Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The "defense of marriage" position
#1

The "defense of marriage" position
This is one of the thing that I do not understand from the religious political movement. They are very upset that marriage, even the marriages of people who do not belong to their sect or religion, exist and follow different rules. More specifically, they are upset that marriages can be dissolved easily (from a legal standpoint of course nobody ever said that a divorce is an emotionally easy and pleasant event).

I don't really get that point for several reasons. First, it's like they believe their particular sect or religion owns the very concept of marriage which is completely absurd. Second, not only do they think they own marriage as an institution, but they also demand that the government impose on them the restrictions imposed by their own religion as if it were the job of the government to force them to abide by their very personal religious moral code. Seriously, if you consider divorce to be wrong then don't divorce. Why demand the from the government that it prevent you from divorcing. Shouldn't you do it yourself since it's part of your religion?

Finally I find this idea of defending marriage as being rather weird since preventing people from divorcing or forcing them to marry (or both at the same time) is not going to make people love each other more or make couples happier. It's like they have this weird Disney version of marriage as in if people are married that means they are happy and love one another. I find this very superficial and rather worrying. It makes me wonder how their own marriage and love life is. If you have such a superficial view of love, family and intimacy, it doesn't bode really well when it comes to actually living through those things. I suppose it's why people subscribing to that movement have a higher divorce rate than the national average.

I find the idea of the defense of marriage particularly sad because these people, obsessed by the trappings, pomp and rituals associated with love are actually forgetting the most important element: love itself. It would almost be revolutionary to have a large and well funded political movement whose objective is to make people love one another more, but instead they went for the appearance instead of the core of the issue.
The following 4 users Like epronovost's post:
  • Cavebear, pythagorean, pattylt, Rahn127
Reply
#2

The "defense of marriage" position
Shit stains simply want to force their taboos onto others. It's par of the course for followers of totalitarian ideologies.
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.


Socrates.
The following 2 users Like Szuchow's post:
  • 1Sam15, mordant
Reply
#3

The "defense of marriage" position
The people who keep telling us that the institution of marriage is super important in a very specific way...are the same people destroying the institution of marriage by making themselves unfuckable.

Statistically speaking, ofc.
The following 3 users Like Rhythmcs's post:
  • epronovost, pattylt, mordant
Reply
#4

The "defense of marriage" position
Quote:First, it's like they believe their particular sect or religion owns the very concept of marriage which is completely absurd. 


Epy, it may be completely absurd to a rational person like you but when it comes to their holy horseshit they are anything but rational.  They do think that everyone should live by their rules...even if, as hinted above, they don't follow those rules themselves.  Religions, even though led by criminal bastards, portray themselves as the protectors of some 'sacred morality' because their fictional god tells them to.
And it doesn't matter which religion.  To one degree or another the fundie sects of every religion are overly concerned with who fucks who and when.

You're right to be confused but don't go looking for rational answers from them.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • pattylt, mordant
Reply
#5

The "defense of marriage" position
(12-01-2023, 02:57 AM)epronovost Wrote: This is one of the thing that I do not understand from the religious political movement. They are very upset that marriage, even the marriages of people who do not belong to their sect or religion, exist and follow different rules. More specifically, they are upset that marriages can be dissolved easily (from a legal standpoint of course nobody ever said that a divorce is an emotionally easy and pleasant event).

I don't really get that point for several reasons. First, it's like they believe their particular sect or religion owns the very concept of marriage which is completely absurd. Second, not only do they think they own marriage as an institution, but they also demand that the government impose on them the restrictions imposed by their own religion as if it were the job of the government to force them to abide by their very personal religious moral code. Seriously, if you consider divorce to be wrong then don't divorce. Why demand the from the government that it prevent you from divorcing. Shouldn't you do it yourself since it's part of your religion?

Finally I find this idea of defending marriage as being rather weird since preventing people from divorcing or forcing them to marry (or both at the same time) is not going to make people love each other more or make couples happier. It's like they have this weird Disney version of marriage as in if people are married that means they are happy and love one another. I find this very superficial and rather worrying. It makes me wonder how their own marriage and love life is. If you have such a superficial view of love, family and intimacy, it doesn't bode really well when it comes to actually living through those things. I suppose it's why people subscribing to that movement have a higher divorce rate than the national average.

I find the idea of the defense of marriage particularly sad because these people, obsessed by the trappings, pomp and rituals associated with love are actually forgetting the most important element: love itself. It would almost be revolutionary to have a large and well funded political movement whose objective is to make people love one another more, but instead they went for the appearance instead of the core of the issue.

I understand what you are saying here. There are some people (mostly theistic) who strongly value the rituals of things like marriage and belief. They don't want to break those traditions. The problem is they they don't want anyone else to break them either. They refuse choice to all others.

We need them to accept that other people can make choices they themselves do not approve of. They can follow their rules and the rest of us can follow ours.
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply
#6

The "defense of marriage" position
The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed by then President Bill Clinton in 1996 (between blowjobs?), was an oxymoronic attack on marriage, and a futile and pathetic attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America by mere statute.

