Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

    Originally posted by WisconsinWildcard View Post
    Exactly. There are many, many problems inherent to human existence. However, solid education with real facts is usually the best way to approach most problems. Scare tactics or ignoring that a problem exists just kicks the can down the line.

    States that have comprehensive, factual sexual education tend to have lower teen pregnancy rates. States that have "abstinence only" education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates. Telling teens to not have sex does not work. People are going to have sex. We have way too much "animal" in our neurobiology to prevent that on any meaningful scale. The best approach is to educate them about the risks/benefits and they will be much more likely to be safe when they have sex.

    You want to prevent (some) people from multiple unwanted children with multiple partners? Give them access to free/affordable birth control. For those who cringe at using tax dollars for contraception...think how many condoms/oral contraceptives you could buy for the cost of one child on welfare. Also think how much Medicaid pays right now for preventable STI treatment. Penicillin is not too pricey but a condom is a hell of a lot cheaper.
    WW speaks truth once again. He is the Master to our inner Grasshopper.

    And he knows an Evil Empire when he sees one, and that's big.

    Comment


    • Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

      Originally posted by burd View Post
      WW speaks truth once again. He is the Master to our inner Grasshopper.

      And he knows an Evil Empire when he sees one, and that's big.
      Ha! In truth, I am just young enough to remember my childhood. If my parents told me not to do something just because they said so, I would probably do it anyway. If my parents explained to me the situation, possible consequences, etc, I would do it anyway but wear a helmet (pun at first not intended but now kind of intended)
      In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher'.

      Originally posted by burd
      I look at some people and I just know they do it doggy style. No way they're getting close to my kids.

      Comment


      • Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

        Originally posted by WisconsinWildcard View Post
        Ha! In truth, I am just young enough to remember my childhood. If my parents told me not to do something just because they said so, I would probably do it anyway. If my parents explained to me the situation, possible consequences, etc, I would do it anyway but wear a helmet (pun at first not intended but now kind of intended)
        I did what I was told because I liked to sit down and if I didn't sitting wasn't an option for a few days.

        Comment


        • Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

          Originally posted by leswp1 View Post
          I did what I was told because I liked to sit down and if I didn't sitting wasn't an option for a few days.
          Us "Millennials" had it easy
          In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher'.

          Originally posted by burd
          I look at some people and I just know they do it doggy style. No way they're getting close to my kids.

          Comment


          • Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

            Originally posted by joecct View Post
            I believe that kids born from a marriage are much better off than those who are not.
            I believe that, too - in fact, that's not even really something one needs to "believe" since there is plenty of socioeconomic data that *proves* it.

            However, I fail to see any connection at all between "kids from marriage are better off" and "all non-marital sex is bad."
            If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

            Comment


            • Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

              Right, except to him marriage is man and woman who have gone through a ceremony so it is a bit different. Man and woman in a non-marriage relationship still raise well adjusted kids as do man and man and woman and woman. The data usually proves 2 parents are important in raising a kid what the parents are and what their relationship is is often irrelevant.

              You ever notice the parts of the bible that say not to judge others are often ignored for the parts of the bible that help others judge.
              "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
              -aparch

              "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
              -INCH

              Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
              -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

              Comment


              • Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

                If non-marital sex is sinful, then bad breath and crooked teeth was my savior.

                Comment


                • Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

                  Originally posted by WisconsinWildcard View Post
                  Exactly. There are many, many problems inherent to human existence. However, solid education with real facts is usually the best way to approach most problems. Scare tactics or ignoring that a problem exists just kicks the can down the line.

                  States that have comprehensive, factual sexual education tend to have lower teen pregnancy rates. States that have "abstinence only" education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates. Telling teens to not have sex does not work. People are going to have sex. We have way too much "animal" in our neurobiology to prevent that on any meaningful scale. The best approach is to educate them about the risks/benefits and they will be much more likely to be safe when they have sex.

