IF. The future of Marriage in America

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby RELStuart » Thu Mar 04, 2004 5:19 pm

<BR>"If" is the biggest two letter word in the English language...<BR><BR>The Nordic track:<BR><BR>State approval of homosexual marriage in Scandinavia contributed to the virtual disappearance of real marriage.<BR><BR>By Gene Edward Veith <BR><BR>No matter what happens in the homosexual-marriage/civil-union controversies, marriage as an institution isn't going away, is it?<BR><BR>Yes, it is. Marriage has already all but disappeared in Scandinavia. Other Europeans are heading down that Nordic track. And, if gay marriage is legalized, so will we.<BR><BR>That is the conclusion of Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, whose article "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" was published in The Weekly Standard.<BR><BR>Sweden was the first country in Europe to legalize homosexual unions in 1989, and Denmark and Norway followed soon thereafter. Today, a majority of children in those countries are born out of wedlock. Although some older couples are getting married after having more than one child, younger couples are dispensing with marriage altogether. Southern Seminary president Al Mohler reports that in Sweden, the few young couples who do get married often do not like to admit it, since what they have done is so far out of the norm that they feel embarrassed. <BR><BR>Couples just live together for awhile. If the woman has a baby, the father-unlike in the United States-will typically stay around until the baby reaches a certain age. Until recently, if they had a second child together, they would typically get married, but this has changed for the new generation. Once the children are grown, the parents typically go their separate ways.<BR><BR>What role has gay marriage played in the disappearance of marriage in Scandinavia? "Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated," says Mr. Kurtz, "and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable."<BR><BR>More direct causes Mr. Kurtz cites include the Scandinavian welfare state, which means that the family unit is no longer necessary for economic support. Plus, to support that welfare state, taxes are so high that both parents have to work. A vast state day-care system has taken over many of the child-care duties that once were the job of families. Also, the universities are even more radical than they are in the United States, with socialists, feminists, and other social revolutionaries-including those who denounce marriage as being intrinsically oppressive-having a huge influence in public policy.<BR><BR>Homosexual marriage has contributed to the dissolution of marriage as a significant institution in Scandinavian culture primarily by contributing to the notion that marriage need have nothing to do with having children. <BR><BR>Most instructive for Americans is what happened with Norway, traditionally the most conservative of the Scandinavian states. Sweden and Denmark have always been far more liberal, and in those nations the public wanted gay marriage. In Norway, though, the general public had gay marriage foisted upon it from above, by elite judges and lawmakers. The state Lutheran church opposed not only gay marriage but the growing trend of cohabitation and having children out of wedlock. The church also fought an internal battle over the ordination of those in homosexual unions.<BR><BR>The media covered the church's debates over these issues, taking every opportunity to attack and ridicule Christian teachings about sexuality and marriage. As a result, the church's traditionally strong influence on Norwegian society declined. When the dust settled, the liberal pro-gay and cohabitation theologians, who were once in a minority, took over the leadership of the church.<BR><BR>Another important finding about the Scandinavian experience with what Mr. Kurtz describes as "de facto" gay marriage-actually, they are "civil unions"-is how few homosexuals actually enter into them. A study published by Yale's William Eskridge in 2000 showed that after nine years, only 2,372 homosexual couples took advantage of the Danish law allowing gay unions. After four years, only 749 gay Swedes and only 674 gay Norwegians bothered to "get married."<BR><BR>Today's gay activists in Scandinavia, having gotten everything they wanted, now admit that their case for homosexual marriage-particularly that allowing gays to marry will encourage a monogamous lifestyle-was only a tactical argument. The goal, says Mr. Kurtz, citing two prominent gay thinkers, "was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality."<BR><BR>They achieved that goal, but now there is little social approval for marriage. <BR><BR>This stood out to me... <BR><BR><em>Today's gay activists in Scandinavia, having gotten everything they wanted, now admit that their case for homosexual marriage-particularly that allowing gays to marry will encourage a monogamous lifestyle-was only a tactical argument. The goal, says Mr. Kurtz, citing two prominent gay thinkers, "was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality."</em><BR><BR>I really think this is what its all about. <BR><BR>For instance, <em>In San Francisco, at a mass same-sex wedding reception held on Feb. 22, lesbian Laura Bauer celebrated. "This is a great thing for us," said Ms. Bauer, who on Feb. 16 "married" her homosexual partner of eight years and attended the reception with their 5-year-old daughter. "With everyone talking about family, now we can give our daughter a family, and no one should take that away from us."</em><BR><BR>Why does a piece of paper enable you to give your daughter a family that you couldn't have without it?<BR><BR>The main question in this thread is what will happen to marriage in America if gay marriages are allowed? Judging by what has happened around the world the future doesn't look real bright. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif"border=0>
User avatar
RELStuart
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2865
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:55 am
Top