It was part of a wave of anti-family legislation signed by Clinton that year, including the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), designed to rip families apart and force entire families into exile, reminiscent of flight of Milderd Jeter and Richard Loving when in 1958, they had to flee Virginia to find sanctuary in Washington DC.

THE LOVING COUPLE (theattic.space)

Quote:In July 1958, in the dead of night, a sheriff in rural Virginia banged on a couple’s door.  Then the sheriff burst in.  Flashlight blazing, he stood beside the bed.

“Who is this woman you’re sleeping with?”

“I’m his wife,” the woman said, pointing to the marriage certificate on the wall.

“That’s no good here!” the sheriff barked.  And within the hour, Richard and Mildred Loving were in jail.  Because he was white.  She was “colored.”

In 1958, forty-two states had laws against inter-racial marriage and half still enforced them.  But when the Loving couple violated Virginia’s Racial Purity Act, they started a sea change in American romance.

snip----

When she got pregnant, they went to Washington, D.C. to get married.  Certificate in hand, they came home.  Then, Richard said, “someone talked.”  The Lovings were sentenced to a year in prison unless. . .  The sentence would be suspended if they left Virginia and did not return.  The couple moved to DC and had three children.  They were miserable.

“The children didn’t have anywhere to play,” Mildred said.  “It was like being caged.  And I couldn’t stand it.”

snip----

After eight years in exile, Richard and Mildred finally moved back to Virginia.  He built a cinder block house and they settled in, happy to be together, happy to be forgotten.  But the case was not forgotten.  Unlike Brown v. Board of Education, stonewalled for a decade, Loving v. Virginia changed lives and loves.
test
Reply
#7

The "defense of marriage" position
(12-01-2023, 02:57 AM)epronovost Wrote:  More specifically, they are upset that marriages can be dissolved easily (from a legal standpoint of course nobody ever said that a divorce is an emotionally easy and pleasant event).

Remember this?

2010 California Marriage Protection Act PSA (#1)



2010 California Marriage Protection Act PSA (#2)

test
Reply
#8

The "defense of marriage" position
The one aspect you seem to be disregarding:

I know what's best. My thinking is perfect. You should acknowledge this, and comply.
Reply
#9

The "defense of marriage" position
(12-01-2023, 11:31 AM)pythagorean Wrote: Remember this?

Nope, I am not American let alone Californian, but they were pretty funny parodies.
Reply
#10

The "defense of marriage" position
The rise of acceptability of LGBTQ, especially gay men, was noted early and often by the religious right. They hated the homosexual and their biggest fear was that gay men would have unions recognized. At first, they couldn’t imagine that marriage would also eventually happen but realized it was gaining traction as well.

Besides the large number of closeted homosexuals within the church, defending marriage and attacking the gay lifestyle was their strongest move. It was liberal America and the nones where it kept gaining traction. The problem they had was lack of any quality evidence that gay marriage harmed anyone…including any children within the gay marriage.

So, they lied, claiming it harms and confuses children, which it really doesn’t. They also discovered a money maker in conversion therapy and claimed successes that were, at best, having men live in celibacy. The cruelty of the procedure was kind of the point. They lost on all these fronts.

Their current agenda of attacking books with any possible gay content was next arguing loss of parental rights. Notice it’s never the rights of the gay or trans children’s parents, just the hetero ones. The problem overall is that they are losing their Christian privileges and the hearts and minds of the youth and money. They really hate that.
The following 4 users Like pattylt's post:
  • Rhythmcs, isbelldl, Dancefortwo, Szuchow
Reply
#11

The "defense of marriage" position
(12-01-2023, 06:26 PM)pattylt Wrote: ... The problem overall is that they are losing their Christian privileges and the hearts and minds of the youth and money ...

That's the nutshell, PattyL.  I think it's the perennial curse of the unevenness of human society - some enjoy privileges others don't, sometimes at the expense of those that don't.

The cure for that is probably not going to fit in a nutshell.
The following 1 user Likes airportkid's post:
  • pattylt
Reply
#12

The "defense of marriage" position
A large part of the decline of the evangelical wing comes from the deal they made with the devil ( the republiKKKunts ) that has pissed off the younger generations which are now abandoning them in droves.

By the way, the devil they signed on with was Reagan.... not Fuckface.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • pattylt, polymath257
Reply
#13

The "defense of marriage" position
(12-01-2023, 05:35 AM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:First, it's like they believe their particular sect or religion owns the very concept of marriage which is completely absurd. 


Epy, it may be completely absurd to a rational person like you but when it comes to their holy horseshit they are anything but rational.  They do think that everyone should live by their rules...even if, as hinted above, they don't follow those rules themselves.  Religions, even though led by criminal bastards, portray themselves as the protectors of some 'sacred morality' because their fictional god tells them to.
And it doesn't matter which religion.  To one degree or another the fundie sects of every religion are overly concerned with who fucks who and when.

