posted
Pixiest, Not to point out the obvious but you keep saying "our rights" and imply you are denied the right to marry. Do I remember correctly that you are legally married to a person of the opposite sex?
You haven't been denied the right to marry -- you are married. I think what you are saying is that if you had wanted to marry a woman, you would not have been allowed. You know what, exactly the same thing is true for me. In fact its true for every woman in the US. If I'd wanted to marry another woman, I wouldn't have been allowed to either. But just like you, that's not what I wanted so I was allowed to marry. By your arguments, we are all victims of discrimination, all denied our human rights because if we wanted to do things that the law doesn't allow, we wouldn't be able to. And I don't think the fact that you were more likely to have wanted to marry another woman than you presume I was makes you a victim here.
I'm just saying Pix, that by including yourself, a woman in a heterosexual marriage, as a one of the victims here you are seriously diluting the argument that there are any victims being denied any rights at all.
[ April 22, 2009, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: When Moses was in the house of Pharaoh, was he any less Hebrew?
But yes, I am currently married to a man. If the laws had been different 20 years ago, that might not have been the case, since I'm morally opposed to divorce.
(edit: By that I mean, about that long ago there was a woman I would have asked to marry me had that been possible.)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hets will continue to spew out offspring by accident. At least the ones they don't murder in the womb.
The idea that gay people never have offspring by accident is absurd. Lots of gay people, in fact the overwhelming majority, have at least experimented with heterosexual sex. Many gay people have been married to someone of the opposite sex. Several of my good friends have one parent who is gay. Its true that a same sex couple can't accidentally get pregnant, but that isn't the same as saying that gay people never accidentally have children.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Rabbit: When Moses was in the house of Pharaoh, was he any less Hebrew?
But yes, I am currently married to a man. If the laws had been different 20 years ago, that might not have been the case, since I'm morally opposed to divorce.
(edit: By that I mean, about that long ago there was a woman I would have asked to marry me had that been possible.)
But you are now happily married to a person of your choosing. By including your self as a victim here, you are seriously stretching the limits of logic.
And that is coming from someone who supports legalizing SSM. Imagine how it goes over with those who think its a choice you shouldn't be allowed to make.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: True. I'll try not to say "us" even though the entire issue of gay rights (including gay marriage) has had a huge impact on my life. It would take too long of a story to let people know why.
(edit: maybe I'll save it for a landmark...)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand, the tactic of implying that permitting SSM would lead e.g. to incestuous unions being given marriage status is on much more logically shaky grounds
First off, that wasn't my claim. I claimed demonstrating that arguments could equally support legalizing SSM and incestuous marriage does not prove that arguments are invalid. I claimed that even when a person uses a set of arguments to support SSM that could also be used to support legalizing marriage between close relatives, but opposes marriage between close relatives, it does not necessarily imply that person is being intellectually dishonest.
In the absence of some other argument being made, I would say it does.
quote: Second if you claim that any two consenting adults should be able to legally marry, regardless of gender, what reason is there to except couples who are close relatives?
In principle, I don't have a problem with this. I also not well informed about such relationships. It is irrelevant to the issue of SSM.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:KMB - Rights vs. Incentives. Different things
First of all, several courts have established that marriage *is* a fundamental right, at least legally speaking and this right was recognized before SSM was on the radar.
However, even if marriage were not a right, equality under the law is a right. Gays are making the case that they are "similarly situated" to heterosexuals and the principle of equality under the law, which is an established right, requires that all similarly situated individuals be treated equally by the state.
And if children are your concern, you should know that a large number of gays are already raising children without the benefit of these incentives. If the incentives have a tangible affect on the success of children, then choosing not to grant that same incentive to these families is causing a known harm in exchange for a hypothetical good.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Adoption can cost 10s of thousands of dollars. If you adopt from the county, it's much cheaper but they are not an adoption agency. Their goal is to return the children to the birth parent or some other relative. The foster-adoption parents are the *last* *resort*. The process takes years. The child/ren you've raised for 4 years since birth can still be taken away from you. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes it's completed sooner. But 2 years would be fast.
Also, being involved with the county means social workers coming to your house multiple times per week and your potential children having visitations with the birth parents who are still in jail/rehab.
