That doesn’t mean the government interest in marriage lies in romance.
I’d agree that it has a lot to do with why people get married. but you can have romance without marriage. I ahve a good romance with my gf but she will not marry because (not to be inconsistent, but she has clarified for me, and adopted my language to do so) she feels it is being mocked in many ways. She doesn’t want to make her or me a target.
There are probably millions or billions of couples who do not marry but have romance.
In my experience, new marriages form for most when they also have a child.
There is an obvious problem with basing marriage on romance, in my view, because romance fades nearly always. If it is based on that, then the romance fading is a reason to divorce. I would disagree with that. Romance fading is a reason to rekindle the romance.
Obviously we are talking, about people who didn’t know this when they got married. Knowing you are are sterile and not disclosing it can be grounds for divorce or annulment even in some American states.
Lobohan: It is not my place to provide you an education of common knowledge. See what I said to IvoryTowerDenizen and Marley.
I have no idea why you thought you were an exception.
gay is not a race issue and race issues have no place in this thread. If you want to debate it, open a thread about it, but I probably will not join you.
It isn’t common knowledge. It’s something that you ignorantly think is common knowledge.
Let’s be clear here. You have utterly no idea what you’re talking about. You aren’t apparently aware of even the basic concepts under discussion. You’re asserting that every time we change marriage divorce rates go up.
When was the last time we changed marriage? How much did the rates go up?
Was allowing interracial marriage bad for the country. It was a change to marriage. Do you think that black people and white people shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Please answer these very simple questions.
My guess is you weren’t paying attention.
Gay isn’t a race. But you said that every time we change marriage the divorce rate goes up. Allowing interracial marriage was a change.
Ok you got me. I was overgeneralizing when I said EVERY time. I said most times. But I am not necessarily sure that a correction in interracial marriage changed anything. If it did change something, it was the concept that other races aren’t people. of course I favor allowing interracial marriage.
gays are also people, but that doesn’t mean two men are a man and a woman.
Ask the next three people you see if they are aware of what happened to divorce rates when no fault divorce laws became the norm. I think you will find that it IS common knowledge and you somehow are out of the loop.
Just checking. Although this does nothing to support your assertion that changing marriage increases divorce rates. States currently have gay marriage and seem to be surviving with no trouble.
Asserting that something is common knowledge doesn’t make it so. If you’re contending that allowing gay marriage would increase the percentages of divorce (it would obviously increase the number of divorces, they would have them too), I’d like to see evidence for it. Specifically that it would increase the incidence of heterosexual divorce.
That they aren’t a man and a woman doesn’t mean they can’t get married.
It was tradition that a man could marry multiple women. It was a tradition that fathers chose the husbands for their daughters. It was a tradition that races couldn’t intermarry.
It is also tradition that two men or women can’t marry. Why are you so enraptured of the later but okay with dismissing the others?
Marley, I’d like to add to that too, for whomever might benefit from this advice I received.
After my second marriage failed so my wives could “fulfill themselves” (find a new lover after romance faded) (no I didn’t have multiple wives) I went to marriage counseling on my own, which my wives wouldn’t do with me. I actually started towards the end of the second marriage.
I was seriously confused as to what I should have done better. My counselor, after hearing me talk about it, told me if I wanted to marry again I needed to find a girl who DID NOT base the marriage on romance.
Her reasoning was that when you’re “IN LOVE” you are blinded to reality. “IN LOVE” often involves the construction of fantasy images about your partner. When these images are destroyed we then accuse “You’re not the person I married!”
She told me a good wife will be one who
assists in every endeavor where she can make a difference for the better and stays out when she can’t BY MY JUDGMENT of my own endeavors and can accept MY JUDGMENT for my endeavors.
Inverse of 1) will allow vice versa
Understands there is no workable thing as a mutual endeavor, its either hers or mine and if you cannot agree whose province it is you flip a coin and abide by it
loved me.
She said that was all I have to find. And deliberately left out “IN LOVE WITH YOU.”
An extremely wise woman. I can’t imagine how any man could ever be wise if he hasn’t listened to a wise woman first.
Please do not base your marriages on romance, friends.
If you have facts to support your position, not some threadbare rationalization you dreamed up on the spot to try to tell yourself it isn’t just bigotry, then it’s about damn time you delivered. :rolleyes:
The government doesn’t regulate romance. People who aren’t in love can get married and people who are in love can stay unmarried. However, in our society, marriage primarily awards legal recognition to a romantic relationship. That’s what our society wants marriage to be, and I think it’s better than the alternatives, which are essentially based on property, finance, and extending your family name.
