The threat to family and marriage

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 7/7/03 | Jay Bookman

[optimistically_conservative]

One of the more peculiar claims in today's political debate is the contention that gay marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage. I'm sorry; any logical connection between the two escapes me. I don't understand the mechanism by which one can possibly affect the other.

But that's not surprising. Logic has its limitations in explaining human behavior. In this case, a lot of people are concerned about the decline of family and marriage as social institutions, and I guess it's just human nature to blame whatever seems new and threatening.

In this case, gay marriage.

The problem itself is very real, of course. To their credit, social conservatives have been trying to draw attention to the decline of the family for a long time, and the rest of us are just now catching on. Recent numbers and research back up what many on the right have been saying for years about the consequences of that decline.

However, if there's general agreement now on the problem, there's no agreement whatsoever on what caused it and how to fix it.

Conservatives almost always trace the problem back to the rebelliousness of the '60s, arguing that the era's sexual permissiveness, decline of community standards and "if it feels good, do it" attitude have weakened marriage and parenthood. There's undoubtedly some truth to that assertion.

But that alone doesn't explain it. When I look around this country, I certainly have a hard time believing that it's been taken over by hippies.

What really gave that attitude true staying power, I suspect, was its embrace by corporate business, which saw in that ethos a way to sell a lot more goodies. Sex sells. Greed sells. Greed, after all, is just a monetized version of "if it feels good, do it." Both sentiments free the individual to pursue his or her desire without concern for the impact on others.

There has always been a tension in this country between freedom and responsibility, between the rights of the individual and the individual's obligation to the community. Our genius as a people has been our ability to find a balance between those two competing ideals, to pursue individual freedom while keeping social institutions intact.

But now that balance is disappearing, and it's got us all worried whether we realize it or not. The decline of morals and responsibility decried by social conservatives is the mirror image of the culture of greed and money decried by the left. They share the same root.

Over the past few decades, we have evolved into a culture that celebrates the individual and denigrates the group -- and responsibility to the group -- as a drag on the individual's autonomy. It's naive to think that family and marriage as institutions could somehow be immune to that corrosive trend, that we can abandon and discredit every other sense of obligation to each other while preserving family obligations intact.

However, it's important to keep this in perspective. The desire of many gay Americans to join in a union recognized by the community at large, for example, is itself a touching testimony to the deep human need for company through this life, and for validation and acceptance from the larger group.

I also got a kick out of a recent interview with Dee Snider, the lead singer for the '80s heavy metal group "Twisted Sister." The bad-boy band had initially rejected offers to play over the Fourth of July weekend at two New Jersey amusement parks, in part because they had to agree to clean up their act. They didn't want to play for some stroller-pushing, clean-living crowd, they told their agents. They wanted to play to Twisted Sister fans.

"And they said, 'Dee, your fans are in their 30s; where do you think they are on the Fourth of July weekend? They're out with their families at the amusement parks or the Jersey shore.' And that was like a real rude awakening."

In other words, family and marriage are resilient institutions. With a little bit more attention and respect, I suspect they'll play a central role for quite a few more generations.

[gcruse]

Makes a lot of sense.

[Calpernia]

Ping

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Where's the barf alert?

[optimistically_conservative]

Ping ...

[Misterioso]

That would be the knee jerk barf alert? I find it tiring that so many Freepers reduce their "opinions" to catch-phrases and slogans that only serve to announce that they are among the perceived majority on FR and don't advance discussion in the least.

[optimistically_conservative]

I'm hoping there might be a thoughtful exchange/discussion on the sources for the decline, and a recognition that homosexual rights is at most a symptom, not a cause.

I was particularly intrigued by Bookman's assertion that capitalists' greed and liberals' social permissiveness are two faces of the same coin and have been each others' enablers in the decline of social and moral institutions.

What I'm expecting is more "where's the barf alert."

[MHGinTN]

The dehumanization process of womb-bound human beings is where to locate the primary corrosive influence on marriage and family. Add that to greed and selfish 'feel good, do it' thinking and you have all that is necessary to destroy the central institution of civilization.

