Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

So I do wonder if the 'problem' in the OP has any practical relevance whatsoever. How often will it ACTUALLY matter to Mudfrog whether a same sex couple is married or not?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Nothing could be more opposed to Biblical teaching than homosexual marriage.

---

quote:

---

bishops are appointed, in effect, by the government. So, especially since 1997, they have only got the job if their credentials are politically correct

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
Pondering all this fairly recently, I couldn't help wondering why homosexuals with their often superior talents would want to do something so reactionary, retro, privet-hedge gazingly conventional as 'get married'. At least in the old days it was a little more avant guard and Brave New World.

---

quote:

---

A friend recalled visiting a man dying of AIDS at the time. A former massive bodybuilder, he had shrunk to 90 pounds. “Do I look big?” he asked, with mordant humor. In the next bed, surrounded by curtains, my friend heard someone singing a pop song quietly to himself. My friend joked: “Well not everyone here is depressed!” Then this from his dying, now skeletal friend: “Oh, that’s not him. He died this morning. That’s his partner. That was their song, apparently. The family took the body away, threw that guy out of the apartment he shared with his partner, and barred him from the funeral. He’s stayed there all day, singing their song. I guess it’s the last place he’ll ever see where his partner actually was. His face is pressed against the pillow. The nurses don’t have the heart to tell him to leave.”

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
...but in 2013? Surely there is something more imaginative and possible than 'getting married' or in other words dressing as a meringue for a day and being boringly ordinary. My point is that perhaps gay people are above all that, possibly bighter and more imaginative.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
At the moment in the UK, the option of marrying - for those tedious, traditionalist gay people who like the idea - is not open to them. I look forward to the day when this changes.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
I couldn't help wondering why homosexuals with their often superior talents would want to do something so reactionary, retro, privet-hedge gazingly conventional as 'get married' ... Surely there is something more imaginative and possible than 'getting married' or in other words dressing as a meringue for a day and being boringly ordinary. My point is that perhaps gay people are above all that, possibly bighter and more imaginative. ... But I expect more avant guard-ness and colour and less boringly ordinary.

---

That's a lot of expectations to have about someone else's relationships.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
That's a lot of expectations to have about someone else's relationships.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
...but in 2013? Surely there is something more imaginative and possible than 'getting married' or in other words dressing as a meringue for a day and being boringly ordinary. My point is that perhaps gay people are above all that, possibly bighter and more imaginative.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
...but in 2013? Surely there is something more imaginative and possible than 'getting married' or in other words dressing as a meringue for a day and being boringly ordinary. My point is that perhaps gay people are above all that, possibly bighter and more imaginative.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
Shorter version: I believe 'marriage' to be completely ludicrous in 2013 and wonder why certain people might wish to go for it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

For PR purposes I think it's unfortunte that 'tedious, traditionalist gay people' aren't the kind of gay people who are usually in the public eye talking about this issue. SSM is usually presented as a poke in the eye for traditionalism. The popular presentation is always about being modern, about dragging old-fashioned people and ideas into the 21st c.

The 'non-traditionalist' reading of marriage that we find here on the Ship is that straight folk have already destroyed marriage. If so, there's not much that's tedious and traditional about it; SSM is either a battleground for legal protection (in countries without civil partnerships) and/or a cultural struggle to disabuse straight people of the mistaken idea that marriage IS traditional.

What will happen once straight people no longer kid themselves that marriage is traditional? Who knows? The USA has a very high marriage rate compared to the rest of the developed world, so perhaps the only way is down. Marriage is already at its lowest rate ever in the UK, so there's probably not much 'de-traditionalisation' to do. [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
oh I agree. And most certainly for tax reasons. But I expect more avant guard-ness and colour and less boringly ordinary. I prefer single for all genders. But lots of sex of course.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

The divorce rate is much higher in the traditionalist states. It's marry young and divorce frequently in the traditionalist Christian groups. No doubt they're still reeling from the damage done by allowing inter-racial marriage in the last fifty years in the US.

So I would guess your prediction that ssm marriage is going to destroy marriage so far has turned out to be wrong.
[...]
My own prediction is that SSM will not destroy marriage but it will badly weaken traditional Christianity because those churches are more and more seen as a source of bigotry and hatred. Young people who grow up knowing gay people and knowing gay couples are much less willing to believe what is being spewed by their church leaders.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

c) Perhaps the real fear underlying the "they'll destroy marriage!" argument in the world at large is "what if these people we fear, vilify, and despise...turn out to be better at marriage than straight folks?"