You're right to be confused but don't go looking for rational answers from them.
The notion of corporate guilt drives a lot of this. If you aren't sufficiently opposed to certain things -- fornication, adultery, divorce, whatever -- then god may punish YOU or your sect or Christians in general or the nation you live in for "condoning" these sins. This is what makes them controlling of those outside the faith, and always in a moral panic.

Some Christians believe each individual will be individually judged; but it is common in fundagelical circles to quote verses like "if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves then [list of various great things that will happen]" and of course the other utility in this is that when great things don't happen they can say it's due to insufficient piety. It helps keep the sheeple in line.
The following 1 user Likes mordant's post:
  • pattylt
Reply
#14

The "defense of marriage" position
I think all theisms are based on fear. Fear of death and final judgement, fear of being outcast from society, fear of strife among marriage and friends. Fear of not being part of those you know (isolation). It takes a brave person to say "no you are wrong" to religious institutions and people close to you.

I don't have that fear. I escaped religion when I was about 10-12 (it wasn't all at once of course). So, as I grew up through my teen years, I already had some issues settled in my mind. And as those are years of final mental development, I didn't have the struggles some young adults do.
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • Minimalist
Reply
#15

The "defense of marriage" position
(12-01-2023, 02:57 AM)epronovost Wrote: This is one of the thing that I do not understand from the religious political movement. They are very upset that marriage, even the marriages of people who do not belong to their sect or religion, exist and follow different rules. More specifically, they are upset that marriages can be dissolved easily (from a legal standpoint of course nobody ever said that a divorce is an emotionally easy and pleasant event).

I don't really get that point for several reasons. First, it's like they believe their particular sect or religion owns the very concept of marriage which is completely absurd. Second, not only do they think they own marriage as an institution, but they also demand that the government impose on them the restrictions imposed by their own religion as if it were the job of the government to force them to abide by their very personal religious moral code. Seriously, if you consider divorce to be wrong then don't divorce. Why demand the from the government that it prevent you from divorcing. Shouldn't you do it yourself since it's part of your religion?

Finally I find this idea of defending marriage as being rather weird since preventing people from divorcing or forcing them to marry (or both at the same time) is not going to make people love each other more or make couples happier. It's like they have this weird Disney version of marriage as in if people are married that means they are happy and love one another. I find this very superficial and rather worrying. It makes me wonder how their own marriage and love life is. If you have such a superficial view of love, family and intimacy, it doesn't bode really well when it comes to actually living through those things. I suppose it's why people subscribing to that movement have a higher divorce rate than the national average.

I find the idea of the defense of marriage particularly sad because these people, obsessed by the trappings, pomp and rituals associated with love are actually forgetting the most important element: love itself. It would almost be revolutionary to have a large and well funded political movement whose objective is to make people love one another more, but instead they went for the appearance instead of the core of the issue.

Christians believe the family to be the most important institution in all of life. This is why when one talks about modern ideas of what constitutes a family Christians bristle--because it undermines the most important structure to human flourishing. Here are some notes I had from another project.

Shared Values and Moral Foundation:
Christian Idea of Family: The Christian idea of family promotes the transmission of shared values, ethics, and moral principles from one generation to the next. The family is viewed as a primary source of moral education and character formation.
Modern Idea of Family: The modern idea of family can sometimes emphasize individual autonomy over shared values. If stable values are not inculcated in the next generation, the fabric of society will start to tear (which is it).

Marital Commitment and Longevity:
Christian Idea of Family: The Christian view of marriage emphasizes lifelong commitment, fidelity, and sacrificial love. Marriage is seen as a sacred covenant that forms the foundation of the family unit.
Modern Idea of Family: In many modern contexts, marriage is perceived as more disposable or temporary, a non-binding contract. If there is an 'out', the need to make it work is significantly diminished--leading to higher rates of divorce. This impacts family stability and the sense of security for children. Children statistically do far worse without a biological mother and father present in the home.

Generational Cohesion:
Christian Idea of Family: Christianity often places a strong emphasis on multigenerational relationships, with respect for elders and a sense of responsibility toward both parents and grandparents.
Modern Idea of Family: Modern lifestyles, including geographical mobility, can sometimes lead to physical separation of family members across different regions, limiting opportunities for close intergenerational relationships.

Supportive Community and Accountability:
Christian Idea of Family: The Christian idea of family extends beyond the nuclear unit to include extended family, church community, and fellow believers. This creates a broader network of support, encouragement, and accountability.
Modern Idea of Family: Some modern family structures may prioritize individualism and self-sufficiency, leading to a reduced sense of community and support outside immediate family members.

I think that touches on all your major points.
Reply
#16

The "defense of marriage" position
Quote:Christians believe the family to be the most important institution in all of life. 

Oh, Stevie...you moron.  That isn't what your boy jesus said.  Maybe you should read that fucking bible of yours?


Quote:25 Many people were traveling with Jesus. He said to them, 26 “If you come to me but will not leave your family, you cannot be my follower. You must love me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters—even more than your own life! 