Postby yovargas » Thu Mar 04, 2004 5:59 pm

We already talked about this in the already-existing gay marriage thread (thread #3 in as many weeks). The article has a rather obvious logical fallacy which someone in the other thread knew the name for but I forget. Essentially, the fallicy is "X happened, Y happened after X, therefore X caused Y". In this case, the fallacy on which this unsupported argument is being made is "Legalized gay marriages happened, all marriage rates dropped after gay marriage was legalized, therefore legalized gay marriage caused the drop in all marriages". It's a stupid argument apparently supported by nothing but this weak fallacy. I notice it said Sweden was the first to legalized gay unions in '89. Wasn't the internet just starting to become popular at that point? I think we should blame the internet. Oh no, wait. I think CDs started replacing tape cassettes around that time too. Maybe we should blame the popularity of CD sales on the decline of marriage. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-rolleyes.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Or maybe we could see that societies and cultures are complicated things that can't be simplified in such narrow ways and that the drop in marriage rates is probably due to other complex factors such as attitudes towards religion, evolving views on what constitutes a family, changing sexual attitudes, and probably a bunch of other stuff we can't even think of. I'd guess the legalization of gay marriage was "caused" by the same thing that caused marriage rates to drop, instead of guessing that marriage rates dropped because of gay marriages. Hell, by their own admission, gay marriages are few and far between so how much impact could it really be having?<BR><BR>But I thought this was interesting:<BR><BR><em>Couples just live together for awhile. If the woman has a baby, the father-unlike in the United States-will typically stay around until the baby reaches a certain age.</em><BR><BR>So they are saying that while marriage rates are dropping, parental involvement from the fathers is increasing? Excellent! I'd be for abolishing marriage all together if it meant less broken homes (which it wouldn't, or at least I don't see why it would, but if it did that'd be great).<BR><BR>>> <em>Today's gay activists in Scandinavia, having gotten everything they wanted, now admit that their case for homosexual marriage-particularly that allowing gays to marry will encourage a monogamous lifestyle-was only a tactical argument. The goal, says Mr. Kurtz, citing two prominent gay thinkers, "was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality."<BR><BR>> I really think this is what its all about. </em> <BR><BR>Obviously. Though the theory that marriage might lower promiscuity is interesting (though just a theory), people are generally much more interested in acceptance. Certainly lowering promiscuity is not in any way a primary reason for gay folks wanted this.
User avatar
yovargas
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3564
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 12:35 pm
Top

Postby Guruthostirn » Thu Mar 04, 2004 6:07 pm

What yovargas said. Cultures change. This looks very much to me as someone looking for an explanation. I won't comment on why.<BR><BR>I'd want to look at marriage statistics in the U.S. before making any claims that legalizing gay marriage would destroy the institution (or at least weaken it) of marriage. Already here I've been seeing more acceptance of single parents, people who have kids who aren't married, (People will blame PJ for the decline in marriage! He's not married to Fran, they've got kids, and they're successful! They're showing the world you don't need marriage! Oh Nooo!!!!), and people who get married but don't have kids. These trends are happening regardless of the legal status of gay marriage. As with my little joke about PJ, there are plenty of visible cases of acceptance independent of marriage. And then there's Hollywood, where you can see that marriage can turn off relationships. Marriage can be a bit hard, and for certain people a looser, but equally close and tight relationship can be better.
User avatar
Guruthostirn
Mariner
 