Of course, you don't even get the kids until you've done a massive mountain of paperwork, taken classes (that mostly deal with the rules of "the system") and are investigated by the FBI. That process takes 6-12 months.
Going the county route is a massive huge painful mistake. Trust me.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand, the tactic of implying that permitting SSM would lead e.g. to incestuous unions being given marriage status is on much more logically shaky grounds
First off, that wasn't my claim. I claimed demonstrating that arguments could equally support legalizing SSM and incestuous marriage does not prove that arguments are invalid.
Depends what the arguments are. A simple "The government shouldn't look down my pants before giving my the civil paperwork that is my civil right" doesn't touch on the topic of incestuous marriage.
quote:I claimed that even when a person uses a set of arguments to support SSM that could also be used to support legalizing marriage between close relatives, but opposes marriage between close relatives, it does not necessarily imply that person is being intellectually dishonest.
But consent is at the core of most pro-ssm arguments, so it's not antithetical to support consenting gay people marrying, while worrying that an incestuous couple might not really be consentual, since historically, most aren't. Not many people really want to marry their brothers or uncles.
So I'd say that the argument isn't automatically applicable to incestuous couples.
quote:Second if you claim that any two consenting adults should be able to legally marry, regardless of gender, what reason is there to except couples who are close relatives?
The reason is that incestuous couples are highly likely to not be truly consenting.
But one can imagine scenarios where consent is beyond question, like where the family memebrs were raised apart, and never met until adults, in which case, there wouldn't by much of a reason, and people have stated that they would be fine with that.
It's all consistant with arguing that consent is the key concept.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
First, most studies were done with female homosexual couples. Turns out they are rocking parents.
Still don't know much about male homosexual couples.
The one thing I DID find was that there was a major difference among the children of homosexual couples. They are more likely to question gender roles. Lesbian women raise less aggressive males and more aggressive females. Female children of Lesbian couples are more sexually active and male children of heterosexual couples are less sexually active.
What does this mean? ::shrug::
One girl of a homosexual couple lamented that she feels like she is out there to prove something to the world, and she resents that feeling. She reported that she feels like family, for her, is a choice, and not a blood-thing. She said that her father risked being disowned by his own family when he came out and thus found his family in his friends. She said that she learned that value from him and sees her straight friends as blinded by blood, and such.
While that is a positive spin on the situation, I wonder if there are any negatives. Personally, I find that a bit disconcerting, but also beautiful.
Either way - in light of the research, I can say that I am now confused about the issue. It seems like there are differences. I don't know that it is a good thing that kids should be more willing to question gender roles, or that there should be a concept of "families of choice." But I can't say that it is a bad thing either.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Armoth, would you mind saying "gay" rather than "homosexual"? The repeated use of that medicalized/sexualized term is kind of irksome. It's usually done by people I don't think you'd really want to associate yourself with. If the other meanings of the word are what concerns you, consider the fools who try and claim that anti-semitism includes bias against all Semites, and not just Jews. Words mean what they mean; not what their etymologies might indicate.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth: Maybe she wouldn't see family as a choice if her homophobic grandparents hadn't booted her dad from the family.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Either way - in light of the research, I can say that I am now confused about the issue. It seems like there are differences. I don't know that it is a good thing that kids should be more willing to question gender roles, or that there should be a concept of "families of choice."
I think it is a misdirection to compare children of a gay couple to children of a heterosexual couple. There are no shortages of children needing parents that would take away the opportunity of heterosexual couples to adopt if a substantial base of gay couples started adopting.
A better study, in my opinion, would be to look at the differences in children brought up in foster care, orphanages, or the state versus children brought up in a gay couple's home.
Even tho there are many fantastic foster parents who deserve respect and admiration for what they do, the likelihood of drug, sex, emotional, and physical abuse in a non-stable foster or state environment is much higher then about any other living arrangement.
It is "overall" only better then the worst of the worst scenarios--like kids growing up with meth addicts with no support system.
Financially stable committed adults who are paying for the privilege of having kids, instead of being payed, is a God-Send to any child trapped in the system--no matter the sexuality of the parents.
EDIT and Note: I worked quite a bit with Foster Care and wish MORE families would be foster parents. God bless them!
This is a not a repudiation of foster care providers, just a recognition that it is not a better alternative to adoption--which is why so many of the good foster parents move on to adoption proceedings.
