Posts tagged ‘Marriage’

June 30, 2011

Pride and Prejudice: Reflecting on New York’s Marriage Law (Part 2)

by thefulllidvmg

Let’s first take a look at Presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s lamentation over New York (this is almost the most foaming at the mouth pro-family you can get today):

I have long opposed the redefinition and nullification of marriage, the central building block for society. Indeed, as a U.S. senator I co-sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Marriage Amendment. As a citizen, I actively campaigned against the judges in Iowa who ordered gay marriage there.  I also was one of the first to step out and encourage the leadership of the House of Representatives to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court when the president refused to do so. Unlike others in this race, I believe it is the role of the president to weigh in when states try to redefine the meaning of marriage. Marriage is defined in the federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife; any state that redefines marriage is wreaking havoc not only with the definitions of the federal law and the majority of states, but, even more importantly, with the single most important and time-tested institution of every successful society.

My emphasis is made on the last sentence. There is a general lamenation that traditional marriage is fleeting. To some, passing legislation to allow people of different sexual orientations dissolves traditional marriage. But wait, same-sex marriage has been legal in some states for some time now. Why has the family been doing better, not worse, since then? David Frum gives a personal take:

I was a strong opponent of same-sex marriage. Fourteen years ago, Andrew Sullivan and I forcefully debated the issue at length online (at a time when online debate was a brand new thing).

Yet I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state’s vote to authorize same-sex marriage — a vote that probably signals that most of “blue” states will follow within the next 10 years.

I don’t think I’m alone in my reaction either. Most conservatives have reacted with calm — if not outright approval — to New York’s dramatic decision.

Why?

The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.

Since 1997, same-sex marriage has evolved from talk to fact.

If people like me had been right, we should have seen the American family become radically more unstable over the subsequent decade and a half.

Instead — while American family stability has continued to deteriorate — it has deteriorated much more slowly than it did in the 1970s and 1980s before same-sex marriage was ever seriously thought of.

By the numbers, in fact, the 2000s were the least bad decade for American family stability since the fabled 1950s. And when you take a closer look at the American family, the facts have become even tougher for the anti-gay marriage position.

Mataconis sums up Frum’s point:

Indeed. We’ve lived with same-sex marriage, and more generally increasing acceptance of homosexuality, for long enough now to know that the gloom-and-doom preachers were wrong and that the world isn’t going to end just because two women, or two men, go down to City Hall and get a marriage license.

Kathryn Jean Lopez brings up a quote from George Weigel. She ends her post with no comment regarding his quote:

Marriage, as both religious and secular thinkers have acknowledged for millennia, is a social institution that is older than the state and that precedes the state. The task of a just state is to recognize and support this older, prior social institution; it is not to attempt its redefinition. To do the latter involves indulging the totalitarian temptation that lurks within all modern states: the temptation to remanufacture reality. The American civil-rights movement was a call to recognize moral reality; the call for gay marriage is a call to reinvent reality to fit an agenda of personal willfulness. The gay-marriage movement is thus not the heir of the civil-rights movement; it is the heir of Bull Connor and others who tried to impose their false idea of moral reality on others by coercive state power.

A humane society will find ample room in the law for accommodating a variety of human relationships in matters of custodial care, hospital visiting rights, and inheritance. But there is nothing humane about the long march toward the dictatorship of relativism, nor will there be anything humane about the destination of that march, should it be reached. The viciousness visited upon Archbishop Dolan and other defenders of marriage rightly understood during the weeks before the vote in Albany is yet another testimony to the totalitarian impulse that lurks beneath the gay marriage movement.

Because a same-sex marriage is not reality for some heterosexuals does not mean it is not reality for others. You gotta love the comparison of Bull Conor and the use of fire hoses (powerful enough to peel bark off of trees) on African Americans in preventing them to vote to marriage equality (legislatively achieved through many measures, not in totalitarian fashion by a dictator). As Sullivan notes, we live in a republic, not a church. I am left wondering what aspects of life are on the sacrosanct list never to be touched, altered, or changed for the sake of doing something about an ever growing group of humans

(Photo: A young boy waves a flag during the 2011 NYC LGBT Pride March on the streets of Manhattan on June 26, 2011 in New York City. Thousands of revelers had reason to celebrate since New York state legislators approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage which Governor Cuomo signed in to law on Friday June 24. By Jemal Countess/Getty Images)

June 27, 2011

Pride and Prejudice: Reflecting on New York’s Marriage Law (Part 1)

by thefulllidvmg

The passing on Friday of the New York state law allowing same-sex couples to marry (which kicks in in 30 days) was monumental. The population of the Empire State alone (19 some million people) outnumbers the five other relatively small Northeastern states (and Iowa /D.C.).

