” without spouses, he includes all those thousands upon thousands of wives and mothers who are waiting and praying at home for the return of their husbands from Iraq or Afghanistan. By arbitrarily removing this 2% of all females (2,400,000 individuals) who are classified as “married/spouse absent” from the ranks of the married, and then designating as “unmarried” his millions of middle school and high school girls who are living with their parents, together with some 9 million elderly widows who have devoted much of their lives to marriage and husbands (42% of all women over 65 are widows), Roberts can finally arrive at his desired but meaningless conclusion that “most women” now “are living without a husbands.” Eureka!

​

If anyone doubts that this laughable analysis stems from a heavy-handed anti-marriage agenda, consider these quotes that Roberts features in his story, after declaring that today’s women are “sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom” -Michael Medved

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Ah yes, Michael Medved, one of the princes of the paranoia camp. He's writing as if he's just uncovered the Watergate break-in. If the article didn't make clear that the survey included 15-19 years olds, and if the article didn't make clear that the 51% included married women living apart from their spouses, his tone of expostulation might be warranted. As it is, he is simply blaming the messenger for a message that he doesn't want to hear. See-no-evil, hear-no-evil and speak-no evil might well be a wonderful combination for monkeys, but it ill serves someone who writes social commentary for a living. I think the NYT is reporting a fact, along with some analysis of how that change in the demographic make-up of the country might affect different parts of society in different ways. You, however, insist on imputing some nefarious motive to that reportage. I suppose you are concerned that women across the country will leave their husbands in droves, now that they see that most women are not living with their husbands.Here's a clue for you; marriage is still the dominant form of family unit in this country because so many people want to structure their lives that way. It's not the dominant form because folks are just going along with the flow. Let's do a little simple analysis.Assuming your numbers are correct, 52% female and 48% male, that means that there will always be more unmarried women than men, unless we let men take multiple wives. The relevant question is not whether there are more married men than women. It is, are there more unmarried women than men? Obviously the answer to this question must be yes. There's nothing fallacious about the study. You are correct that the numbers of men and women who are living together with a spouse must be equal (disregarding for the moment the small percentage of legally sanctioned same-sex marriages). However, given the unequal numbers of men and women, there must be more women living without spouses than there are men.Keep reading that paragraph until you understand it.The NYT is reporting a fact. You disliking the fact doesn't change whether it is a fact or not. A person using the signature you are using really ought to understand that.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Sin has everything to do with perceived rights. Everything. And all folk are entitled to that opinion. But it doesn't make it so. If I'm wrong, God will make me eat my words. Since He has made it crystal clear in His word and in nature, I feel confident in my assessment. What? EVERYONE tries to live the best they can, Jar. Everyone. So where does Christianity come in? Here is the problem with doing the best you can. The best we can do is conveniently subject to amendment at the behest of the person being their own moral guide. If you make your morals so low or that you will cleverly find ways to manipulate your own morality so that you are never actually in breech with it, where then does consequence come in?Therefore, there are only two options. One offered by Yoda, and the other offered by Jesus."Do, or do not. There is no try."That's the Letter of the Law. God says, you will keep these commands or you will be subject to the providential nature of God. However, no one's best is good enough. In which case, we turn to Jesus in the Spirit of the Law, because the Letter of the Law will crush us. We either fall upon the Rock and our "self" is broken and allow for His mending, or the Rock will fall on us and crush us. If it were only our lives we were concerned with, there would be no philanthropy, there would be no outreach, there would be no ministering, there would be no helping hands. And Jesus wouldn't have given us the Great Commission. I didn't restrict it or define it. The whole of a society has spoken on it. Its not a NEW law Jar. YOU are proposing to make a new law. But if you think otherwise, then your jurisprudence on the matter is being requested. The point is, Jar, that if you open the doors to this, it opens the door to other aberrations. Therefore, my making mention of it makes more than applicable, especially when proponents of NAMbLA and whatnot, are seeking to consolidate their penchants with ALL non-discrimination.In fact, David Thorstad, founder of NAMbLA is quoted as saying that "boy-love" is simply a complimentary facet of the overall homosexual conglomerate."Immediately following the Stonewall riots, some U.S. and Canadian gay rights organizations advocated the abolition of age-of-consent laws, believing that gay liberation for minors implied the permission to engage in sexual relationships. The Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), a group which splintered from the Gay Liberation Front in December of 1969, opposed age-of-consent laws and hosted a forum on the topic in 1976. In 1972 Chicago's Gay Activists Alliance and New York's Gay Activists Alliance jointly sponsored a conference that brought together gay rights activists from eighty-five different gay rights organizations and eighteen states. At the conference these approximately 200 activists coalesced to form the National Coalition of Gay Organizations, and drafted and passed a "Gay Rights Platform" which called for the "repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent." The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Rights Coalition, also known as the National Gay Rights Coalition (NGRC), supported eliminating age-of-consent laws, as did Gay Alliance Toward Equality (GATE)...