*There is also always a shortage of even foster parents. We need to do everything we can to open doors for the forgotten children to be placed in homes. Think of the horrors of not even being able to make it into foster care.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Hey Armoth, would you mind saying "gay" rather than "homosexual"? The repeated use of that medicalized/sexualized term is kind of irksome. It's usually done by people I don't think you'd really want to associate yourself with. If the other meanings of the word are what concerns you, consider the fools who try and claim that anti-semitism includes bias against all Semites, and not just Jews. Words mean what they mean; not what their etymologies might indicate.
quote:Either way - in light of the research, I can say that I am now confused about the issue. It seems like there are differences. I don't know that it is a good thing that kids should be more willing to question gender roles, or that there should be a concept of "families of choice." But I can't say that it is a bad thing either.
My impression is that while these differences are statistically significant, they aren't necessarily dramatic and the differences that do exist may be explainable by other factors, such as the fact that gays who partner and raise children are less like to belong to socially conservative religions.
Even the lack of formal marriage could contribute to increased sexuality. "No sex before marriage" is a difficult concept to teach as a parent that is not legally permitted to marry.
I'd also guess that the variance between the average child of gays and the average child of non-gays is significantly smaller than the variance within those two populations.
So, even if you draw the conclusion that increased gender identity issues are definitely a bad thing, I don't think that can be considered sufficient reason to object to that family structure without similarly objecting to, say, black marriages on the basis that black children are statistically more likely than whites to commit crimes, fail to graduate from high school, or live in poverty. Consistency requires that minor or even moderate deviations from the mean be ignored.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Hey Armoth, would you mind saying "gay" rather than "homosexual"? The repeated use of that medicalized/sexualized term is kind of irksome. It's usually done by people I don't think you'd really want to associate yourself with. If the other meanings of the word are what concerns you, consider the fools who try and claim that anti-semitism includes bias against all Semites, and not just Jews. Words mean what they mean; not what their etymologies might indicate.
Yes ma'am. Didn't know. Sorry.
I hope you weren't offended by the way I asked.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Female children of Lesbian couples are more sexually active
I suspect this distinction might go away if social rejection of lesbians were to go away. That rejection results in an enormous number of lesbians gravitating to the far left, politically. And there's a lot of licentious behavior that goes with that; not just sexual.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: That rejection results in an enormous number of lesbians gravitating to the far left, politically. And there's a lot of licentious behavior that goes with that; not just sexual.
HA. Just a guess, you've never been to a frat party. Or really any suburban house party.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Pixiest, or anyone else who's caught up in this struggle, read this:
quote:There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."
We've already reached the peak. We just need to wait for the dead weight to fall away. Free at last. Thank God Almighty, we're free at last.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Rabbit: When Moses was in the house of Pharaoh, was he any less Hebrew?
But yes, I am currently married to a man. If the laws had been different 20 years ago, that might not have been the case, since I'm morally opposed to divorce.
(edit: By that I mean, about that long ago there was a woman I would have asked to marry me had that been possible.)
But you are now happily married to a person of your choosing. By including your self as a victim here, you are seriously stretching the limits of logic.
Personally, I'll give this one to Pixie. We like to throw the word "logic" around on this site a lot but when it comes to matters of the heart, it stretches the limits of logic to try to apply that term. I'm glad Pixie is happy with her husband, but this very fact makes her an interesting middle ground case that I would not silence. We often talk about homosexuality only in cases where there is no choice, and then continue to argue whether or not that's true (that we don't choose our sexual orientation). But also in the mix are people who could swing either way and I wonder if these people might scare anti-SSM people the most. I don't know; I still fail to really understand their arguments and I wouldn't want to speak for them, but if you allow SSM then suddenly it makes it ok to be gay. People who would otherwise have found an opposite sex partner and settled down to a relatively happy life may now decide to go the other way.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even bisexuals can't choose who we fall in love with. I wasn't looking for a man when I found my husband, but I love him and he loves me.
The mere fact that hets outnumber us so badly make one more likely to find an opposite sex partner than a same sex one, all other things being equal. And making SSM legal won't change that.
There's more I want to say on this topic but it's too personal to post on hatrack.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Rabbit: When Moses was in the house of Pharaoh, was he any less Hebrew?
But yes, I am currently married to a man. If the laws had been different 20 years ago, that might not have been the case, since I'm morally opposed to divorce.