This law, and many other important events, are going to be almost magnified in importance as we approach the 2012 election. Each candidate, including the incumbent, will be asked what they think about the new law in New York, if it should or shouldn’t come down to the state legislatures deciding on such matters, and if this could possibly be a national law in the coming decade.

One of the major issues that stood out in crafting the same-sex marriage law in New York was religious protections for churches, organizations, and the like. The Right has let out some steam on this issue, comparing New York to North Korea and insisting that anti-same sex marriage is not anti-homosexuality but really pro-marriage. What has been surprising and refreshing is to see many members of the Right and Republican Party rebuke their own side and agree with passing this law. This floor speech is worth watching for it captures some of the roots of the small government / libertarian in most Republicans as well as religious protection:

Even Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has some nuanced respect for the New York law.

David True calls those paying attention to see that this law is not solely about saving same-sex couples from an encroaching government with its “moralistic” laws but ” it is about claiming the legal right (with the help of government) to make a huge commitment, indeed, one of the most profound and traditional commitments one can make.” True describes marriage as “an unfolding story”, one that can have “us appreciate what has come before” as well as recognize the “cultural revolution” upon us as part of the timeline.

Marriage in this view can even be compared to God. Both marriage and God are infinite spheres (the former of love and commitment, the latter of the same as well as a divine expanse of justice, judgement, and redemption). Neither can be fully grasped with words here on earth. If anything, words at times can hold these two back and muddle their true essences. In the end, participating with both provide more than words ever could.

(Pictured: The First Presbyterian Church of NYC on 5th Ave & 12th St., which was on the Pride Parade route. The congregants passed out water and hung a huge welcome banner, complete with triangles.

June 12, 2011

Our Subjective God

by thefulllidvmg

Paula Kirby went from being a devout Christian to an Atheist. She makes some interesting conclusions on God and how the masses have viewed the divine over the ages.

One of the things that had struck me during my Christian years was just how many different Christianities there are.  Not just the vast number of different sects and denominations (over 38,000 by one reckoning), but the huge amount of difference between individual Christians of the same sect or denomination, too.  The beliefs and attitudes of an evangelical, biblical, literalist Christian compared with a liberal Christian are so wildly different that we might almost be dealing with two completely different religions.

No matter what religion you believe in, you have to view God in a subjective lens:

Like every other Christian I have ever known, I had clear ideas about the kind of God I believed in and, on the basis of those ideas, I accepted certain bits of Christian dogma while utterly rejecting others.  Again, let me stress: this is par for the course.  In practice faith is always a pick-and-mix affair: believers emphasise those bits that sit comfortably with them, whilst mostly ignoring those bits that do not, or concocting elaborate interpretations to allow them to pretend they do not mean what they actually say.  So this was the question I faced up to in 2003: What was there to suggest that the version of Christianity I believed in was actually real? Was there any better evidence for the version I accepted than there was for the versions I did not?

The Bible could not help me. Both kinds of Christian – the ultra-conservative and the ultra-liberal – find abundant support for their views in the Bible provided they cherry-pick enough (and, of course, they do just that, filing the bits that don’t suit their case under the convenient headings of “Metaphor” or “Mystery”).

I myself tend to stray away from overemphasizing sin, heaven, and the like when I talk about God, my religious beliefs, and even when I am reading the Bible. Sure, the daily lectionary has me reading portions of the Bible that mention sin and heaven. I try to read up on the Greek and Hebrew, which usually have their original translation as vastness instead of heaven.