Posts: 5055
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:28 pm
Location: The Pacific Northwest
Top

Postby Mammo » Thu Mar 04, 2004 6:42 pm

Marriage isn't doing too well as an institution here... more than 50% fail. I am with you guys.. if committed parents stay together in an aimiable arrangement, whatever it is called, until the kids are grown - well, fine. There are too many children who are emotionally and sometimes, physically damaged coming out of marriages these days.<BR><BR>I also believe marriage is what you make it. It can only be harmed by the two people who enter into that particular arrangement.
User avatar
Mammo
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4538
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:41 pm
Top

Postby Tinwe_Linto » Thu Mar 04, 2004 6:56 pm

This topic did come up in the other thread. I speculated there that the real reason for the decline in marriage rates in Scandinavian countries was due to the decline of Religion as an influencing factor in people's lives in Europe, coupled with the rise of social welfare programs.<BR><BR>As for the decline of religion, I don't buy the argument that it's the fault of the media. A free nation will have as much religion as the people want regardless of what the media does.<BR><BR>As for the social welfare programs (which I generally tend to favor myself), I asked someone in the other thread who is from the Netherlands (I believe it was Elessar_theSecond) if the Netherlands or other Scandinavian countries offer special legal benefits to married parents that are not available to unmarried parents. His answer was that, to his knowledge, they do not. <BR><BR>So, take away the religious incentives to marriage and the legal incentives and what do you get? Logically, you get a decrease in marriage. How does gay marriage have anything to do with this? I don't see that it does.<BR><BR>I've also tried to make a point in other marriage threads that the state does have an interest in promoting the institution of marriage because it has benefits for society. While these benefits are not self-evident from the sorry contemporary state of marriage in general (see: divorce rates, domestic abuse, etc) they are, at least, implicit in the <em>concept</em> of marriage as it is traditionally understood. <BR><BR>These benefits of marriage which concern the government include - It promotes domestic stability (useful for pursuing careers which in turn is beneficial for the economy). It helps provide safe, healthy, nourishing environments for raising children (useful for producing responsible citizens who make positive contributions to society). It helps to promote fidelity (also useful for domestic stability [see above] as well as public health issues, i.e. containing the spread of communicable diseases).<BR><BR>Apparently, these Scandinavian countries have decided not to pursue the promotion of marriage as government policy. Whether this will make any difference to above mentioned social benefits remains to be seen. I haven't heard any reports of imminently collapsing economies, throngs of abandoned children or health epidemics, but then again, I don't live in Europe.
User avatar
Tinwe_Linto
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:58 pm
Top

Postby RELStuart » Thu Mar 04, 2004 8:26 pm

<em>Wasn't the internet just starting to become popular at that point? I think we should blame the internet. Oh no, wait. I think CDs started replacing tape cassettes around that time too. Maybe we should blame the popularity of CD sales on the decline of marriage. </em><BR><BR>The advent of the internet and CD's have <em>nothing</em> to do with marriage. An alternative lifestyle coming in to acceptence can have an impact on marriage because it deals with who can be married. <BR><BR><strong>Couples just live together for awhile. If the woman has a baby, the father-unlike in the United States-will typically stay around until the baby reaches a certain age.</strong><BR><em>So they are saying that while marriage rates are dropping, parental involvement from the fathers is increasing?</em><BR><BR>Actually they didn't say anything about parental involvment increasing. It just said it is different than in America where it is more likely that an illegitiment father will not be involved in his child life. <BR><BR><em>While these benefits are not self-evident from the sorry contemporary state of marriage in general (see: divorce rates, domestic abuse, etc) they are, at least, implicit in the concept of marriage as it is traditionally understood</em><BR><BR>I think every two people I have seen come through looking to get a divorce are married. Bout a 100% in fact. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> Domestic abuse on the other hand has been far and away mostly with live in couples. (In case you don't know or remember I work for a Judge.)
User avatar
RELStuart
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2865
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:55 am
Top

