Posted on 06/21/2004 9:06:30 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.
As America moves closer to embracing same-sex “marriage,” one can almost picture people in the wedding industry rubbing their hands in delight. After all, if we legalize gay “marriage,” we’ll have more weddings than ever, right?
Wrong. We will end up having fewer marriages, not more. Just ask the citizens of Holland, where marriage is going the way of typewriters and buggy whips.
In the Weekly Standard, Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, points out that in recent decades—a time when parental cohabitation was sweeping across Northern Europe—the Dutch clung to the last, ragged remains of their religious traditions. Yes, they engaged in cohabitation—but when Dutch couples had children, they usually got married.
Not anymore. During the mid-1990s, the rate of out-of-wedlock births began to shoot up. By 2003, the rate of increase nearly doubled to 31 percent of all Dutch births.
What accounts for this phenomenon? Gay “marriage.” These were the years, Kurtz notes, “when the debate over the legal recognition of gay relationships came to the fore in the Netherlands.” The debate came to an end when Holland legalized full same-sex “marriage” in the year 2000.
The conjunction of these two social phenomena, says Kurtz, is no coincidence. During Holland’s decade-long drive to legalize same-sex “marriage,” gay advocates openly scorned the idea that marriage ought to be defined by the possibility of childbearing. Love between two partners—any two partners—was the real basis of marriage. Thus, as one gay “marriage” advocate told the Dutch Parliament, “there is absolutely no reason, objectively, to distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual love.” Dutch leaders bought this argument. Marriage would be reduced to—as Kurtz put it—“just one choice on a menu of relationship options.” In marriage, as with cheeseburgers, you could have it your way.
Then a funny thing happened on the road to redefining marriage: Dutch people simply stopped getting married—even when they had children. This really ought to come as no surprise. After all, Kurtz writes, “Spend a decade telling people that marriage is not about parenthood, and they just might begin to believe you. Make relationship equality a rallying cry, and people might decide that all forms of relationships are equal.”
The ease with which the Dutch jettisoned marriage happened in large part because the Dutch had already abandoned their Judeo-Christian heritage. The few religious voices raised in defense of traditional marriage were drowned out. And as a result Holland is now going the way of Scandinavia—where acceptance of gay “marriage” has led to the continued deterioration of marriage.
What’s happening in the Netherlands gives us clear evidence of what gay “marriage” does: People stop getting married, and children suffer. Let this serve as a warning to Americans. Marriage between one man and one woman must be protected and strengthened. If it isn’t, then American families—already deeply damaged by divorce and illegitimacy—will be destroyed.
You are making the mistake that others have made. I am voicing a logically deduced stand, or opinion. I have never stated that this stand was mine; however it remains a logically valid viewpoint. YOU have assumed that this viewpoint is mine.
To this end, you have made some unflattering accusations and personal attacks. Please stop that. The point remains, however selfish and immoral it may be. Marriage is dying as a viable institution; but not because of Gay Marriage, but because of divorce laws.
Yes, this viewpoint is selfish; but so is the concept of Alimony / Palimony. Child support is a logically justifiable expense/risk. However, risking your existing property, wealth and savings; by entering a legally binding marriage makes no sense. For a woman to be married for 'x' days, then declare that she wants a divorce, and your savings, and your house, and your car, and your stocks/bonds is not only unfair; it is a strong incentive for a man to refuse to enter into marriage.
Also, the viewpoint of communal property is out-dated. In some (most) cases, it is valid; however provisions need to be made. Consider the movie star who's wife neither fixes food (Chef does that), cares for the kids (Nanny), cleans the home (maids), drives the kids (Chauffer), nor contributes in any way to the family. She exists for a sole purpose, sex with the breadwinner. Is it reasonable that she should expect to maintain the same standard of living for the rest of her life, if she asks for a divorce 'x' days later?
Again, the laws have worked very hard to make marriage an undesirable sustainable institution. Up until recently, there was a tax penalty for being married.
My view is that marriage is failing, because society and values are changing. It used to be unacceptable to have pre-marital sex; now it isn't. It used to be unacceptable to be an unmarried mother, now it isn't. It used to be unacceptable to be divorced, now it is the status quo.
What is the divorce rate? Better than 30%, and as high as 50% in some demographics. It's been this way for years. Blaming it all on Gay Marriage is not only mis-direction; it neglects a trend that has been going on for more than 40 years.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - More on Holland and its descent into the destruction of family. Relies on Kurtz's articles, with interesting debate down the thread.
Let me *and* scripter know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
Maybe not the total cause, but certainly an important aspect of the whole. The first was the deterioration of faith.
And, I don't know how old you are, but if you don't respect a gal enough to marry her, why don't you break off the relationship and let her find a husband, eh? 'Cuz chances are - even if she says she doesn't want to get married - she wants you to marry her.
But, I don't think you're mature enough yet to maintain a marriage. Takes work and compromise, laddie. You don't just "move on"!
A lot of people on this thread are unnecessarily dividing the destruction of marriage into an either/or - EITHER it's due to no-fault divorce and feminism, OR it's due to "gay" marriage.
Those two are just points on a line, or continuum. Feminism is just the flip side of the "gay" agenda platform. It's really just the same thing. The goal of both is to destroy the natural family, natural womanhood, and natural manhood. They both are founded on hatred for the natural order of family, the sanctity of marriage, and the need for children to be protected and raised by the natural parents. In fact, the founders of feminism were man-haters of the first water, and many were homosexuals as well.