This has fostered some inner-thoughts as I have had several discussions with friends lately on the topic of same-sex marriage / homosexuality and how those two are seen or should be treated by the Bible and government. Plethora of verses are mentioned to denounce the two and I have up to this point said that they talk about pederastery, not what we know today as homosexuality. Re-reading these texts has me constantly asking questions. I try to focus on the context of the letters and laws in the Bible and keep them under the umbrellas of love, compassion, and justice. One other important topic that has played into that discussion is defining the role of marriage. Is it meant for pro-creation (child bearing) or as a covenant between two individuals? Attending a wedding can answer that question very clearly. Weddings usually mention nothing about sex or bearing children but forming a lasting relationship with your partner. If these marriage ceremonies are merely man-made, why then are they not changing in form and substance towards emphasizing “what the Bible says” about marriage?

I finish my reflection with this quote from Kirby:

This is why subjective experience cannot tell us anything about God.  Knowing what kind of god someone believes in tells us a great deal about that person – but nothing whatsoever about the truth or otherwise of the existence of any god at all.

Kirby is partially correct. Our experiences of God can tell some but not all of who God is. Looking back over time, we can see the many views of God and the roles the divine has played in people’s lives. They, just like ours, are merely reflections from a mirror, not the full picture.

May 29, 2011

Quote of the Day

by thefulllidvmg

“In the late 1990s, a flurry of books were written about what the Bible says and what the Bible does not say about homosexuality. Outstanding Bible scholars joined the fray. There was a clear winner. The commonly held position today is that the Bible says nothing about same-sex relationships that is relevant to the modern discussion. There are many voices who are still shouting “the Bible says …” but they are seen as irrelevant to our modern discussions of same-sex marriages. They are of the same genre as the recent predictions of the end of the world.

Serious theological discussion has turned to the nature of the marriage relationship rather than the sexual orientation of those who are being bound together. In traditional Protestant wedding ceremonies, the persons presenting themselves for a blessing of their relationships are asked to make promises. They are asked to promise to have and to hold one another from that moment on, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, so long as they both shall live. They are truly joined in marriage when they promise to be faithful in those responsibilities. There is no mention of sexual activity or childbearing. Faithfulness in the keeping of promises is the glue of Christian marriage.

A new discussion of the marriage relationship is a refreshing development. While I am glad to see the demise of legal barriers to gay marriages, and while I am glad to see the growing acceptance of our gay friends in our churches, I am most pleased to see the move to looking at the marriage relationship as an opportunity to experience both human and sacred wholeness.” –Rev. Howard Bess, writing from Wasilla, AK (where Sarah Palin is from)

Enjoy your holiday weekends, yall! Eat some hotdogs and burgers with me :)

May 24, 2011

Same-Sex Marriage: “A Choice, Not a Fate”

by thefulllidvmg

Andrew Sullivan explains like almost no one else can:

It has always seemed chilling to me that gay leftists – when pushed to say what they really believe -  want to keep gays in some sort of glorious, oppressed, marginalized position, until the majority agrees with the gay left’s view of human nature, and revolutionizes straight society as well. This will never happen (and in my view, shouldn’t).

Until then, the gay left focuses on demonizing those gays who argue for those who want to belong to their own families as equals, serve their country or commit to one another for life. In this, in my view, the gay left mirrors the Christianist right: they insist that otherness define the minority, even though most members of that minority are born and grow up in the heart of the American family, in all its variations, and of American culture, in all its permutations. No one should be marginalized for seeking otherness. But we are fighting for it to be a choice, not a fate.

He was responding to this piece:

Nobody is saying gay people have to get married—only that it should be a legal option if they want it. If you disagree with marriage, don’t get married.

This is good for the U.S. to think about because just as there are many nuances and shades in different religious groups (literal factual readers of The Bible vs. metaphorical historical readers of The Bible), there are some in the GLBT fold as well.

February 19, 2011

“Slippery Slope”

by thefulllidvmg

A Mormon woman is focused on following her conscience:

December 20, 2010

Transitions

by thefulllidvmg

2010 is winding down. In this short year, MJ and I have moved into a townhouse, got married, started grad school, quit a job, quit grad school, packed up and moved, almost moved to a farm, started a new job (x2), and are going to move again this week. We plan on having this move be our last for a long while. It is only going to be 10 minutes away from where we live now.