Postby Mr.bunny » Thu Mar 04, 2004 8:35 pm

<em>The advent of the internet and CD's have nothing to do with marriage. An alternative lifestyle coming in to acceptence can have an impact on marriage because it deals with who can be married. </em><BR><BR>Just like the promotion of equal rights for gays and lesbians has <em>nothing</em> to do with the decline of marriage. Do you get it now?<BR><BR><em>It just said it is different than in America where it is more likely that an illegitiment father will not be involved in his child life. </em><BR><BR>Is that a good thing?<BR><BR><em>Domestic abuse on the other hand has been far and away mostly with live in couples. </em><BR><BR>That doesn't mean domestic abuse is more existant among live-in couples than among married couples. Remember, a lot of domestic abuse goes unreported, especially when the couple is married.<BR><BR>*plop*
User avatar
Mr.bunny
Mariner
 
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2001 12:13 am
Top

Postby Tinwe_Linto » Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:18 pm

Sorry, I should have been more specific and said "spouse" abuse. The point I was trying to make is that the societal benefits of marriage are not always apparent, or even necessarily existent, in a society where the fundamental tenants of love, commitment, devotion and fidelity are so often missing from marriage.
User avatar
Tinwe_Linto
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:58 pm
Top

Postby Nira » Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:22 pm

Uhmmm marriage is on the rise in Norway ... conclution ... <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>No one is ashamed about marrying .. get a grip.
User avatar
Nira
Ranger of the North
 
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 2:28 pm
Top

Postby vison » Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:34 pm

Aren't there moderators here? Why do these people with their anti-gay agenda get to keep annoying everyone with these transparent attempts to make us believe what they believe? That stupid article about marriage in Scandanavia took up pages on another thread. It was boring and illogical then, it's even more boring and illogical now.<BR><BR>This is my own fault. What a ninny I am for reading it. What a ninny I am for replying!<BR><BR>
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Nira » Fri Mar 05, 2004 1:20 am

Statistics for you.<BR><BR><BR><BR><< <em> Population statistics. Marriages and registered partnerships, 2002<BR>More marriages contracted<BR>24 000 couples got married in 2002, one thousand more than the previous year. With the exception of 2000, <strong>the number of marriages has not been higher since the mid-seventies.</strong> <BR>[Nira]Wow we need to get more gay rights[/Nira]<BR>More than half of the marriages contracted last year, 12 700, were church weddings. This is the lowest proportion of church weddings since 1986. Over 7 600 couples contracted civil marriage, 30 per cent of all the contracted marriages. The proportion of marriages contracted abroad has increased steadily since 1986, but it has leveled out the last years. Almost 3 400 couples got married abroad in 2002.<BR><BR>[Nira]So the numbers increase if the church weddings go down? Lets outlaw church weding[/Nira]<BR>Age at first marriage still increase<BR>[Nira]..hhmmm Could there be other factors than Gay partnership and Chrisitanity? No to complex …. Don’t want to think .. .gay people are the source of all Evil[/Nira]<BR><BR>The increasing number of marriages contracted is mainly caused by first time marriages. The average age at first marriage was 32.2 for men and 29.5 for women. This represents an increase of 0.2 years for both sexes compared to 2001. For the last 30 years the average age at first marriage has increased. According to interview surveys the average age at first-time cohabitation or marriage has not changed or it has changed in the opposite direction. 72 per cent of the marriages contracted in 2002 were between two people marrying for the first time.<BR><BR>Highest marriage rate for women between 25-29 years<BR>The highest marriage rate at first marriage was for women between 25-29 years, with 65.8 per 1000 never married. The highest rate at first marriage for men was aged 30-34, with 57.1 per 1000 never married before. During the last ten years the marriage rate for people under 30 years of age has decreased while it has increased for those over 30. The increased number of cohabitations mainly causes this development.<BR>More unmarried men than women at the age of 50<BR>Assuming the marriage pattern for 2002 continues, 37 per cent of all men and 34 per cent of all women will never have been married at the age of 50. From 1960 and until the beginning of the 1990s similar calculations showed an increase in the proportion of men and women who have never been married at the age of 50. From 1990 and until today, there have been few changes. This is a result of more people choosing cohabitation as a way of living.<BR><BR>More people married a person resident abroad<BR>The number of people marrying a person resident abroad is steadily increasing. In 2002, 3 700 men resident in Norway married a woman resident abroad, while 1 700 women resident in Norway married a man resident in another country.<BR><strong>No changes in the number of partnerships<BR>183 partnerships were contracted in 2002, two fewer than the previous year. 105 of these were between two men, and 78 were between two women. Since the Partnership Law was established in 1993, there has been a different development for men and women. <BR>115 partnerships between two men were contracted in 1993, and this is the highest registered number. In the period 1994-2000 the number of partnerships between two men were approximately 80 per year. For the past two years the number has increased again. For women the number of partnerships contracted has increased steadily, and for the past ten years the number has almost doubled. The number has increased from about 40 partnerships in 1993 to almost 80 in 2002. . </strong><BR>[Nira]Our society’s walls are crumbling. 183!!!!!![/Nira]<BR><BR>For more information, please contact: tanja.seland.forgaard@ssb.no, telephone +47 62 88 52 24, christina.lyle@ssb.no, telephone +47 21 09 52 20, or oppdragbefolkning@ssb.no, telephone +47 62 88 54 00.<BR></em> >><BR><BR><BR><BR><a href='http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/02/30/ekteskap_en/' target=_blank>http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/02/30/ekteskap_en/</a><BR><BR>Let me give you the qualitative outlook. Partnerships are not an issue except in the minds of a few funides on the south coast. I don’t know anyone that has entered into a partnership, and I never think about it … except when the fundies start to scream up in outrage in the media…. Mostly in the US .. because … yes … it’s not a huge deal over here.<BR><BR>When I did not marry … and when I did marry .. partnerships, gay people, the queen and her uncle bob .. none of those influenced me at all.
User avatar
Nira
Ranger of the North
 