(edit: By that I mean, about that long ago there was a woman I would have asked to marry me had that been possible.)
But you are now happily married to a person of your choosing. By including your self as a victim here, you are seriously stretching the limits of logic.
Personally, I'll give this one to Pixie. We like to throw the word "logic" around on this site a lot but when it comes to matters of the heart, it stretches the limits of logic to try to apply that term. I'm glad Pixie is happy with her husband, but this very fact makes her an interesting middle ground case that I would not silence. We often talk about homosexuality only in cases where there is no choice, and then continue to argue whether or not that's true (that we don't choose our sexual orientation). But also in the mix are people who could swing either way and I wonder if these people might scare anti-SSM people the most. I don't know; I still fail to really understand their arguments and I wouldn't want to speak for them, but if you allow SSM then suddenly it makes it ok to be gay. People who would otherwise have found an opposite sex partner and settled down to a relatively happy life may now decide to go the other way.
And that's a bad thing because...? Folks can't settle down with someone of the same sex and have a happy life too?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thinking about this issue and listening to people, I think that a lot of the anti-ssm response is illogical, but in a different way then most pro-ssm people realize. I think many anti-ssm have been watching marriage and sexuality (heterosexual sexuality as well) change and lamenting that fact. And feeling extremely helpless over the changes. Marriage and families just aren't looking the way they used to. And then this ssm issue comes up- and suddenly there is a course of action. So, all the helplessness over the rising divorce rate, teen pregnancy and "shacking up" come out in this fight over ssm. They can't do anything to stop all that other stuff, but they can fight this battle and so this has become the line. It isn't really logical and it is out of desperation, but it is the only fight they can fight.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish they'd focus on domestic violence and abuse. Now THOSE hurt a family, not a gay couple down the street adopting 4 kids.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth, To some extent, I'm with you on the gender roles issue. It's not so much that I'm about strict gender roles - that seems outdated and doesn't match how things actually are - but I'm concerned that we're losing important things in losing aspects of the stereotypical male role. The increasing feminization of our culture and our boys concerns me more than a little bit.
But, even if that is a problem, it's one orthogonal to the question of same sex marriage. It would be an issue with the wider culture and would need to be addressed at that level. In this way, it's like marriage, which I think is extremely important and is in terrible shape in our culture.
The facts I can see is that same sex marriages/long term relationships and families work in most of the same ways that opposite sex ones do. The people in them are (on average) better off because of them and society as whole gets good benefits because of them.
As a strong believer and supporter of families and marriages, I can't see why this would be a bad thing to increase.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wish they'd focus on domestic violence and abuse.
The last time they did that we got prohibition. I haven't seen much effectiveness in dealing with domestic abuse.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think many anti-ssm have been watching marriage and sexuality (heterosexual sexuality as well) change and lamenting that fact. And feeling extremely helpless over the changes. Marriage and families just aren't looking the way they used to. And then this ssm issue comes up- and suddenly there is a course of action. So, all the helplessness over the rising divorce rate, teen pregnancy and "shacking up" come out in this fight over ssm. They can't do anything to stop all that other stuff, but they can fight this battle and so this has become the line. It isn't really logical and it is out of desperation, but it is the only fight they can fight.
Part of the irony is that one of the biggest things anti-ssm people could do to deal with the rising divorce rate is to stop getting divorced (although I'd prefer if they didn't get into bad marriages in the first place). Many of the religious groups that oppose ssm the strongest, especially evangelical Christians, get divorced at a much higher rate than the average population. Likewise, many of the areas of the country with the highest support for anti-ssm measures have the highest rates of spousal and child abuse.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What does feminization MEAN and why is it such a bad thing?
Sanction/discouragement of many aspects of the traditional stereotypical male behavior/drives and encouragement of traditional stereotypical female behavior/drives. I already covered why I think it is a bad idea. A lot of those things have a lot of value. Also, I think our culture is increasingly treating boys as "bad" for doing what is natural and in many cases, when done properly, healthy for them while encouraging stereotypical female behavior beyond what is healthy or productive.
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I think many anti-ssm have been watching marriage and sexuality (heterosexual sexuality as well) change and lamenting that fact. And feeling extremely helpless over the changes. Marriage and families just aren't looking the way they used to. And then this ssm issue comes up- and suddenly there is a course of action.