With all that said, my few days teaching this week, packing, and moving will cut down my blog time quite a bit. Look out for a new contributor to the blog: Andy Hill.

As for me, I am trying to work through my bitterness towards the religious right, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and those who flaunt their white priveledge. I am being serious when I say this all; this all goes beyond my anger and affects my marriage, moods, and life. Those three I need to protect.

December 5, 2010

Homosexuality, Marriage, and the Military

by thefulllidvmg

Linda Hirshman wrote a thoughtful piece about the combo of homosexuality, serving in the military, and marriage in wake of the hearings to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. If you look back to the 1960′s movements for gay rights and anti-war protests, who would of guessed that gays would want to be in the military? On the other hand, many shouldn’t be surprised with the paradoxical GOP:

Conservatives are normally out there urging people to fight and to marry. A conservative president launched two wars, and conservatives tried to impeach the adulterous Bill Clinton. When it comes to gays and lesbians wanting to defend their country or provide a stable, loving union, the right wing is suddenly on the other side.

Why are they fighting?

Gays argue that open service and same sex marriage are matters of simple equality—which sounds good, because everyone agrees that inequality is un-American and bad. But the contest over equality cannot possibly account for the passion on both sides of these issues. Who is against equality, abstractly? The fight is hot because gays are seeking equal access to the very social institutions, marriage and the military, that confer social approval. In America, and in most of western culture, the soldier and the householder are models of social virtue. If gays can marry and serve their country, well, “Gay is Good” as the old movement button says.

Breaking this down shows how many gays are forced to live lives equal to second rate citizens. Whether those who support DADT and are against same-sex marriage intend that outcome or not, this is what is imbued into their realities. In the case of DADT, the government is called to enforce and uphold Judeo-Christian “morals” when last time I checked there was a separation of church and state. No government is to support or trample on any religious institution. The church already calls gays sinners and throws them down into the ranks of being untouchables. Now the church wants to continue having the state enforce their morals in an ambiguous and guised manner.

Many of the hot topic issues today have the ability of being labeled “the civil rights issue” of our time; homosexuality and having openly gay military members serving, both intertwined yet separate, are strikingly resemblant of Plessy v. Ferguson:

The Pentagon noted that some of the resistance it found to open service came from “moral and religious objections to homosexuality.” Without missing a step, the report continued, “aside from that, much of the concern about ‘open’ service is driven by misperceptions and stereotypes,” which were “exaggerated” and “inconsistent with” the military’s actual experience, concluding, without another word about peoples’ religious morality, that the policy should be repealed.

Separating the classes, groups, and or those with different sexual orientations divides our country, our humanity, and threatens our national security. Also, Hirshman singles out the unwritten qualifications required for presidency or high office. Just as our presidents have to have a church / religious experience to be considered ripe for our commander and chief position, so do they have to be normal in terms of having a heterosexual marriage and a glowingly unblemished family. Again, we have a separation of church and state but Judeo-Christian morals and ideals are upheld as normal and “the way”. You’ll be damned to not follow them if you want to be president or a “normal” citizen, so goes today’s wind.

November 29, 2010

Marriage for Procreation’s Sake

by thefulllidvmg

Here is a long essay mulling over North America’s shifts within the same-sex marriage fight. Although I don’t fully agree with it all, it is a good read and makes me think / form questions.

Should the Catholic church be forced to evolve or rethink its stances via laws against its stances on adoption and same-sex parents?

I appreciate the honesty of the author and his lamentations over fanatics with signs hijacking the evangelical/Christian movement. Here’s a big statement worth quoting:

Worst of all, we have failed to deal honestly with the major threat to marriage and the family: heterosexual adultery and divorce. Evangelicals divorce at the same rate as the rest of the population. Many evangelical leaders have failed to speak against cheap divorce because they and their people were getting divorced just like everyone else. And yet we have had the gall to use the tiny (5 percent or less) gay community as a whipping boy that we labeled as the great threat to marriage.

Here are some other worthy quotes:

The former vice president of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, Ed Dobson, got it right. After he left Liberty to become pastor of Calvary Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, he regularly visited a former parishioner’s hospitalized son who turned out to have AIDS. Slowly, he sensed a call to serve other people with AIDS.