Luke 14


I guess your "inerrant" Luke was "errant."  Or, even more likely, you don't know what you are fucking talking about.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • 1Sam15
Reply
#17

The "defense of marriage" position
Betty Bowers defines what is being "defended."

Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#18

The "defense of marriage" position
The problem is that Christian’s try to demand that their idea of marriage should apply to non Christian’s…he’ll, it doesn’t even seem to apply to Christian’s.

Judaism has always allowed for divorce as the happiness of the family is important and. When that breaks down it is better to divorce. Islam allows divorce as well. If Christian’s and especially Catholics wish to refuse divorce then I’m ok with whatever horror they want to maintain in their relationship.

Modern marriage has two parts….civil and sacramental. No one is forcing any religious institution to perform sacramental marriages and civil marriages aren’t the business of religion. They can have an opinion but can not force their opinion upon civil society. They are free to think and teach that marriage is one man and one woman but have no business forcing it upon others. If they don’t want separation of church and state, they are free to move to a country that combines them.
The following 4 users Like pattylt's post:
  • 1Sam15, airportkid, isbelldl, Cavebear
Reply
#19

The "defense of marriage" position
(12-04-2023, 03:28 PM)SteveII Wrote: The Christian idea of family extends beyond the nuclear unit to include extended family, church community, and fellow believers.

Nothing like shutting out most of the rest of humanity to strengthen social connection.

Most of religion is self cancelling paradox and contradiction, absurdity upon absurdity all the way to depravity.  Yet it is felt as some sort of "comfort".   Facepalm
The following 1 user Likes airportkid's post:
  • 1Sam15
Reply
#20

The "defense of marriage" position
I had a couple of additional thoughts.

Love is only a component of marriage. There are institutional concerns that are very important that seem to often take a back seat to love (some of which I mentioned above). The bigger point is that whether you want to believe it or not, a strong institution of marriage and family structure that proceeds from that is necessary for society for flourish. Our society can tolerated erosion around the edges, but if critical mass is lost, then the society will quickly devolve.
Reply
#21

The "defense of marriage" position
(12-04-2023, 03:28 PM)SteveII Wrote: Shared Values and Moral Foundation:
  Christian Idea of Family: The Christian idea of family promotes the transmission of shared values, ethics, and moral principles from one generation to the next. The family is viewed as a primary source of moral education and character formation.
  Modern Idea of Family: The modern idea of family can sometimes emphasize individual autonomy over shared values. If stable values are not inculcated in the next generation, the fabric of society will start to tear (which is it).

That's, at bit laughable I would say. The idea that modern family do not share values, stable values, is preposterous. I would like to note that individual autonomy, freedom of thought and liberty are values; they are even fundamental values of a democratic society. Without such value democracy cannot endure. It will rot. So even by your own word, the modern idea of family provides shared and stable values. 

The family is, of course, the primary source of moral education and character formation no matter it's nature since it's the first one to affect a person and the one that affects people at their most impressionable age (before the age of 6 or 7 years old). Then there is of course the question of does a family help form and forge character or does it help break them. A family that emphasize the values of the parents and community over the individual autonomy of the family member risk turning into a character breaking institution where all deviation from the norm is punished and where abuse and cruelty lurks behind every corner. Though you could say that a family that values too much individual autonomy runs the risk of behind neglectful and fails to provide the structure necessary for critical thinking skills which include moral judgement of course. There are dangers everywhere and only genuine love and sound judgement can help avoid those pitfall. I think you would be amiss if you were to qualify your family or yourself as more loving than the average bloke. 

Quote:Marital Commitment and Longevity:
  Christian Idea of Family: The Christian view of marriage emphasizes lifelong commitment, fidelity, and sacrificial love. Marriage is seen as a sacred covenant that forms the foundation of the family unit.
  Modern Idea of Family: In many modern contexts, marriage is perceived as more disposable or temporary, a non-binding contract. If there is an 'out', the need to make it work is significantly diminished--leading to higher rates of divorce. This impacts family stability and the sense of security for children. Children statistically do far worse without a biological mother and father present in the home.

How do you reconcile the fact that Christians do not form longer lasting marriages or more loving ones with what you just stated above? In fact, there is strong evidence that the more religious a person is (especially if they are from a Protestant denomination), the more likely they are to divorce or be accused and convicted of domestic violence. There is a strong correlation between religiosity and such 

I would also like to note that children do far worse in a family where domestic violence (even if it's not physical violence) and loveless marriages than in mono-parental or recomposed family. In fact, most of the damage to children derived from divorce doesn't come so much from the separation itself, but from what preceded and surrounded it. Most people divorce after a long period of discord and enmity and the most painful divorces are those in which the parents continue to bicker or even attempt to undermine one another well after the separation. Ask most teen or child about what they remember the most about their parent's divorce and they will almost all tell you that it's hearing their parents bicker and yell at one another.