Easy divorce, cheap sex and promiscuity, feminism, and "gay" rights - they're just slightly different facets of the same program.
"With marriage, we now begin discussions concerning alimony, my house is no longer 100% mine, my income is not 100% mine, my possessions are no longer mine. So, why would any sane man get married?" So tell us why you omitted child support? And the selfishness dripping from your post is a telling indicator of why you wouldn't make a good husband or daddy. Homosexuality may appear to be about relationships, but it is ultimately right in line with your selfish perspective ... frenzied sexual gratification is all about the one being gratified and the immediacy, not about relationship building for sustaining throughout life.
You are making a lot of invalid assumptions here. I would encourage you to think about the stance, and not attack the messenger.
There are a lot of reasons that people do not get married. Some people may 'like' the person they are with, but do not 'love' them. To them, it's a safety issue. They would rather have a lukewarm relationship, rather than being all alone in the world. These people probably should not get married, as that would simply make all parties involved miserable. In these instances, eventually people do 'just move on'. Would you rather a couple raise a kid in a lukewarm relationship, have a single mom, or have a miserable marriage? These people are out there, they exist; and there are a lot of them.
My stance is that the laws on the books are very unfair to men. To this point, men have now taken the stance that they will refuse to marry; as the consequences are out-weighing the benefits. Yes, this is selfish; but this is life.
Please note; I have not stated, nor will state that this is my viewpoint. This is merely a very common viewpoint. This viewpoint has nothing to do with Gay Marriage, nor with my personal views.
It is only women who eventually talk men into parenthood.
What a pathetic subset of people you must know.
Fundamentally, the social disintegration that follows the abandonment of traditional marriage is a product of rebelling against God's clearly ordained plan.
By recognizing homosexual "marriage" we'd be asking for chaos. And chaos is what we'll get.
Don't ya just love it when you criticize the grotesque divorce system that people call you immature, stupid, selfish, etc?
Recognizing Roe v. Wade has diminished the sanctity of life to the point where it is now viewed as a hinderance to a person's individual development.
And when the reproduction rates dwindle as they have in Europe, the society is sure to fall.
Marriage, the traditional cornerstone of childrearing, is seen as being a liabilty and useless. And so marriage is ultimately seen as a choice that is more of a liability than an asset to one's development.
Life is no longer looked upon as a sacred gift from God, but as a choice. Thus 'Homosexual marriage" is just another choice, no better or worse than the heterosexual traditional marriage.
But one thing is clear, when the procreation rates decline in a particular culture, the culture itself is usually in a steep decline.
We in America have zero right to speak having one of the worst divorce rates in the industrialized world. Maybe Italians or the Irish sould stand up for marriage - but we lost our right long ago on this subject. = rant end.
Expecting people to live their lives in a spirit of altruism didn't work as far as proping up Communism, why do you expect it to work for proping up marriage.
If you change the incentive structure so as to make it much less attractive for men, do not have an expectation that major numbers of men will continue to prop it up.
Men were willing to marry as long as they had confidence that the wife would continue to shoulder her share of the burden over the years, not put it all on his shoulders at the point where she felt "unfullfilled", and as long as he anticipated being connected to his children in his old age, rather than having them turned against him. Put those two things back, and men will find marriage attractive again
Yea, many "honest" men.
Reading all the denials on here is sickening. Good thing the denyers won't be having children to mess up.
Ping
Wow. The "institution of marriage" between a man and woman is that fragile that acknowledging a civil contract between two homosexuals, which are only 1% of the population, as a "marriage," will condemn its "rightness" to "become a joke."
an awfully weak institution if it can be demeaned and disparaged that easily.
No, it is just part of a big picture. After legally recognized gay marriage is nationalized by the Supreme Court, shacking up couples are going to be livid to see how gays get tax advantages they don't. And it will be quite hard to come up with an argument against treating married gays better than those highly principled folks whose say they don't need a piece of paper to santify their likely temporary love. All these factors and many more are coming together to make stable loving families a luxury granted few of our greatgrandchildren.
an awfully weak institution if it can be demeaned and disparaged that easily.
Yes, it is weak. One reason is easy divorce. Another is social acceptance of illegitimate parents. (There are no illegitimate children, but there certainly are illegitimate parents.) Almost every couple has good years and bad years, and, at present, things are set up so that when the bad year comes, absent strong religious grounding, the parents' interest will trump that of their children. Gay marriage isn't as big a factor in the death of marriage as easy divorce or social acceptance of illegitimacy, but it is one factor.
And, inadvertently, religious people and deliberately "liberals" are personally responsible for 30% illegitimacy among whites and 80% among non-whites in this country.
Both groups continue to vote for politicians who wisht to fund the welfare state which only subsidizes illigetimacy. Both groups do it out of "guilt."
Remember the following economic axiom: the more you subsidize something, the more of it you will get.
Since there are more religious people than liberals, if the religious people would step up to the plate at election time and vote the politicians out of office who wish to continue to fund the welfare state with the hard earn money of the productive part of society, illegitimacy and all of its known and easily identifiable social problems associated with it would disappear.
Just a reminder, prior to 1965, right before the point the welfare state really started to kick in tp gear, illegitmacy was 5% for both white and non-white.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.