He decided to visit the local AIDS resource center run by the gay community. The director was shocked that the pastor of the largest evangelical church in town would visit. Dobson’s church was soon deeply engaged with the gay community. Calvary placed a church member on the board of the AIDS resource center, bought Christmas gifts for families affected by AIDS, paid for funeral expenses for impoverished people who died of AIDS, and welcomed the gay community to attend the church.

Of course, it was controversial. One church member warned that the church would be “overrun by homosexuals.” Dobson responded in his next Sunday sermon: “If the church gets overrun with homosexuals, that will be terrific. They can take their place in the pews right next to the liars, gossips, and materialists.”

At one point in this essay, I reflected on the topic of “witnessing”. I first knew the phrase as an approach to sharing one’s faith with non-believers (or who we thought were non-believers). I have heard quite a bit before from evangelical circles or individuals that being a good “witness” is important. They were referring to one’s lifestyle and how it may be interpreted by others and especially those outside the church. Christianity is seen by non-church goers as anti-gay (held by 91%) as well within its own pews (held by 80%). That is a witness that is buttressed by the Westboro Baptist Church, wing nut evangelicals, and various other pundits. In the end, the church at large has been branded, as Dobson has noted, as “better at hating than loving”, better at focusing on the differences between other children of God than the similarities, and most notably better at not communicating, listening, or learning others stories (the grey areas – everything is not black and white).

Finally to the procreation point:

But everything depends on the definition. If marriage is not about bringing up children, but about how adults solemnize their emotional commitment to each other, gay marriage becomes plausible.

Is emotional commitment between two adults what the state should care about in marriage? What should a state that does not establish any religion understand marriage to be? I think the answer is clear. The state must promote the best setting in which to nurture the next generation of wholesome citizens.

Evangelical wing nuts, such as Bryan Fischer, see marriage as meant for birthing a minimum of 3 kids and should be ready for our youth by the time they are 16. I don’t know why marriage has been hijacked and held up with a  “procreate or your marriage is not a true marriage’ mantle. Many couples, I bet, have contemplated not having kids after being married and spending time with friends and their children. It is extremely ignorant and hurtful to imply that couples who get married and don’t have kids are not fulfilling an unwritten duty.

In the end, this comes down to what we each define as Truth, what black and white stereotypes we hold up as molds everyone truly fits into, discerning how our houses of worship and communities have turned from communal (seen as evil socialism!!!!) into a narcissistic individualism (free capitalism! America!), and asking the questions or taking down the guards to see these situations/battles/ideological wars in a softer, more pragmatic frame of being.

September 26, 2010

Obama’s Jokes Billy

by thefulllidvmg
September 26, 2010

When the Young Husband…

by thefulllidvmg

“When the Young Husband…” by Donald Hall appeared in The Atlantic in March of 1993:

When the young husband picked up his friend’s pretty wife
in the taxi one block from her townhouse for their
first lunch together, in a hotel dining room
with a room key in his pocket,

midtown traffic gridlocked and was abruptly still.
For one moment before Klaxons started honking,
a prophetic voice spoke in his mind’s ear despite
his pulse’s erotic thudding:

“The misery you undertake this afternoon
will accompany you to the ends of your lives.
She knew what she did, when she agreed to this lunch,
although she will not admit it;

and you’ve constructed your playlet a thousand times:

cocktails, an omelet, wine; the revelation
of a room key; the elevator rising as
the penis elevates; the skin

flushed, the door fumbled at, the handbag dropped; the first
kiss with open mouths, nakedness, swoon, thrust-and-catch;
endorphins followed by endearments; a brief nap;
another fit, restoration

of clothes, arrangements for another encounter,
the taxi back, and the furtive kiss of good-bye.
Then, by turn: tears, treachery, anger, betrayal;
marriages and houses destroyed;

small children abandoned and inconsolable,
their foursquare estates disestablished forever;
the unreadable advocates; the wretchedness
of passion outworn; anguished nights

sleepless in a bare room; whiskey, meth, cocaine; new
love, essayed in loneliness with miserable
strangers, that comforts nothing but skin; hours with sons
and daughters studious always

to maintain distrust; the daily desire to die
and the daily agony of the requirement
to survive, until only the quarrel endures.”
Prophecy stopped; traffic started.

(Image by Flickr user dawnnakaya), H/T: TDD

August 13, 2010

Rush’ “Monogamous” Heterosexual Lifestyle

by thefulllidvmg

The rest of the photo’s are here. Till death do us part, eh?

This storyline goes along with the rest of the “monogamous” heterosexual crowd: Larry King, Elizabeth Taylor, et al. Like I have noted before, this doesn’t give solid enough reason (in my opinion) for same sex marriage but discredits many pundits. In part, I do support not making certain people second-rate citizens but am not fully convinced of the reasons supporting same sex marriage.

August 11, 2010

We Want You to Lie

by thefulllidvmg

That is what DADT is forcing top cadets to do. Look at this case:

Ranked # 9 in her class overall, Cadet Katherine Miller routinely “super-maxes” her physical fitness tests.  One of her blogs was featured in the Sunday print edition of the Washington Post as part of “The Gray Zone: West Point on Leadership.”In her resignation letter, she cites the kinds of experiences she is unwilling to continue to endure:

I have created a heterosexual dating history to recite to fellow cadets when they inquire. I have endured unwanted approaches by male cadets for fear of being accused as a lesbian by rejecting or reporting these events. I have been coerced into ignoring derogatory comments towards homosexuals for fear of being alienated for my viewpoint.  In short, I have lied to my classmates and compromised my integrity and my identity by adhering to existing military policy.

I see this to tie in with the Proposition 8 decision. A friend and I talked about this last night and he mentioned that this not only pushes out top soldiers but in the case of marriages places fellow human beings as second class citizens. This doesn’t make our country stronger by removing qualified soldiers (“exceptional” ones, as he said).

August 9, 2010

Going Literal with Same Sex Marriage

by thefulllidvmg


At this point in my life, I do not agree fully with all of the justifications for same-sex marriage. Let me be clear that I do agree with the Proposition 8 ruling. That may not make sense so let me unpack it.
In some ways, I agree with allowing same-sex marriage: banning it can in some cases perpetuate the lifestyle of isolation for those openly gay as well as keep openly gay men and women without families.
I see the value in procreation and respect couples that do not procreate. The above video with the below list makes song strong arguments against the irrational views held by dogmatic religious believers. In the end, I still don’t fully buy in but respect anyone who marries a great deal.

The National Organization for Marriage will happily recognize my marriage if I:

marry someone 20 years older
marry someone 20 years younger
marry someone on death row
marry someone I’ve never met
marry someone of a different race
marry someone of a different faith
marry someone who clearly loves my things more than me
marry someone who has been divorced 8 times
marry someone who wants children
marry someone who doesn’t want children
marry someone who doesn’t much like sex
marry someone who can’t have sex
marry someone for companionship
marry someone for their connections
marry someone for their wealth
marry someone because my family wants me to
marry someone in a arranged marriage
marry someone with an Elvis impersonator presiding
marry someone for eternity in the Mormon temple
marry someone only until death do us part
marry absolutely anyone in absolutely any way with absolutely any purpose and absolutely any agenda

EXCEPT that they can’t have a penis. Because that’s what REALLY matters in marriage: who has a penis.

August 8, 2010

What is Marriage?

by thefulllidvmg

In light of last weeks Proposition 8 ruling that overturned the California law which made same sex marriages illegal, watch some Sesame Street!

July 14, 2010

Mark Driscoll on Stay-at-home Dads, Ctd.

by thefulllidvmg

A reader writes:

I would not say it is wrong for women to work, however, I cannot see a prinicple in the Bible encouraging or supporting the whole burden and all the stress of being the sole and/or primary bread winner to be put on the wife. That is not God’s ideal organization of family structure. Is it a sin? I wouldn’t agree that it is sinful, but I would warn that ultimately, it’s not God’s plan, so it would not be a lifestyle receiving God’s full blessing.

July 14, 2010

Mark Driscoll on Stay-at-home Dads

by thefulllidvmg


Hat tip: Adam Mosely
A friend of Mosely’s, James, sums up my thoughts to a mere T:

Here’s my thought. Driscoll has spent several years telling us to be more “manly” and I guess that’s fine. But here, he equates “providing for the family’s needs” solely with working outside the home. What if what the family needs isn’t income from dad, but, instead, for dad to stay home because mom has a solid career?

He seems to give no credence to the idea that a particular woman may be more suited for the workplace than to be a domestic goddess. I think it’s great if a woman wants to be a stay at home mom. However, I don’t think the bible dictates that, nor do I think it rules out the idea of a stay at home dad.

In the times and culture in which the bible was written, I’m sure the idea of a stay at home dad wasn’t even a consideration. That doesn’t make it wrong any more than, say, driving a car, which also isn’t mentioned in the bible.

It fascinates me, given Mark’s loose interpretation of other portions of scripture, that he is so hard nosed on this issue. I wonder what his “church discipline” would be for me. I work two jobs to support my family, but I also “stay at home” (work from home) 3 days a week to care for my child. Does that mean I’m 3/5ths worse than an unbeliever?

I just think his statements are ridiculous and completely out of touch. I could understand them if we were talking about lazy or deadbeat dads (which is what he seems to think a stay at home dad is), but there are so many situations where that simply isn’t the case. To make the kind of statements he does in this clip based on generalities and stereotypes is either incredibly irresponsible or it’s simply malicious.

July 10, 2010

“A more flexible approach to sexual fidelity can increase marital stability”

by thefulllidvmg

So says the argument in Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá new book on the evolution of sexuality. They see monogamy as unnatural. Here are some excerpts from an author Q&A and the Daily Dish:

Biologists distinguish sexual monogamy from social monogamy. As DNA testing has grown cheaper in recent years, we’ve learned that most species formerly classified as “monogamous” (primarily birds) are socially monogamous, but notsexually so. In other words, they form pairs that cooperatively care for that season’s brood of young, but the male may well not be the biological father. Applied to humans, we argue that a more flexible approach to sexual fidelity can increase marital stability and thus lead to greater social and family stability.

According to Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, the authors of the new book “Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality,” the state of the American marriage is awfully grim. We have a stratospheric divorce rate and a surge of single parents. Couples who stay together are often trapped in sexless, passionless unions. An entire industry — from couples therapy to sex supplements — has emerged to help people “rekindle the spark” without straying from the confines of monogamy.

But Ryan and Jethá also have a theory for what’s causing this misery: From a biological perspective, men and women simply aren’t meant to be in lifelong monogamous unions. In “Sex at Dawn,” which uses evidence gathered from human physiology, archaeology, primate biology and anthropological studies of pre-agricultural tribes from around the world, they argue that monogamy and the nuclear family are more recent inventions than most of us would expect — and far less natural than we’ve come to believe.

June 22, 2010

Imposing a heterosexual lifestyle on others

by thefulllidvmg

Kincaid over at the GLBT supportive Box Turtle Bulletin argues against promiscuous heterosexual relationships. This is after the 2008 story of John Smiley who fraudulently collected $2.5 million after saying he was shot in the back at a zoo by a parolee when he was in fact on his way out of a swinger bar with his wife after having group sex with strangers.

If adult men and women chooses to embrace heterosexuality, that’s one thing. But a man and woman imposing their heterosexual lifestyle on innocent, impressionable children is something quite different.

We need to protect children from heterosexuals and their deviant lifestyle. It is wrong to force children into a situation where they have a man and women modeling immoral behavior — condemned by God and all major religions — as the most important role models in their lives.

Kincaid and BTB fall into the trap of labeling all monogamous, heterosexual marriages as incapable of raising children maturely and safely, as promiscuous on a level equivalent to Rush Limbaugh, and we therefor must remove their children from their “predatory grasp”. So is the thought process on the other side by fundamentalist warriors against same sex marriage. This was an “inside the box”, black and white thinking that I even fell into for a season, and reading Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism last summer didn’t help either.

Tags: ,
June 18, 2010

Are you ever ready to get married?

by thefulllidvmg

Ritzau tells of her story.

Tags:
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.