Being together in a marriage doesn't mean people love one another unfortunately and playing pretend in front of your kids for well over a decade and thinking they won't get wise to it is pure folly.     

Quote:Generational Cohesion:
  Christian Idea of Family: Christianity often places a strong emphasis on multigenerational relationships, with respect for elders and a sense of responsibility toward both parents and grandparents.
  Modern Idea of Family: Modern lifestyles, including geographical mobility, can sometimes lead to physical separation of family members across different regions, limiting opportunities for close intergenerational relationships.

Isn't that a factor of modernity and more specifically of North American of Anglo-Saxon descent? Ethnic minorities in North America, migrants and Europeans tend to form closer multigenerational families. Geography certainly helps too. The late capitalist economy strongly encourages geographic mobility. Wealth and greater social mobility are also to blame for this. I think you are ascribing to economics and technological changes something that has little to do with family itself.

Quote:Supportive Community and Accountability:
  Christian Idea of Family: The Christian idea of family extends beyond the nuclear unit to include extended family, church community, and fellow believers. This creates a broader network of support, encouragement, and accountability.
  Modern Idea of Family: Some modern family structures may prioritize individualism and self-sufficiency, leading to a reduced sense of community and support outside immediate family members.

This one I would say is perhaps the best argument you present considering the 1st dubious, the 2nd one flat out false in fact the opposite and the 3rd one being unrelated. Though I would also say this fourth argument is also unrelated. It's not the commitment of Christianity to family that produced that community network more than the fact that Christians form an identity group and encourages and provide structure for organization and support within the group. Migrant communities, linguistic minorities, homosexuals and very outspoken atheists have formed such cohesive groups too by relying on identity groups. That's the whole basis of identity politics after all. Though, credit where credit is due, fundamentalist Christian are very good at it. They do tend to be very insular though and insularity, parochialism and general distrust or hatred of the outside world will produce very effective supportive communities though these can turn very sour as seen in gang dominated communities or even more extreme, in weirdo sects and cults.

On an interesting historical note, I must mention that Christianism and the long periods of political instability in several stretches of the Middle Ages was one of the main driver in Europe for the destruction of the tribal family and the creation of the nuclear family as in making family much smaller, more mobile (geographically and socially) and less important in society compared to social class, employment, etc. This is especially true following the Protestant Reform. Protestantism encourages heavily individualism after all. 

Unrelated and feel free not to answer if you find the question too personal, but do you have a family and raised kids? I am personally married, but I do not have children though I do work with teenagers on a daily basis since I am a teacher (on strike right now).
The following 1 user Likes epronovost's post:
  • isbelldl
Reply
#22

The "defense of marriage" position
(12-04-2023, 06:35 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(12-04-2023, 03:28 PM)SteveII Wrote: Marital Commitment and Longevity:
Christian Idea of Family: The Christian view of marriage emphasizes lifelong commitment, fidelity, and sacrificial love. Marriage is seen as a sacred covenant that forms the foundation of the family unit.
Modern Idea of Family: In many modern contexts, marriage is perceived as more disposable or temporary, a non-binding contract. If there is an 'out', the need to make it work is significantly diminished--leading to higher rates of divorce. This impacts family stability and the sense of security for children. Children statistically do far worse without a biological mother and father present in the home.

How do you reconcile the fact that Christians do not form longer lasting marriages or more loving ones with what you just stated above? In fact, there is strong evidence that the more religious a person is (especially if they are from a Protestant denomination), the more likely they are to divorce or be accused and convicted of domestic violence. There is a strong correlation between religiosity and such 

I would also like to note that children do far worse in a family where domestic violence (even if it's not physical violence) and loveless marriages than in mono-parental or recomposed family. In fact, most of the damage to children derived from divorce doesn't come so much from the separation itself, but from what preceded and surrounded it. Most people divorce after a long period of discord and enmity and the most painful divorces are those in which the parents continue to bicker or even attempt to undermine one another well after the separation. Ask most teen or child about what they remember the most about their parent's divorce and they will almost all tell you that it's hearing their parents bicker and yell at one another.

Being together in a marriage doesn't mean people love one another unfortunately and playing pretend in front of your kids for well over a decade and thinking they won't get wise to it is pure folly.

I think you addressed the rest of Steve's comment well, but I'd like to expand on this portion specifically. I was raised by divorced Christian parents, both of which remarried eventually. I was friends with many other kids who's parents were also divorced. In my case, my parents divorcing & remarrying was the best possible outcome. My dad was an alcoholic, & would have been a poor excuse for a full time father. My stepfather was a much better person to raise children with. My mom's own father died young. Her stepfather was physically abusive. The best option her mother had was to divorce him & take her children somewhere safe, including the biological child of the man she divorced. Forcing a spouse or child to remain in a household with an abusive partner is the worst possible decision. Nobody should be expected to "make it work" with an abusive partner.