Squicky already addressed this well, but it's also worth pointing out that marriage has never meant the Beaver Cleaver dreams so many people imagine.
It's sort of pointless lamenting the decline of marriage when domestic violence, rape, and other offenses are down across the board. I'd say younger generations are having much healthier relationships, much later in life, with much less societal baggage, than ever before. Nobody cares if you date someone of a different race or the same gender, nobody expects you to wait until marriage for sex, and birth control is commonplace. I think we're doing pretty well.
The alternative, of course, is Bristol Palin.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I think many anti-ssm have been watching marriage and sexuality (heterosexual sexuality as well) change and lamenting that fact. And feeling extremely helpless over the changes. Marriage and families just aren't looking the way they used to. And then this ssm issue comes up- and suddenly there is a course of action.
Squicky already addressed this well, but it's also worth pointing out that marriage has never meant the Beaver Cleaver dreams so many people imagine.
It's sort of pointless lamenting the decline of marriage when domestic violence, rape, and other offenses are down across the board. I'd say younger generations are having much healthier relationships, much later in life, with much less societal baggage, than ever before. Nobody cares if you date someone of a different race or the same gender, nobody expects you to wait until marriage for sex, and birth control is commonplace. I think we're doing pretty well.
The alternative, of course, is Bristol Palin.
I don't think it is logical, but it is emotionally where a lot of people are coming from. Somehow, all these issues have become condensed into the ssm argument. Which is why they are willing to devote so much time and attention to something which really is not going to affect their lives nearly as much as so many other things. And I would disagree about whether or not things are better. I think that depends a great deal on which socioeconomic group you are looking at. But my husband spent two years at an inner city school and so I often despair for this generation and the next. And a lot of that does come from the loss of the two parent system. 14 year olds having a kid with the only help being their 30 year old mom who is also single is not a good situation.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa - I was not offended. Just didn't know.
Squicky - Yea. That is pretty much what concerns me too. I'm afraid of voicing that concern too vocally because It's a bit of a sensitive subject, but yea.
Lalo - The alternative is not Bristol Palin. I live in a community in which pre-marital sex is not very common. I think the expectation of being a virgin for your spouse is pretty cool. Now, I'm not saying marriages are perfect in my community - but I am saying that other alternatives exist.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: We often talk about homosexuality only in cases where there is no choice, and then continue to argue whether or not that's true (that we don't choose our sexual orientation). But also in the mix are people who could swing either way and I wonder if these people might scare anti-SSM people the most. I don't know; I still fail to really understand their arguments and I wouldn't want to speak for them, but if you allow SSM then suddenly it makes it ok to be gay. People who would otherwise have found an opposite sex partner and settled down to a relatively happy life may now decide to go the other way.
And that's a bad thing because...? Folks can't settle down with someone of the same sex and have a happy life too? [/QB]
I think you missed my point. I don't personally have a problem with SSM under any circumstance. I was just wondering if it might be a hangup for others. I'm still struggling to understand the anti-SSM point of view at all.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Lalo - The alternative is not Bristol Palin. I live in a community in which pre-marital sex is not very common. I think the expectation of being a virgin for your spouse is pretty cool. Now, I'm not saying marriages are perfect in my community - but I am saying that other alternatives exist.
Sorry dude, but Bristol Palin is the poster girl for Republican abstinence-only fundamentalism. She's young, white, pregnant, and pressured into a shotgun marriage by her conservative family to a boy she didn't love. Her life would have been miserable if she'd gone through with it.
I realize you prize virginity in your brides, but it's scarily reminiscent of fundamentalist Islam. A woman's worth is not increased or decreased by her virginity, no more than mine is. Why should virgins marry? I'd be in terrible straits today if I'd married the girl I lost my virginity to.
Having some experience with love and loss gives me an idea of what I want, and with what type of person. I've been in love several times, with virgins and otherwise, but I don't rank any of them based on their virginity.
I understand where you're coming from -- I think a large number of partners is grody, and I've never been with a girl who's had more than two previous partners. But I'm so glad I didn't wait until marriage -- my life has been remarkable, and that's in large part thanks to my adventures and romances with different women.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I don't think you do. Armoth seems to me to be talking about it largely as a community issue that concerns both men and women. You seem to be treating it as a purely individual issue and that it is only something for women.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't think you do. Armoth seems to me to be talking about it largely as a community issue that concerns both men and women. You seem to be treating it as a purely individual issue and that it is only something for women.