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... I think that the innovation of SSM will work alongside the previous innovation of high divorce rates to make marriage increasingly look less and less like a 'traditional' choice. ...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I didn't actually say that SSM would 'destroy' marriage in the USA. (What a cliché that would be!) Rather, I think that the innovation of SSM will work alongside the previous innovation of high divorce rates to make marriage increasingly look less and less like a 'traditional' choice.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

What if SSM revitalizes marriage, instead of destroying it?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I didn't actually say that SSM would 'destroy' marriage in the USA. (What a cliché that would be!) Rather, I think that the innovation of SSM will work alongside the previous innovation of high divorce rates to make marriage increasingly look less and less like a 'traditional' choice.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I didn't actually say that SSM would 'destroy' marriage in the USA. (What a cliché that would be!) Rather, I think that the innovation of SSM will work alongside the previous innovation of high divorce rates to make marriage increasingly look less and less like a 'traditional' choice.

---

But is that a bad thing? If people are only getting married because it's a 'traditional' choice, their relationship is off to a rocky start already.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I didn't actually say that SSM would 'destroy' marriage in the USA. (What a cliché that would be!) Rather, I think that the innovation of SSM will work alongside the previous innovation of high divorce rates to make marriage increasingly look less and less like a 'traditional' choice.

---

But is that a bad thing? If people are only getting married because it's a 'traditional' choice, their relationship is off to a rocky start already.

---

Palimpsest talked about how Americans in 'traditionalist Christian groups' often marry young and divorce frequently. IF SSM discourages that kind of 'traditionalism' then it would ill behove Christians elsewhere to complain, absolutely!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

What if SSM revitalizes marriage, instead of destroying it?

---

I take American exceptionalism on board, so it's quite possible that this will happen in the USA. I don't think this has happened in other places where SSM has come into being, though. Someone may have some examples to share.

Re high divorce rates being an innovation: what I meant by that was that they represented a huge change in society. It's hardly a right-wing thing to say; plenty of sociologists and feminists would agree that the mainstreaming of divorce was a significant cultural turning point in Western society, whether for good or ill. SSM too represents an innovation - not that straight people are going to enter into gay marriages(!), but simply that an age-old heterosexual institution is now being brought kicking and screaming into a new era, with new values. (Well, there's been more kicking and screaming in some countries than in others! Let's keep a sense of proportion!)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
You know, I hear people saying this and it always irritates me. Not because I am opposed to SSM (I support it) but because it seems to assume that homosexuals are superhuman. Maybe that's better than assuming that they're subhuman, as many SSM opponents do, but they're just human. Neither better or worse than anyone else; some of them will not be interested in getting married, some will rush into imprudent marriages and get divorced a few years later, some will settle down with their soulmate for 25 or 40 or 50 years. The fact that some of these marriages may not last does not invalidate the rest of them, any more than a celebrity's serial divorces would invalidate my marriage

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
SSM couples don't have as much of the "we've just discovered we're pregnant so we'll have to marry to raise the offspring" marriages as hetero couples. I don't know how much that's a factor given modern contraception, but it wouldn't surprise me if a significant number of bad heterosexual marriages start that way.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

SSM couples don't have as much of the "we've just discovered we're pregnant so we'll have to marry to raise the offspring" marriages as hetero couples. I don't know how much that's a factor given modern contraception, but it wouldn't surprise me if a significant number of bad heterosexual marriages start that way.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Palimpsest:

quote:

---

SSM couples don't have as much of the "we've just discovered we're pregnant so we'll have to marry to raise the offspring" marriages as hetero couples. I don't know how much that's a factor given modern contraception, but it wouldn't surprise me if a significant number of bad heterosexual marriages start that way.

---

The point is not whether or not SSM couples will be better or worse at marriage than hetero couples. The point is that marriage (just marriage, as John H and the other Canadians keep saying) should be available to all freely consenting adults. That's all I'm trying to say.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I was addressing the point you made about being irritated that people assume homosexuals would be better at marriage.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Sebby, I'd issue a Hell call if I wasn't tethered to my iPhone and keeping my posts as short as possible. The whole point of SSM is to give same sex couples the same range of choices to be as boring or colourful as they want that straight folk take for granted, not to make being married compulsory.

And for what it's worth, I know that even couples into the leather scene and kinky sexual practices want to get married. It's not an either/or situation.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Carex

Your comments above seem to be somewhat specific to the American context. In the USA marriage seems to be highly valued in general (except among certain groups) to the extent that people continue to remarry after divorce, and cohabitation is less common. Also, in the USA marriage seems to bring real legal benefits. These conditions don't apply to the same extent in Europe.

---