By basically all metrics, I did better than my peers with married biological parents. Of course, I had the benefit that my parents were actually willing to cooperate & do what was in my best interest. The friends I had that struggled were typically either friends who's parents were still married & fought all the time or divorced & more focused on getting back at each other than raising the kid they made.

Having 2 parents present is a benefit for children. That doesn't mean that the biological parents are necessarily the best choice for that. It also doesn't mean that both parents need to be different genders to provide that benefit, or even that it needs to be limited to 2 parent figures. There are many family structures that can benefit children that aren't traditionally supported by the Christian approach, & limiting divorce can be significantly more dangerous that allowing poor matches to separate.
The following 1 user Likes isbelldl's post:
  • epronovost
Reply
#23

The "defense of marriage" position
(12-04-2023, 10:14 PM)isbelldl Wrote:
(12-04-2023, 06:35 PM)epronovost Wrote: How do you reconcile the fact that Christians do not form longer lasting marriages or more loving ones with what you just stated above? In fact, there is strong evidence that the more religious a person is (especially if they are from a Protestant denomination), the more likely they are to divorce or be accused and convicted of domestic violence. There is a strong correlation between religiosity and such 

I would also like to note that children do far worse in a family where domestic violence (even if it's not physical violence) and loveless marriages than in mono-parental or recomposed family. In fact, most of the damage to children derived from divorce doesn't come so much from the separation itself, but from what preceded and surrounded it. Most people divorce after a long period of discord and enmity and the most painful divorces are those in which the parents continue to bicker or even attempt to undermine one another well after the separation. Ask most teen or child about what they remember the most about their parent's divorce and they will almost all tell you that it's hearing their parents bicker and yell at one another.

Being together in a marriage doesn't mean people love one another unfortunately and playing pretend in front of your kids for well over a decade and thinking they won't get wise to it is pure folly.

I think you addressed the rest of Steve's comment well, but I'd like to expand on this portion specifically. I was raised by divorced Christian parents, both of which remarried eventually. I was friends with many other kids who's parents were also divorced. In my case, my parents divorcing & remarrying was the best possible outcome. My dad was an alcoholic, & would have been a poor excuse for a full time father. My stepfather was a much better person to raise children with. My mom's own father died young. Her stepfather was physically abusive. The best option her mother had was to divorce him & take her children somewhere safe, including the biological child of the man she divorced. Forcing a spouse or child to remain in a household with an abusive partner is the worst possible decision. Nobody should be expected to "make it work" with an abusive partner.

By basically all metrics, I did better than my peers with married biological parents. Of course, I had the benefit that my parents were actually willing to cooperate & do what was in my best interest. The friends I had that struggled were typically either friends who's parents were still married & fought all the time or divorced & more focused on getting back at each other than raising the kid they made.

Having 2 parents present is a benefit for children. That doesn't mean that the biological parents are necessarily the best choice for that. It also doesn't mean that both parents need to be different genders to provide that benefit, or even that it needs to be limited to 2 parent figures. There are many family structures that can benefit children that aren't traditionally supported by the Christian approach, & limiting divorce can be significantly more dangerous that allowing poor matches to separate.

My parents also divorced when I was a teenager and relatively quickly found new partners afterward (with which they my father still lives in couple with and my mother too until she was widowed unexpectedly). I have the benefit of having parents who performed a "perfect divorce". I never saw them argue or bicker. They were upfront and open about it and mentioned their intention to us a few months before concluding it. They remain cordial and amicable to one another to this day and lived at walking distance from one another as to easily share custody without problem. I would say this divorce made my father a better father, forcing him out of his traditional roles (daddy the clown and Mr. Father the Authority) into a more emotionally open and complex one which he embraced. What I draw from this experience is that while both my parents stopped loving one another we, their children, were always at the center of their respective preoccupation. Doing what is best for your children and divorce are not mutually exclusive at all.
The following 2 users Like epronovost's post:
  • Cavebear, isbelldl
Reply
#24

The "defense of marriage" position
(12-04-2023, 10:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(12-04-2023, 10:14 PM)isbelldl Wrote: I think you addressed the rest of Steve's comment well, but I'd like to expand on this portion specifically. I was raised by divorced Christian parents, both of which remarried eventually. I was friends with many other kids who's parents were also divorced. In my case, my parents divorcing & remarrying was the best possible outcome. My dad was an alcoholic, & would have been a poor excuse for a full time father. My stepfather was a much better person to raise children with. My mom's own father died young. Her stepfather was physically abusive. The best option her mother had was to divorce him & take her children somewhere safe, including the biological child of the man she divorced. Forcing a spouse or child to remain in a household with an abusive partner is the worst possible decision. Nobody should be expected to "make it work" with an abusive partner.

By basically all metrics, I did better than my peers with married biological parents. Of course, I had the benefit that my parents were actually willing to cooperate & do what was in my best interest. The friends I had that struggled were typically either friends who's parents were still married & fought all the time or divorced & more focused on getting back at each other than raising the kid they made.