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 2:28 pm
Top

Postby Elessar_theSecond » Fri Mar 05, 2004 3:38 am

Sigh... here we go again....<BR><BR>I believe we adressed the faults of this article <em>ad nauseam</em> in the previous marriage thread. I don't think the decline in marriage can be attributed to any single thing, and least of all to the increasing recognition of gay marriages. There is one extra item here that I find a bit strange. Maybe RELStuart can elaborate?<BR>Homosexual marriage was legalised in 1989, 15 years ago. The writer then observes that couples "typically go their separate ways after the children are grown", which he sees as a direct consequence of legalising gay marriages. How can there be grown children to support this conclusion (assuming, of course, the children are considered "grown" at 18)? This would indicate, to me, a trend which started earlier and has nothing to do with gay marriages.<BR><BR>edited for spelling
User avatar
Elessar_theSecond
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 6:32 pm
Top

Postby Adurant » Fri Mar 05, 2004 6:37 am

<em>Aren't there moderators here? Why do these people with their anti-gay agenda get to keep annoying everyone with these transparent attempts to make us believe what they believe?</em><BR><BR>Vison and all:<BR><BR>Just a reminder that the role of the moderators here at TORC is not to stifle discussion or debate, and certainly not to censor content because it may be objectionable to some posters. Particularly here in Manwe, we want to foster the communication of ideas and we encourage everyone to express their opinions, even if those opinions are unpopular or distasteful to others. <BR><BR>What we DO require, is that, while doing so, you honor the <a href='http://www.tolkienonline.com/thewhitecouncil/tos.cfm' target=_blank>Terms of Service</a> of this site and be respectful of each other in making your arguments. When you disagree, attack the idea NOT the other poster. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. That said, we cannot be everywhere all the time. Feel free to e:mail me or any of the other moderators at any time if you believe that personal attacks are being engaged in or other violations of the Terms of Service are occurring. You can also reach all the moderators at once by sending e:mails to mods@tolkienonline.com.<BR><BR>Thank you.<BR><BR>Adurant<BR>White Council Moderator<BR>
User avatar
Adurant
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 6:20 pm
Top