Usually the marriage comes first.
And you’re welcome to your opinion. Now, what does this have to do with extending legal protections to gay marriage?
That’s still a relationship based on romance. It’s just a slightly different way of dealing with it.
Obviously, if you pass no fault divorce laws, divorce rates are going to go up. It’s not because you’re changing the marriage laws per se. It’s because you’re making it easier to get divorced. If we were to change the law to get rid of no fault divorce laws, that would be just as big a change, and divorce rates would go down.
If you won’t accept what I have previously proferred, or accept the common knowledge doctrine, I am thinking that I have a choice of prohecy or speculation. You may not demand I give evidence of the future. I suggest you read the whole thread paying careful attention to what I have said. When your objections more closely reflect an understsanding of my position instead of mischaraterization, I’ll say more. I’m tired of saying it.
Yeah but did you take a moment and google it? Or ask anyone around? The “I don’t know about it so it isn’t known ploy” is an invalid response. As I said, since you ignore divorce trends claiming it isn’t known you have reduced the debate to evidence of the future which is not a valid tactic.
Sir or Ma’am, I assert unequivocally and well within common knowledge that it does indeed mean they can’t marry in 44 states and according to the federal government (which I happen to disagree with, the feds, that is) and a large majority of nations on earth.
Since the minority of nations that are favorable to gay marriage are largely European, it is largely a European idea. If we’re not racists, why should we favor the European way of doing things?
I disagree with the federal government and DOMA because this is not an area the feds have jurisdiction in. The tenth Amendment plainly reserves this to the states or the people, or the ninth amendment reserves it to the people. One or the other, in my judgment I cannot quite decide between the ninth or tenth but it is irrelevant to the question does the federal government have that power. Clearly No.
Here your fallacy is “SOME are bad, therefore, ALL are bad.”
Do you remember sesame street? I used to sing along “…Which one of these things is not like the others, not like the others…” but maybe you missed that episode.
Aside from that, with the poor choices we seem to be making, (more than half divorce, common knowledge) I almost wonder if your dad choosing for you wasn’t a better system. But, of course, that denies romance sometimes. If the couple married are too stupid to make the best of things anyway.
However, in our society, marriage primarily awards legal recognition to a romantic relationship.
Citation please.
Maybe most people you know have better morals than people I know.
It has to do with whether or not romance is a good basis for marriage. You shouldn’t claim irrelevancy when you yourself raised the subject. And thanks for recognizing its my opinion.
My counselor described it more along the lines of partnership, its more like how well a pair works together. Of course the amount of like/love there is important. It just shouldn’t be the goal.
How many arranged marriages do you know of? How many people do you know who get married to unify their powerful families and produce an heir, or shore up their capital for their business? People look for someone who is compatible with them and whose company they enjoy, they date, and they get married if they chose. Marriage is primarily seen as the formalization as of a romantic relationship; the act of getting married makes it permanent (although it doesn’t always work out that way) and society offers incentives to married couples because our culture places an emphasis on marriage and the stability that comes with a functioning marriage. The fact that gay couples have romantic relationships just like straight couples do is one of the arguments in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. There’s no solid reason to extend those incentives to one and not the other. The whole child-bearing thing has already been knocked down since gay couples do have children and straight couples often don’t, and even if they don’t or can’t, they get the same rights as a couple with 12 children.
The horse has pretty much left the barn on that one. Most marriages (and long term relationships even without marriage) in Western culture are based on romance. I do think that’s for the best. You can create a relationship on another basis if you want, but saying gay marriage shouldn’t be recognized because romance is not a good basis for marriage doesn’t make sense. It’s not relevant.
Link number one is to a study which may help your argument. I assume you are asserting that this study has been replicated and accepted in peer review, and that it studied ONLY children in natural nuclear married families vs. ONLY children in gay families?
If it has been replicated, please provide the cites.
Link number two is an offer to buy something. Ads and business establishments are not evidence other than the business exists and what it does. Thanks, but no thanks. If you would care to share from the copy you have, that’d be great. Otherwise sorry, this is no evidence.
Link number three is not valid because it is a news story about a scientific subject that contains no citations to studies or quotes from the studies. Major news sources are valid in debate for many things, but not for scientific claims when the story does not say the source of the claim.
The expert they quoted was not the author of any of the studies and generalized about it without explaining exactly what they studied, how many, what study, what kind of study, etc. This is not sufficient evidence.