Having 2 parents present is a benefit for children. That doesn't mean that the biological parents are necessarily the best choice for that. It also doesn't mean that both parents need to be different genders to provide that benefit, or even that it needs to be limited to 2 parent figures. There are many family structures that can benefit children that aren't traditionally supported by the Christian approach, & limiting divorce can be significantly more dangerous that allowing poor matches to separate.

My parents also divorced when I was a teenager and relatively quickly found new partners afterward (with which they my father still lives in couple with and my mother too until she was widowed unexpectedly). I have the benefit of having parents who performed a "perfect divorce". I never saw them argue or bicker. They were upfront and open about it and mentioned their intention to us a few months before concluding it. They remain cordial and amicable to one another to this day and lived at walking distance from one another as to easily share custody without problem. I would say this divorce made my father a better father, forcing him out of his traditional roles (daddy the clown and Mr. Father the Authority) into a more emotionally open and complex one which he embraced. What I draw from this experience is that while both my parents stopped loving one another we, their children, were always at the center of their respective preoccupation. Doing what is best for your children and divorce are not mutually exclusive at all.

My own parents had a long and happy stable marriage and gave us kids love and support (emotionally and materially). Sometimes, it seems that is not the norm. Not that they were perfect parents (who can be)? Dad seldom praised any of my accomplishments my whole life, and Mom was sneaking around our bedrooms while we were at school looking for "bad things". Looking back, I assume they were trying to be good parents. Dad wanted to challenge me to do more. Mom was trying to protect her kids. And I just have to say that she found drugs in my teenage siblings room. But I was smarter. There is a toolshed somewhere in Maryland (I won't say where) that had a paneled toolshed with a small panel that could be easily removed with a screwdriver. LOL!

I liked both parents well enough. If they had been unrelated neighbors, I would have liked them as that too. Both had many positive qualities. They are both deceased, so old annoyances fade away.

But I sure hear and read about a lot of bad parents. And that makes me sad for the children.
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply
#25

The "defense of marriage" position
(12-04-2023, 06:35 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(12-04-2023, 03:28 PM)SteveII Wrote: Shared Values and Moral Foundation:
  Christian Idea of Family: The Christian idea of family promotes the transmission of shared values, ethics, and moral principles from one generation to the next. The family is viewed as a primary source of moral education and character formation.
  Modern Idea of Family: The modern idea of family can sometimes emphasize individual autonomy over shared values. If stable values are not inculcated in the next generation, the fabric of society will start to tear (which is it).

That's, at bit laughable I would say. The idea that modern family do not share values, stable values, is preposterous. I would like to note that individual autonomy, freedom of thought and liberty are values; they are even fundamental values of a democratic society. Without such value democracy cannot endure. It will rot. So even by your own word, the modern idea of family provides shared and stable values. 

You missed a major point in my response: "...from one generation to the next." The same, objective set of values as the previous generation.  Sure,  individual autonomy, freedom of thought and liberty are values, but they are not "ethics, and moral principles" that I said are equally important. Do you pick an choose which parts of a sentence are important to my point and which are not?

Quote:The family is, of course, the primary source of moral education and character formation no matter it's nature since it's the first one to affect a person and the one that affects people at their most impressionable age (before the age of 6 or 7 years old). Then there is of course the question of does a family help form and forge character or does it help break them. A family that emphasize the values of the parents and community over the individual autonomy of the family member risk turning into a character breaking institution where all deviation from the norm is punished and where abuse and cruelty lurks behind every corner. Though you could say that a family that values too much individual autonomy runs the risk of behind neglectful and fails to provide the structure necessary for critical thinking skills which include moral judgement of course. There are dangers everywhere and only genuine love and sound judgement can help avoid those pitfall. I think you would be amiss if you were to qualify your family or yourself as more loving than the average bloke. 

Again, I think you miss the point of my response. The family is to pass on a set of stable, intergenerational values, ethics and principles that then govern the life of the child as they become adults. Perhaps counter-examples will help: There is no question whatsoever that the number of people who are willing to steal, cheat, lie, hate, hurt others (physically or mentally), totally lacking compassion, have no mercy, and/or otherwise live a completely self-centered life is on the rise...substantially. My wife is a teacher in a public school. Parents lie ever single day to teachers and administrator right in front of their children. Many of the children lie all the time--a practice that does not even phase them as wrong. Stores are moving out of neighborhoods because of shoplifting continuously. My 26 year old son told me on Sunday he had an acquaintance admit the previous week that he loves the self-checkouts at Walmart because you can always steal an item or two. I have bought tools at Lowes because they are returned after someone does the project they needed it for.

It's not even a religious thing. Basic character is more and more rare.

Quote:
Quote:Marital Commitment and Longevity:
  Christian Idea of Family: The Christian view of marriage emphasizes lifelong commitment, fidelity, and sacrificial love. Marriage is seen as a sacred covenant that forms the foundation of the family unit.
  Modern Idea of Family: In many modern contexts, marriage is perceived as more disposable or temporary, a non-binding contract. If there is an 'out', the need to make it work is significantly diminished--leading to higher rates of divorce. This impacts family stability and the sense of security for children. Children statistically do far worse without a biological mother and father present in the home.