Postby Romulus » Fri Mar 05, 2004 7:16 am

Homophobic, fear-mongering propaganda. That's all it is.
User avatar
Romulus
Rider of the Mark
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 7:58 am
Top

Postby RELStuart » Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:39 am

If this has been posted before I apoligize. I had not seen it myself. <BR><BR>Wow Nira that really helps put this into perspective. Thank you for the research and information. <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> <BR><BR><em>What a ninny I am for replying!</em> If I was mean I'd go on about how true that is <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> <BR><BR><em>Homosexual marriage was legalised in 1989, 15 years ago. The writer the concludes that couples "typically go their separate ways after the children are grown", which is a direct consequenc of legalising gay marriages. How can there be grown children to support this conclusion (assuming, of course, the children are consideren "grown" at 18). This would indicate, to me, a trend which started earlier and has nothing to do with gay marriages. </em><BR><BR>Could be. Like you pointed out we don't really know what the author meant by "grown". Of course nations that have ratified the U.N. Rights of the Child "treaty" have to treat kids as if they have many of the same rights as adults. So grown over there could be a whole diferent enchilada than in the U.S. of A.
User avatar
RELStuart
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2865
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:55 am
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:40 am

I think that they are overlooking the role of the massive scandinavian welfare state when commenting on heterosexual relationships breaking up. What you have is a correlation, but not yet established causality.<BR><BR><a href='http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1406' target=_blank>What has Government Done to our Families?</a>
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Elessar_theSecond » Fri Mar 05, 2004 9:39 am

RELStuart,<BR><BR>If it is similar to the Netherlands (my neck of the woods), "grown" could indicate anything between about 16 and about 18. Legally able to marry is 16 (with special dispensation), legally independant from parents is at 18. I don't think it is any different in Scandinavia.
User avatar
Elessar_theSecond
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 6:32 pm
Top

Postby yovargas » Fri Mar 05, 2004 9:51 am

So now that Nira has shown this whole argument to be not just a fallacy but a flat-out lie, there isn't anything to talk about.
User avatar
yovargas
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3564
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 12:35 pm
Top

Postby Minardil » Fri Mar 05, 2004 10:53 am

<em>So now that Nira has shown this whole argument to be not just a fallacy but a flat-out lie, there isn't anything to talk about. </em><BR><BR>Hey, there's ALWAYS stuff to talk about!<BR><BR>For instance, if some people are so concerned about the state of marriage in this country, why don't they advocated taking steps to HELP people get married, or better yet, help marriages in trouble stay together. Particularly where children are involved.<BR><BR>We have a fifty percent divorce rate in this country, and a tragically large number of our children are growing up in broken homes. If the purpose of opposing gay marriage is to somehow improve this situation, we seem to be going at it in a terribly roundabout way.<BR><BR>Why not fund programs that provide counseling for couples in crisis and help them work through their problems so that they can come out on them in a stronger and healthier relationship? No divorces would be granted, at least not where children were involved, until the couple had attended several months of compulsory relationship counseling. Naturally, exceptions could be granted in certain cases, where abuse was involved, for example, but most people get divorced because they just don't want to work at staying married, and I don't see why we should facilitate that sort of laziness. <BR><BR><BR>(I know what the answer to that rhetorical question will be, but I am interested in seeing it anyway. . .)
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby DrStrangelove » Fri Mar 05, 2004 1:38 pm

It's always fun to read right-wing Americans write about Scandinavia as some sort of hell-hole falling apart because of dangerous liberal policies. It gives me an insight into what it might possibly be like for Americans reading extreme left-wing Europeans condemn the entirity of US society because of its so-called McDonalds/coca-cola culture.<BR>
User avatar
DrStrangelove
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4753
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2000 1:00 am
Top

Postby Minardil » Fri Mar 05, 2004 1:41 pm

<em>It gives me an insight into what it might possibly be like for Americans reading extreme left-wing Europeans condemn the entirity of US society because of its so-called McDonalds/coca-cola culture.<BR></em><BR><BR>Ah, you feel my pain.<BR><BR>
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Fri Mar 05, 2004 2:22 pm