As to state approved marriage between homosexuals, if it can be done without forcing religious institutions to respond likewise, there appears to the article writer little to stop the practice ... and you know the damned lawyers will simply love the increase in divorce harangues!

Does the state sponsoring homosexual marriages bring with it the approval of homosexual adoption into 'untested stability' homes? Does state sponsorship of homosexual marriages bring with it the influence to force any employer to hire even a raving faggot to work in a family oriented or religiously oriented business? Does state sponsorship of homosexual marriages make yet a further mockery of the institution, given the promiscuity (statistics show it rages far worse than heterosexual promiscuity) and degenerate lifestyle of a majority of homosexuals?

Where the author of the article cannot find reason to oppose state sponsorship of marriage for degenerates, some might find ample reason to not institutionalize degeneracy ... degeneracy that less than thirty years ago was defined as dangerous aberrant behavior!

[Calpernia]

Ok, I'm here. I pinged ILMH. What would you like advanced?

[optimistically_conservative]

I think much of that is a predictable result of state sponsored homosexual marriage.

I actually favor being rid of the sodomy laws on the books today in that they are intrusive and lack a moral consensus for enforcement. I agree with the concept that an unenforced law is worse than no law.

Given the above, I would probably favor repealing adultery laws that are not enforced.

But I am concerned that these laws have been found unconstitutional for violating privacy (and perhaps soon equal protection in the Kansas case of Matthew Limon's sentencing) by SCOTUS. Given the decision, I would expect the next argument will be to redefine consensual incest criteria to allow sexual relations where genetics are not at issue (homosexual incest, half/step-siblings, etc.). I expect allowing homosexual marriages will lead to challenges in the criminalization of bigamy/polygamy as well. I can't see how there can be a compelling state interest in denying these relationships given the court ruling, as well as trends in Canada and Europe, and cultural demands from Islamic immigration to the West.

[Calpernia]

Sorry, most of us have been in a discussion on this issue off of your thread. You may view a doc I have on my server that is involved with gay marriages that we have been working on outside of FR: http://www.goexcelglobal.com/NJFamilyPolicy.htm

Let me know if you have trouble viewing it. I have a downloadable if this URL doesn't work.

[MHGinTN]

Regarding your tagline, perhaps she's too young? Is she a conservative?

[MHGinTN]

Thank you for the ping and the link to the NJ work! I've marked it for tomorrow's reading. Looks very well thought out upon first glance.

[Calpernia]

MHGinTN,

This has nothing to do with the post per say; but, it has to do with the MindSet Of the Lawyers (ie., ... and you know the damned lawyers will simply love the increase in divorce harangues!)

Read my post here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/938763/posts?page=286#286

And you will follow what the lawyers mindset are. It can cross over to this thread. Their mindset...not the subject.

[MHGinTN]

I'm going out onto the porch for a last cigarette before heading to bed. [It's 1:47 am here! Been trying to get a story finished.] I don't want to create nightmares by getting into a discussion over the lawyer problem in America. Thanks anyway.

[Calpernia]

NJ is a concern, were you pinged to Coleus's post? Maybe not, this may have been only a NJ ping: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/937674/posts But the significance of this ping has to do with the NJ doc you just saw on this thread.

[Calpernia]

Have a good night. I'm off to bed too. I'm done with my webwork for the night.

[optimistically_conservative]

That's a good document, thanks for the point.

In a previous post, I made the complaint that the conservative argument against same sex marriage can not be limited to:

1. Ick!

2. Against MY religion

3. slippery slope

I'm very please to know that there is a better argument being made.

[Calpernia]

I've heard race mentioned before. I've personally not seen race in my bibles (I have a few different versions). I've seen race interjected in later translations. I've never personally seen inter-racial relationships, where is that?

[LilithUnfair]

While I don't necessarily approve of homosexual marriage (as I believe it is biblical mockery of the institution) I don't understand the fuss over it as a state matter. Personally, I don't like the govt saying I'm married. As long as I'm married before GOD is all that matters to me. Yes, I'm "legally" married and have a piece of paper stating so. In my heart, I was married long before.

If the states recognize gay marriage, what does it matter? They already live together, have children, get benefits, have parades. They can have the govt, I'll keep the church. Which is really the most important?