Indeed. My wife can count on my virginity.
And while I realize that your life has turned out just fine, so has the lives of many in our community. What I'm saying is that my way and the way of my community is not something you should sneer at like a fundamentalist Islamic idea.
Actually, it's an Orthodox Jewish ideal if we want to get our sneering right. But why is that okay, to disparage something like that and use the label "fundamentalist Islam" - do you realize how intolerant you sound?
Just like I may not know very many gay families, you seem not to know very many families from my community. I invite you to see for yourself. We are good people and this style works for us. By keeping the stress off of sex it emphasizes other aspects of our early relationships. I'm not saying that it is a better way of life, but just because it is different from your successful life does not mean that it is not also successful and beautiful in its own way.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: We are good people and this style works for us.
quote: I'm not saying that it is a better way of life, but just because it is different from your successful life does not mean that it is not also successful and beautiful in its own way.
Please bear those two admirable sentiments in mind as you continue to contemplate your stance on SSM.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Actually, it's an Orthodox Jewish ideal if we want to get our sneering right. But why is that okay, to disparage something like that and use the label "fundamentalist Islam" - do you realize how intolerant you sound?
Are you saying it's intolerant to suggest that Orthodox Judaism and fundamentalist Islam both prize virgins? Or that it's intolerant to suggest that fundamentalist Islam is a very screwed up culture? Because either way, I'm not sure you have a leg to stand on.
In any case, yes, I think it's unhealthy to expect virgins to marry. Sexual compatibility is one of the single greatest aspects of a relationship, and I can't imagine not being sure of it before committing to marriage.
If that's how you want to live your life, by all means. But I think the freedom to have happy sexual relationships before committing to a lifelong one is far healthier, both for individuals and for families.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: I think a large number of partners is grody, and I've never been with a girl who's had more than two previous partners.
I don't think you do. Armoth seems to me to be talking about it largely as a community issue that concerns both men and women. You seem to be treating it as a purely individual issue and that it is only something for women.
I disagree on both counts. I think it's every bit as unhealthy and rash for male virgins to marry as it is for female virgins.
But more to the point, I don't understand distinguishing between the community and the individual. There's not a trade-off between the two -- a happier individual doesn't contribute to a more dysfunctional community, nor vice versa. Marrying young and inexperienced isn't a contribution to the stability of society.
I'd argue that families of mature, happy couples are more likely to form a better community than those pressured together as children by carnal urges, unplanned pregnancies, or religious duties.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In any case, yes, I think it's unhealthy to expect virgins to marry. Sexual compatibility is one of the single greatest aspects of a relationship, and I can't imagine not being sure of it before committing to marriage.
Lots of people think you need to have this or that or should or should not do X or Y. For me, the proof is going to be in the data. I haven't seen anything that shows the marriages and families of cultures that promote holding sex till marriage are intrinsically inferior to those that do.
---
Lalo, for you - for many people - what Armoth is talking about wouldn't work. That doesn't mean that it's not possible for it to work in different contexts.
If you're going to talk about people from very different contexts, you've going to have to get better at taking their perspective or at least allowing that they can have a perspective different from yours that doesn't suck.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But more to the point, I don't understand distinguishing between the community and the individual.
I know you don't. But I think it's a very important thing to understand about where Armoth is coming from. Whether or not you ultimately agree, I'm pretty sure there is something there that you're not considering. I'm going to try to address it this weekend.
posted
Is it possible to work? Sure, it's possible, and in many cases it surely happens.
And there certainly shouldn't be anything against someone being a virgin, even when they marry, and it does have certain benefits, especially when it comes to risk of disease and things like that.
But it's an ideal that, if held too stringently, also has the potential to do some damage, if combined with, well, how teenagers can be, and how religious parents can occasionally be.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it's an ideal that, if held too stringently, also has the potential to do some damage, if combined with, well, how teenagers can be, and how religious parents can occasionally be.
As is the ideal that people should not be virgins when they are married or pretty much any ideal.
Barring extremely unrealistic expectations, the problems with ideals often come more from how they held and transmitted than it what they actually are.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