Mises isn't Right Wing.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Riverthalos » Fri Mar 05, 2004 10:10 pm

Even if that article had its facts straight, it's making a critical error in superimposing Scandanavian culture on ours. THe two have some similarities, yes, but also some differences. I've only been to Denmark, so I can't speak for all of Scandanavia, but Denmark has been much more socially liberal than the US for ages. In fact, according to my Danish friend, when the missionaries came in to convert the Vikings, they had to make a special exception for Danes with regards to weddings - a couple that had been living together for three years could be considered married in the eyes of the church.
User avatar
Riverthalos
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1691
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2002 6:13 pm
Top

Postby Mammo » Sat Mar 06, 2004 9:54 am

Right on Dr. S!!<BR><BR>Nobody forced anything on any of the Scandinavian countries - the system grew out of their culture and it works for them. Not what every society would want but why would anybody expect everyone to live in the same fashion? <BR><BR>Minardil is right about helping couples in trouble - there is a tendency to throw blame around, when trying to fix the problem might be more helpful. Many churches instruct couples asking to be married in that faith - anyone know if those marriages are more successful? <BR>Similarly in Europe, government agencies work with couples looking to adopt children both to help them decide if this is a step they want to take and how to adapt to parenthood. <BR><BR>Unfortunately for those having their own children there is not much constructive help here except text books. Very often they are far from their extended family. I don't know what the answers are but we should be looking for them.
User avatar
Mammo
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4538
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:41 pm
Top

Postby DrStrangelove » Sat Mar 06, 2004 11:09 am

<strong>Mises isn't Right Wing. </strong><BR><BR>The writer of the article, though, clearly is.
User avatar
DrStrangelove
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4753
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2000 1:00 am
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:06 pm

<strong>Mises isn't Right Wing. </strong><BR><BR><em>The writer of the article, though, clearly is. </em><BR><BR>Only if you mistakenly consider libertarians to be right wing.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Mr.bunny » Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:46 pm

Here we go.<BR><BR>*plop*
User avatar
Mr.bunny
Mariner
 
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2001 12:13 am
Top

Postby DrStrangelove » Sun Mar 07, 2004 10:10 am

<strong>Only if you mistakenly consider libertarians to be right wing. </strong><BR><BR>My point was that it is wierd to see political essays written about Northern Europe by those that clearly detest the politics of Northern Europe and therefore wish to portray it in as negative a way as possible and clearly utterly unlike the actual place is to the people who live there.<BR><BR>Which make me see how Americans must feel when those that detest the politics of the USA write about it.<BR><BR>There's little point in arguing the English language with you, given what you've said previously.
User avatar
DrStrangelove
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4753
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2000 1:00 am
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:45 am

<em>My point was that it is wierd to see political essays written about Northern Europe by those that clearly detest the politics of Northern Europe and therefore wish to portray it in as negative a way as possible and clearly utterly unlike the actual place is to the people who live there.</em><BR><BR>If that was your point, that's what you should have said. Instead you wrote that he was a right winger. If his "right wing" status wasn't your point, you shouldn't have written as if it were your point.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby DrStrangelove » Sun Mar 07, 2004 1:25 pm

<strong>Instead you wrote that he was a right winger. If his "right wing" status wasn't your point, you shouldn't have written as if it were your point.</strong><BR><BR>To each their own.<BR><BR>I wrote it because it IS a right-wing article and that it is invariably the right-wing that detests Scandinavian societies because of the perceived size of their welfare state and its intererence on "family values". Therefore if you read an article from the US Right about Northern Europe it betrays the same prejudice and ignorance as a European left-wing article does about the US - in my experience.<BR><BR>You can play our daft game of definitions as to whether you think it was "right-wing" by your definition of the word if you want. Given your previous here - I'm not interested.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>
User avatar
DrStrangelove
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4753
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2000 1:00 am
Top

Next

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest