Traditionnnn..!

John Stewart does it once more.

I have no problem with anyone opposing gay marriage. Every individual has a right to believe what they believe in. That is the very definition of freedom of religion.

What I do have a problem with is the arguments presented. “We must preserve the sanctity of marriage.” “We must protect the children.”  Half of heterosexual marriages in the US end in divorce and 63% of all children in the same country grow up away from their biological parents. If these groups cared about the sanctity of marriage and well-being of children they would have focused on that a long time ago. How do we prevent divorce? How do we prevented undesired pregnancies?

Please don’t try to pretend that this is not based on your personal faith and the doctrine of your religion. I would respect you a lot more if you would just be honest about why you are against the rights of gay citizens. To pretend that you are doing this for “the children” or for an institution that has been failing in the US for the past 20 years makes no intellectual sense. And you’re not stupid, are you?

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Politics

4 responses to “Traditionnnn..!

  1. Torlin

    “Half of heterosexual marriages in the US end in divorce and 63% of all children in the same country grow up away from their biological parents. If these groups cared about the sanctity of marriage and well-being of children they would have focused on that a long time ago.”

    1. They probably have! Both in their private lives (though with less success than they had hoped for, which may be why they did’t talk about it so much) and in public life (where it never attracted media’s attention because there was nothing remarkable in thinking that divorce or orphaned children is not a good thing).

    2. When did the failure of any particular group in focusing on the right issues become an argument for what is (ethically) right or wrong? (Mean analogy: Why do people, now in 1943, protest against the killing of jews? They never said anything when we killed retarded and demented people back in the thirties!)

    “To pretend that you are doing this for “the children” or for an institution that has been failing in the US for the past 20 years makes no intellectual sense.”

    1. I guess we both agree that it is best for children to grow up with both their father and their mother (except for cases where either of them is not suited to take care of children due to drug abuse, mental illness or such). It is a tragic fact that many children in our countries grow up without their father or (more seldom) mother. But making this fact an argument for making an institution of families without fahters (or mothers), thus robbing children of every chance of growing up with both mum and dad, makes no intellectual sense.

    2. “Half of all marriages end in divorce”, yes, but if you count the number of people who never divorce (marriage lasts “til death us part”) you will find that they are in majority. This is because those who divorce often do so more than once. The 50% statistics is valid for Sweden too, but almost 75% of all married couples in Sweden stay married until one of them dies. And when did the failure of a minority to live up to a moral ideal become an argument for abandoning this ideal? To me that makes no intellectual sense.

  2. Anna

    Just about everyone agrees that the best thing for a child is to grow up with both mom and dad. If their situation is as bad as you say, with divorce and so on having hollowed out the safety of mom and dad being married, does it really make sense to cut the few lines that are still holding? At least the posibility of safety should be maintained, even if there are children who, unfortunately will not be able to enjoy it.

  3. But here is where you lost me: How does preventing gay couples from getting married improve on any of what you listed? Will children from broken homes suddenly the safety of their parents’ marriage restored in California, now that Proposition 8 was voted down? Will all single parents find lasting love and a harmonious marriage now?

    Or to turn the question around, how would any of this have gotten worse if the proposition had passed?

    Interestingly, though I haven’t followed the situation in Sweden, the studies here that show that children need a parent of each gender are very often conducted by religious organizations with an open bias in the matter. Studies by secular organizations, such as the American Association of Pediatrics, show that the gender matters a lot less than the emotional climate in the family, and how the parents resolve conflicts.

  4. Torlin

    1. No, preventing gay couples from getting married does not improve the siuation for children without a daddy or mummy. But what about the children that will be raised by gay couples? I think every child has the right to its mum and dad. If either or both is dead or unable to raise their own child, then other adults must step in. But deliberately depriving a child of either its mum or dad is not right.

    2. There are a lot of studies with a pro gay bias too. We have seen this very clearly in Sweden in the last year. It’s interesting that in France a proposition to legalise gay marriages was turned down after a thorough studie by a state committee precisely on the grounds that it was bad for the children.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s