"Traditional Marriage" ??

[Bob Hubbard]

Interesting

Fans of J. Michael Straczynski
The interesting thing about watching the debate about same-sex marriage, especially the declaration by many that marriage has always been a Christian family tradition, is that so many of these folks seem not to have an actual grasp of church history.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that same-sex marriages were routinely conducted by the Catholic Church for nearly three hundred years, from the 10th to the 12th centuries under what was variously termed “the Office of Same-Sex Union” or the “Order for Uniting Two Men,” what’s more compelling is what the Church felt about marriage between a man and woman for the first nine hundred years of its existence.

Basically, they were against it. Marriage created issues of property that could potentially be inherited by offspring rather than granted to the church or seized by lords in the absence of an heir. Marriage was considered by many of Christendom’s brightest lights to be something vile and repugnant. Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (160-225 AD), one of the most regarded Christian writers of his age, often derided marriage, saying that it “consists essentially in fornication.” Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus, the Bishop of Carthage, believed that marriage and childbirth was no longer necessary since the world was now full and ready for Christ’s return.

Consequently, for over eight hundred years the Church refused to have anything to do with marriage. It refused to allow marriages to take place on church grounds and prohibited members of the clergy from taking part in marriage ceremonies outside church grounds. They were to be performed strictly according to local customs without Church recognition, sanction or involvement.

It was only during the late 9th century that the Catholic Church, under pressure from followers, finally began to recognize marriage as a sacrament to be included in the list of other church rituals. But even then, it was considered a second-rate “lesser sacrament,” a poor cousin to the other, more important sacraments such as Baptism, Confirmation and the Holy Orders. It wasn’t until the Council of Trent in 1547 that marriage was finally accorded equal status with the other sacraments. (Ironically, many of the arguments raised at Trent against including marriage with the other sacraments were similar to the arguments being made against same-sex marriage today.)

So the next time you hear someone talking about marriage between a man and woman being a Christian tradition, after you mention the same-sex marriages of the 10th-12 centuries, remind them that conventional marriage, marriage between a man and a woman, was derided, ignored, prohibited, diminished or dismissed by the church for ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY SEVEN YEARS.

Then sit back and enjoy the ruffled-feather symphony, knowing that history and the facts are on your side.

 

[billc]

It sure seems as if the "people," like them some marriage between a man and a woman since it started in the ninth century...

t was only during the late 9th century that the Catholic Church, under pressure from followers,

And if same sex marriage is a religous tradition that goes back to the 10th or 12th century, why are you voting your religous beliefs by supporting gay marriage?

 

[WC_lun]

Interesting indeed.

 

[billc]

So, the wisdom of the common folk, to favor marriage, between a man and a woman, is fine when it goes against the church, but not when it goes against a secularist theory. I see.

 

[WC_lun]

Billi, what are you even talking about? The post just highlights that "traditional marriage" isn't as traditional as some think it is.

As far as the marriage being between just a man and a woman, can you explain why? What difference does it make if two women or two men get married? What harm does it do? Unless someone somewhere can show something other than prejudice or cherry picking from the bible as a reason, there is no reason our government should be restricting mariagebetweeen two consenting adults.

 

[billc]

For those who are anti-religious in this debate here are some articles that take on "what difference does it make.." argument from a purely scientific (?), demographic (?) argument that is now just starting to show itself...

Stanley Kurtz looks at the increase in out of wedlock births in the Netherlands after gay marriage was inacted...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217803/smoking-gun/stanley-kurtz

The numbers for 2005 are in, and the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate has done it again, shooting up a striking 2.5 percentage points. That makes nine consecutive years of average two-percentage-point increases in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate, a rise unmatched by any country in Western Europe during the same period. Ever since the Dutch passed registered partnerships in 1997, followed by formal same-sex marriage in 2000, their out-of-wedlock birthrate has been moving up at a striking clip. That fact has created a serious problem for advocates of same-sex marriage. (For a visual on this, see the chart in “Going Dutch?” and imagine two further years of two-percentage point increases in 2004 and 2005.

And what does Kurtz think happens when gay marriage is passed...

I’ve argued that the long Dutch campaign for same-sex marriage (which began around 1990) helped set the stage for the big continuous spike in out-of-wedlock birthrates that began in 1997. Gay-marriage advocates rejected the idea that marriage is intrinsically connected to parenthood, and the Dutch public bought that argument. Once marriage stops being about binding mothers and fathers together for the sake of the children they create, the need to get married gradually disappears. That’s why I’ve argued that the successful campaign for same-sex marriage led to the spike in Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrates. A preliminary spike between 1994 and 1995 was likely influenced by this long public debate, even before formal passage of registered partnerships in 1997.

Marriage has deteriorated far more markedly in Norway’s socially liberal, gay-marriage-accepting north than in its more conservative, religious south. Eskridge and Spedale effectively ignore this comparison, falsely characterizing my regional case as merely anecdotal. (For more on the regional issue in Norway, and on the birth-order issue, see “Unhealthy Half-Truths.&#8221

From Mr. Kurtz's article, "Unhealthy-Half-Truths."

http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200405250927.asp

The idea that Scandinavian marriage is dying is not my invention. Have a look at this 2000 piece from the Los Angeles Times. Scandinavians, the Times reports, "have all but given up on marriage as a framework for family living, preferring cohabitation even after their children are born." According to the Times, "the 1990's witnessed a resolute rejection of marriage, even among couples having children." Whether they praise or blame the Scandinavian family system, scholars agree.
Badgett's odd claim that Scandinavian marriage is doing just fine is built on a statistical trick. According to Badgett, roughly four out of five couples with children in Denmark and Norway are married. That's true, but it's also incomplete and deeply misleading. What Badgett doesn't tell you is that her "couples with children" figure includes only couples who are living together. Children who live with single parents or step families are omitted from Badgett's report.
In Norway, those children of broken families are put in a huge category called "other type of family." That category includes single adults as well as single parents and step-families. Separating out the subcategories, Norwegian demographer Christer Hyggen reports that by January 2002, only 62 percent of Norwegian children were living with married parents — far lower than Badgett's 80 percent.
Badgett's figures conveniently sidestep the central point. Cohabiting parents are 2-3 times more likely to break up than married parents. That's why parental cohabitation is a problem. Since cohabiting couples break up at a high rate, many of their children end up with single parents or in step families. By leaving those children out, Badgett disregards the true cost of the Scandinavian system.
And the problem is getting worse. In Norway, cohabiting families are the fastest-growing family type, while married couples with children are the fastest shrinking family type. The proportion of Norwegian children living with married parents dropped 16 percent from 1989 to 2002 (from 78 percent to 62 percent).

The important point is that registered partnerships and gay marriage have brought sharply higher rates of parental cohabitation to the Netherlands in just the last few years.

And this article details the problems that come from increased out of wedlock births as they may see in the U.K/Britain/place where they eat chips and drink tea,...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/births_outside_marriage_a_real.html

In an article entitled 'Births outside marriage: the real story', Professor John Ermisch from the Institute for Social and Economic Research, assesses the evidence and concludes that "the rise in births outside marriage is a real cause for concern".
Using 17 years of detailed longitudinal data from the BHPS, Professor Ermisch has been able to follow the stories of hundreds of real babies and calculate how much time they have spent living with just one parent.
This matters because there is powerful evidence that children growing-up without two parents have worse outcomes as young adults. Professor Ermisch refers to the "long-term negative consequences" of a child spending significant parts of their childhood in families with only one parent.

A baby born to married parents, on average, spends 1.6 years of their first 16 years with a lone parent. A child born to cohabiting parents spends 4.7 years with just one parents and an infant born into a single mother household spends 7.8 years.
The experiences of the babies in the British Household Panel survey indicates that being brought up by a lone mum or dad, particularly before they start school, translates into lower grades, worse job prospects and poorer health.
Marriage levels in Britain are at an all time low. Cohabitation has risen 64% in a decade, with just over a quarter of recent births to parents who live together but are not married.
But why should it make a difference to the life-chances of children whether their parents have a marriage certificate stuffed in a drawer? The BHPS provides help in this respect.
Only 35% of children brought up by unmarried parents will live with both parents throughout their childhood. For those with married parents the figures rises to 70%.
As Professor Ermisch puts it: "Having a child in a cohabiting union is often not indicative of a long-term partnership."

And the important part...

The experiences of the babies in the British Household Panel survey indicates that being brought up by a lone mum or dad, particularly before they start school, translates into lower grades, worse job prospects and poorer health.

So yes, there may actually be a bad outcome, non-religously based for those who are anti-religious, that may occur with the passage of gay marriage. Now, with an actual non-religious argument, can those calling the religious people out there bigots please refrain. They may have a sense of something that they can't explain, but just sense from real world experience with out of wedlock children who fair worse in society than those children who are in two parent homes. And yes, gay couples are two parents, but it seems there may be evidence that not equating marriage strictly to child bearing may have a bearing on out of wedlock birth rates. Read both articles and see for yourselves...

Yeah, you may think this is hogwash, but this is an argument that should be looked at, as the consequences to the individual children are devestating and the consequences to the society even worse. Worried about extremist ideologies, where do you think they will find their future adherents, the less successful, socially isolated, children born out of wedlock. Like street gangs, where do you think their recruiting prospects come from, out of multi-generational out of wedlock children. This is where you get 13 year olds who can kill without remorse, just ask any big city cop.

So there...

 

[WC_lun]

Billi, out of wedlock births are aready up and there has been no proven connection between them and gays being able to wed. Here's a couple of facts for you, just in case you forgot, gays are already together jus without thier civil rights and gays do not have out of wedlock babies...biology you know.

Also, that article is trash. Pure opinion based upon prejudice, not fact. There is no link.

 

[ballen0351]

Bob interesting read but has zero to do with US marriage laws. To say gay marriage was around in the 10th century makes no diff. In the US. There was no US in the 10th century. So you talk of traditions the traditions in the US since day one of this country was a man and woman. I dont care about traditions in other countries from 1000 years ago.