​

In 1980 a group called the "Lesbian Caucus - Lesbian & Gay Pride March Committee" distributed a hand-out urging women to split from the annual New York City Gay Pride March because the organizing committee had supposedly been dominated by NAMBLA and its supporters. The next year, after some lesbians threatened to picket, the Cornell University gay group Gay PAC (Gay People at Cornell) rescinded its invitation to NAMBLA founder David Thorstad to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival. In the following years, gay rights groups attempted to block NAMBLA’s participation in gay pride parades, prompting leading gay rights figure Harry Hay to wear a sign proclaiming "NAMBLA walks with me" as he participated in a 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles.

​

Thus by the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated. Gay rights organizations, burdened by accusations of child recruitment and child abuse, had abandoned the radicalism of their early years and had "retreat[ed] from the idea of a more inclusive politics," opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream. Support for "groups perceived as being on the fringe of the gay community," such as NAMBLA, vanished in the process. Today almost all gay rights groups disavow any ties to NAMBLA, voice disapproval of its objectives, and attempt to prevent NAMBLA from having a role in gay and lesbian rights events. International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) illustrates this opposition. In 1993, ILGA, of which NAMBLA had been a member for a decade, achieved United Nations consultative status." -WIKIThat means that the majority of the fledgling homosexual movement was in full support of Thorstad and his convoluted ideals. It was only when a little pressure was applied that a pedophile movements were ostracized by the majority of homosexual movements.Having said that, don't misunderstand to mean that all homosexuals are pedophiles. Indeed, there are gay and straight pedophiles in all walks of life. I only mention it because there was a time that the upper echelon of the homosexual movement sought to consolidate with NAMbLA, and secondly, that if homosexuality has been so successful in only 30 years, how much more could we expect from the same type of lobbying coming from pedophile movements?After all, its the usual guise, under the banner of "love." And who can argue against love? 'We just want to "love" the kids.' Yeah, I'm sure that's it.

quote:

---

Giving an opinion constitutes imposition? Remember, the law is already in favor, all over the world, that marriage is legally defined as a man and a woman. I'm not pushing anything. You are imposing your views. But, whatever, you have that right afforded to you.

---

Again, your jurisprudence to back up the assertion that marriage isn't defined as a man and a woman is welcome. You're even at odds with the dictionary. If sins weren't the business of other people, law enforcement would go out of business. And if sins were no one else's business, then maybe members of left wouldn't dance every time a priest or minister backslides. You know, its not like I'm uncompassionate to the sinner. The only problem I have is people that constantly make excuses for their sins and refuse to admit them.Lastly, every thing is connected in one way or another. And what you do may indirectly effect me, but it will directly effect society which directly effects us all. The same goes for all people.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

The title is called "51% of women now living without a spouse." The problem is in the wording and I wouldn't hesitate to say that its deliberate. The implication is that everyone reading the article or even seeing the headline will no doubt surmise that they are referring to women who have opted not to marry at all. Lets get real, that's the first thing that's going to pop in somebodies head, and they know that.

---

Er, the first thing that popped into my head when I read that was, "Hmm, that's odd phrasing, they must mean something very specific."The point is, I absolutely did not assume that they were referring to women who opt to not marry.Methinks you are projecting your own assumptions on everybody else.Maybe they assume that the average Times reader tends to be precise in their reading comprehension?

I'm sorry, but it looks like not only do your posts seem racist and bigoted, you also seem supremely ignorant or you are just plain being dishonest.What did the "Defense of Marriage Act" do? It defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.What are all the laws being passed in the states doing? They are defining marriage as between a man and a woman.Those are NEW laws being passed. Ah, another classic tactic of the conman. Change the subject. Create a false dichotomy. Move the goal posts and throw in a strawman at the same time. Bullshit. Utter bullshit. Typical example of the ignorance of most Christians.Laws have NOTHING to do with sin. Sin is something decided between the individual and GOD. Other peoples sins are none of your business.Police enforce laws. Laws are not related to sins. Laws are behavior standards agreed upon by society.You say: Again with the left? Folk don't dance when a priest or minister backslides. Frankly, it is the right that gets upset and sends the person away. What the rest of the world does, and that includes those on the left as well as conservatives like myself, is point out the total hypocrisy and bankruptcy of the Evangelical, Fundamentalist and Religious Right movements.Do you think most folk care when a minister sins with his gay prostitute? Hell no. Frankly, I don't even see a problem with it if it was consensual. Why do you even care? Others peoples sins are none of your business.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Sin has everything to do with perceived rights. Everything.