How do you reconcile the fact that Christians do not form longer lasting marriages or more loving ones with what you just stated above? In fact, there is strong evidence that the more religious a person is (especially if they are from a Protestant denomination), the more likely they are to divorce or be accused and convicted of domestic violence. There is a strong correlation between religiosity and such 

What does that have to do with anything? The Christian view of marriage is not defined by what Christians do. The basis comes from the Bible and theology. If a 'Christian' divorces, then one or both has not followed through on the principles taught or the underlying Biblical attitudes needed.

Quote:I would also like to note that children do far worse in a family where domestic violence (even if it's not physical violence) and loveless marriages than in mono-parental or recomposed family. In fact, most of the damage to children derived from divorce doesn't come so much from the separation itself, but from what preceded and surrounded it. Most people divorce after a long period of discord and enmity and the most painful divorces are those in which the parents continue to bicker or even attempt to undermine one another well after the separation. Ask most teen or child about what they remember the most about their parent's divorce and they will almost all tell you that it's hearing their parents bicker and yell at one another.

There are of course cases where divorce is required. That does not in any way change the purpose of the family.

Quote:Being together in a marriage doesn't mean people love one another unfortunately and playing pretend in front of your kids for well over a decade and thinking they won't get wise to it is pure folly.     

First, love is a choice that takes two people to sustain. People place their individual needs ahead of the institution they vowed to uphold. No-fault divorce was one of the worst ideas of a century of a lot of bad ideas (the twentieth). It sends the message that the institution is not important. The results were predictable. Marriage rates have declined 60% in the last 50 years. The US has the highest rate of children living in single parent comes. Even for people trying to do it right, more and more men are not even adequate marriage prospects. These things don't correct themselves. Where are we headed?

Quote:
Quote:Generational Cohesion:
  Christian Idea of Family: Christianity often places a strong emphasis on multigenerational relationships, with respect for elders and a sense of responsibility toward both parents and grandparents.
  Modern Idea of Family: Modern lifestyles, including geographical mobility, can sometimes lead to physical separation of family members across different regions, limiting opportunities for close intergenerational relationships.

Isn't that a factor of modernity and more specifically of North American of Anglo-Saxon descent? Ethnic minorities in North America, migrants and Europeans tend to form closer multigenerational families. Geography certainly helps too. The late capitalist economy strongly encourages geographic mobility. Wealth and greater social mobility are also to blame for this. I think you are ascribing to economics and technological changes something that has little to do with family itself.

Quote:Supportive Community and Accountability:
  Christian Idea of Family: The Christian idea of family extends beyond the nuclear unit to include extended family, church community, and fellow believers. This creates a broader network of support, encouragement, and accountability.
  Modern Idea of Family: Some modern family structures may prioritize individualism and self-sufficiency, leading to a reduced sense of community and support outside immediate family members.

This one I would say is perhaps the best argument you present considering the 1st dubious, the 2nd one flat out false in fact the opposite and the 3rd one being unrelated. Though I would also say this fourth argument is also unrelated. It's not the commitment of Christianity to family that produced that community network more than the fact that Christians form an identity group and encourages and provide structure for organization and support within the group. Migrant communities, linguistic minorities, homosexuals and very outspoken atheists have formed such cohesive groups too by relying on identity groups. That's the whole basis of identity politics after all. Though, credit where credit is due, fundamentalist Christian are very good at it. They do tend to be very insular though and insularity, parochialism and general distrust or hatred of the outside world will produce very effective supportive communities though these can turn very sour as seen in gang dominated communities or even more extreme, in weirdo sects and cults.

On an interesting historical note, I must mention that Christianism and the long periods of political instability in several stretches of the Middle Ages was one of the main driver in Europe for the destruction of the tribal family and the creation of the nuclear family as in making family much smaller, more mobile (geographically and socially) and less important in society compared to social class, employment, etc. This is especially true following the Protestant Reform. Protestantism encourages heavily individualism after all. 

Unrelated and feel free not to answer if you find the question too personal, but do you have a family and raised kids? I am personally married, but I do not have children though I do work with teenagers on a daily basis since I am a teacher (on strike right now).

I have been married for 32 years. I have 5 children. Two were valedictorians of their highschools. 5 for 5 college graduates. Two engineers, a business manager, a special ed school teacher (like her mother), and a nurse. Three married. Two grandchildren, two on the way. The nest is empty. I am the oldest of 7. Parents are still married after 55 years. All siblings married at least once. Three of my siblings are divorced, one is in the process of it. One of them had a fire and lost a child. One had brain tumor.

I say all this only to show that I have deep experiences with the topic I am speaking of and the difficulties and joys, mistakes and accomplishments, the success and failures of marriage, and have thought deeply on all of them. Despite my slight bragging above, I have become more humble and more willing to extend grace to others the older I get and reflect on life.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)