 

[Makalakumu]

I think it would be easier to show a link to a general decline in traditional family structures to the increase of the welfare state. The economic benefit of the family is undermined because the Nanny State replaces Fathers.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bob interesting read but has zero to do with US marriage laws. To say gay marriage was around in the 10th century makes no diff. In the US. There was no US in the 10th century. So you talk of traditions the traditions in the US since day one of this country was a man and woman. I dont care about traditions in other countries from 1000 years ago.

I just said "interesting". I wasn't applying it to "US Tradition".

But lets compare this 'tradition' with some others in the US.

Lets start with "Christmas", which wasn't celebrated in the US until the mid 1800's. Most of the dominant Christian faiths in fact, viewed Christmas as wrong. But that changed over time.

How about that great "Thanksgiving" we all enjoy huh. Oh wait, that moved around a lot since it was declared in 1863 and wasn't on a set date until 1941. So much for 'tradition'.

Ah! But Easter. Easter's a set 'tradition' right? Well, no. It too moved around a lot in the 'early days' (before US), and even today continues to move around the calendar. The traditional trappings of this holiday continue to evolve and there is discussion of fixing the date, though that's being debated hotly.

What's another "US Tradition"? Ah! Men wearing hats. Top hats. Well, that tradition faded away, as did sport coats, bow ties, and cuff links.

So, traditions change.

It used to be 'tradition' that you didn't date or marry outside your religion. But mixed faith relationships & marriages are an everyday thing.
It used to be 'tradition' that you didn't date or marry outside your race. But mixed race relationships and marriages are, again, an everyday thing.
It used to be 'tradition' that a dowry was involved in marriage, but that's faded away.
Did you have a 'honeymoon'? Well, that 'tradition' came from when you would kidnap your new wife and hide away with her, raping her repeatedly for 1 lunar cycle. Then she was 'yours'. I dunno about you, but I liked mine better...we were on a cruise ship and she was a willing participant.

So, again, traditions change.

Some places recognize "common law" others don't.
Age of consent varies from US State to State, and so therefore does the 'legal age to marry'. That too has changed over time, inching upwards so that all states are at least in the teens today. (Min US age ranges from 14-19 depending on state)

So there Ballen is your US Tradition. It changes as we as a nation change.

 

[ballen0351]

Traditions do change your right so your entire article was pointless thanks for posting it

 

[Josh Oakley]

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Makalakumu]

Now that's what I'm talking about! Can I get some concubines and get the State to cut some checks for it! Lol!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Traditions do change your right so your entire article was pointless thanks for posting it

Pointless to you yes.

To others, I don't think so.

But if it is that pointless to you, then please refrain from trolling the discussion further.

 

[Josh Oakley]

I actuly didn't think it was pointless at all. It further establishes the point. Traditions of marriage are not what many people think them to be, nor are traditions truly permanent. Therefore, an appeal to tradition fails on two fronts.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If we want to discuss 'tradition', lets do it during Kwanzaa. Or Festivus. Both long traditions going back generations and.... oh wait.

 

[Makalakumu]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, is there any benefit to traditional marriage?

 

[billc]

Ohhhh...just wait for the "Airing of Grievances," this year!!!! Next to the feats of strength that is going to be my favorite part...

 

[billc]

I have just pointed out an argument that the anti-religious requested seeing. There it is, there may be something to it, there may not be, but it is still there. Before we change the entire country for 3.8% of the population, in a way that if, if those articles actually point to something, real damage can be done to children raised in out of wedlock, single parent homes, and to society as a whole as it tries to deal with children damaged by multi-generational children raising children syndrome...

Now, since we can't build a road, or any advanced structure without an environmental impact study, this warrents a societal impact study don't you think? Just to be consistant in a lefty kind of way?

 

[Josh Oakley]

I have just pointed out an argument that the anti-religious requested seeing.

guess, being an atheist, I may as well step in here. It my views will represent MY views, though. Non-religious and anti-religious people cannot be effectively grouped together in a way that represents "the viewpoint of the atheists". So keep that in mind.

There it is, there may be something to it, there may not be, but it is still there. Before we change the entire country for 3.8% of the population, in a way that if, if those articles actually point to something, real damage can be done to children raised in out of wedlock, single parent homes, and to society as a whole as it tries to deal with children damaged by multi-generational children raising children syndrome...

None of which have a demonstrated causal link to same sex marriage. I know you like to site the Netherlands as your example, but even there you have yet to prove an actual causal link, even remotely. Two things occuring at the same time do not imply that one caused the other. Nor have the birth rates in the Netherlands been compared to the birth rates of the nine other countries that allow same sex marriage.

And there is a really hefty burden of proof on the person making the claim that homosexual marriage, which is inherently non-procreative, would somehow affect any statistic involving childbirth.

Now, since we can't build a road, or any advanced structure without an environmental impact study, this warrents a societal impact study don't you think? Just to be consistant in a lefty kind of way?

Had I been married to my wife in the '40s tell me that I couldn't marry my wife (due to me being white and her being black) I probably would have told you to take your environmental impact study and shove it.

BTW, not being a lefty, I feel no need to be consistent in a lefty way.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2