---

WTF?This is just nonsense.

quote:

---

If it were only our lives we were concerned with, there would be no philanthropy, there would be no outreach, there would be no ministering, there would be no helping hands.

---

...and no oppression, no persecution, no hate crime, no rape, not spousal abuse, no bigotry...

quote:

---

Do you think most folk care when a minister sins with his gay prostitute? Hell no. Frankly, I don't even see a problem with it if it was consensual.

---

I do feel rather bad for the minister's wife and children...

That's your argument? Child molestation is bad, therefore we have to make sure that there's only one penis and one vagina in any marriage between adults?Congratulations, I guess, on figuring out how to create a whole page's worth of statements in grammatically correct English that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Where's the evidence for your assertion that preventing same-sex marriage will reduce the incidence of sexual abuse of children?

I am embarrassed for you that you apparently have to be reminded of these very basic facts:Gay people of legal age want the right to marry other gay people of legal age.Adult humans are not the same as dogs.Adult humans are not the same as trees.Adult humans are not the same as children.Any reference to non-human animals, plants, or children in a discussion of gay marriage is completely nonsensical and idiotic.Dogs, trees, and children cannot give legal consent to a legal contract, so they are not part of the discussion.That's incredibly obvious, isn't it?Sounds pretty stupid to even bring such examples up in such a discussion, doesn't it?I have some advice for you:Stop listening to what Rick Santorum says. He's a racist, misogynist, homophobic jackass

quote:

---

Stop listening to what Rick Santorum says. He's a racist, misogynist, homophobic jackass

---

But thanks to the good senator, we now have a new word in the English language. (Although I feel sorry for all the innocent people who have that name already.)

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

On other forums in the past, upon proving conclusively to a creationist that one of his "creation science" demigods (eg, Gish, Hovind) was lying to him and deceiving him, I would then ask what they were going to do about it (as in letting that person know what they were doing) and they would insist emphatically that another person sinning was none of their business. Or it would have been another creationist on the forum that was shown to be lying, such that they were violating the Laws of God, and that creationist would refuse to deal with their violating the Laws of God because it was a non-Christian pointing it out to them, so I would ask the other creationist to step in and turn their brother away from damnation, that other creationist would insist emphatically that another person sinning was none of their business. And even when the two creationists in question were good friends and the question was one of the friend needing to help steer his friend and brother in Christ away from evil and back to the straight-and-narrow, the response was again an emphatic another person sinning was none of his business; he couldn't care less that his best friend was going to eternal damnation.Yet ironically, in all other cases they insist emphatically that other people's sins -- regardless of whether they are Christian or not -- are very much their business and they must take whatever measures and pass whatever laws they can towards that end.And then they have the audacity to wonder why we shake our heads in disbelief at their blatant hypocrisy.My opinion:
Banning gay marriage has nothing to do with preserving marriage. The real danger to marriage is divorce, especially the effects of the divorce laws that are "divorce on demand", in which one spouse may at any time and without giving any reason end the divorce and the other spouse is powerless to do anything about it. I've heard the national divorce rate to be estimated to be about 50% and the rate in Southern California to be at about 75%. Now that poses a great and very direct threat to marriage; gay marriage doesn't. Yet all these laws and amendments and rhetorics about "preserving marriage" obsess over gays and never turn their attention towards what to do about divorce.Could this be another case of hypocrisy?PS
Anticipating someone claiming that Christianity is the answer to divorce, I've been told that the founder of eHarmony.com, a conservative Christian himself, was motivated to enter upon his enterprise because the divorce rate among conservative Christians was significantly higher than the rate in the general population. A conservative Christian who had read the doctor's books had quoted that to me from the doctor's own writings; someone who also has those books should be able to confirm that.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The real danger to marriage is divorce, especially the effects of the divorce laws that are "divorce on demand", in which one spouse may at any time and without giving any reason end the divorce and the other spouse is powerless to do anything about it.

---

Huh? A person realizes that they don't want to live with another person any more and leaves. That sounds sensible to me. Sure, this is a "danger" to the notion that marriage is legalized chattel slavery, but that doesn't sound so bad to me.

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)