                  You want to prevent (some) people from multiple unwanted children with multiple partners? Give them access to free/affordable birth control. For those who cringe at using tax dollars for contraception...think how many condoms/oral contraceptives you could buy for the cost of one child on welfare. Also think how much Medicaid pays right now for preventable STI treatment. Penicillin is not too pricey but a condom is a hell of a lot cheaper.
                  In this hypothesis lies the rub, though. While I'm no religious man, to that point, I'm atheist. However, with all the information out there about pregnancy and STDs, yet we see children born to single mothers, especially those living without the fathers in their lives to provide any type of support, at all time highs. We have the knowledge, classes are being taught, and yet we don't see things improving, quite to the contrary, really. With all that we know, how is this possible? I think it comes back to an immediate gratification society and those looking to thumb their collective noses at traditional values more so than simply "breaking the shackles" of religion.
                  "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

                  "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

                  "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                    We have the knowledge, classes are being taught, and yet we don't see things improving, quite to the contrary, really. With all that we know, how is this possible?
                    WW mentioned that in states where education on the subject is available rather than an abstinence only curriculum that in fact the stats are much more positive.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

                      Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                      In this hypothesis lies the rub, though. While I'm no religious man, to that point, I'm atheist.
                      Although it seems inevitable, I was not trying to bring religion into the forefront of this particular issue. As a matter of full disclosure, I would describe myself as an agnostic atheist, however, I feel reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancies and STIs is a secular goal that can be shared by religious and non-religious alike.

                      Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                      However, with all the information out there about pregnancy and STDs,
                      Information is out there, yes. Is that information usually correct? Maybe. Sexual education as a whole remains a complicated subject that involves many issues. Politics, religion, the role of parenting, it is all there. There are many ulterior motives at play that may filter facts. Additionally, the information needs to be presented in an accessible way that is also applicable to young and old alike. To tell someone what causes pregnancy and STIs is one thing but educating an individual/population about sex, its consequences and degrees of safe practice is a whole other challenge.

                      Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                      yet we see children born to single mothers, especially those living without the fathers in their lives to provide any type of support, at all time highs.
                      I am a semester out from my population health and sexual medicine courses so I cannot pull pertinent sources from memory but I do not necessarily agree with this statement. Granted, I am using teen pregnancy as a case study, but unwanted teen pregnancy has been decreasing for the past twenty years. Yes, we still have room for improvement. States with abstinence only education see stagnant or increasing rates of teen pregnancy in general. Minority and lower socioeconomic populations also have not seen the substantial decrease in teen pregnancy rates. However, we are seeing general progress. I think if you take education models from populations that have seen successful declines in teen pregnancy and STIs and implement similar programs in high value demographics we will eventually see the gains we all hope for.

                      Although behind a paywall (I believe) this article seems like a good review of current hurdles. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.proxy.li...ubmed/22790099


                      Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                      We have the knowledge, classes are being taught, and yet we don't see things improving, quite to the contrary, really. With all that we know, how is this possible? I think it comes back to an immediate gratification society and those looking to thumb their collective noses at traditional values more so than simply "breaking the shackles" of religion.
                      I will grant that certain STI rates are increasing. However, I would argue that this is more an issue of drug resistance rather than an increase in unprotected promiscuity. I am not sold that we have more "broken home" children now than in the recent past. I am more of the view that human nature is a pretty set in stone thing. Generational differences may be present on a superficial level, but underlying drives of human nature are more constant. People will still lie, steal, cheat and have sex. The sooner we recognize that these traits are inherent to our species, the sooner we can go about figuring out how to decrease the prevalence of these activities. Putting our fingers in our ears and pretending that we are the most perfect specimen to grace this earth is quite counterproductive.*

                      Since this thread is about "marriage" I will put an obligatory point in about that. The only argument that I have heard against same sex marriage that is relatively logically consistent is that marriage should not be defined by the government at all. However, there are 100s of laws on the books specific to marriage. Therefore, I think, that argument is irrelevant.

                      *Note. I am not saying you hold any of these particular views besides what you explicitly said. I am more going off of a stream of consciousnesses based on the points you brought up.
                      In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher'.

                      Originally posted by burd
                      I look at some people and I just know they do it doggy style. No way they're getting close to my kids.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

                        Originally posted by Priceless View Post
                        Surrogate mothers.
                        Adoption.
                        Artificial insemination.
                        Still takes a man and a woman.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

                          Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                          In this hypothesis lies the rub, though. While I'm no religious man, to that point, I'm atheist. However, with all the information out there about pregnancy and STDs, yet we see children born to single mothers, especially those living without the fathers in their lives to provide any type of support, at all time highs. We have the knowledge, classes are being taught, and yet we don't see things improving, quite to the contrary, really. With all that we know, how is this possible? I think it comes back to an immediate gratification society and those looking to thumb their collective noses at traditional values more so than simply "breaking the shackles" of religion.
                          Anecdotally- The population of single mothers might be growing but in my experience way more of them are older and in relationships. 25 yrs ago we had a ton of teen preg. Now we have way more in the 20-30 age range who are single. It has become culturally normal to be pregnant and not married. When I was in HS you were sent away. Not anymore.

                          STDs- We have become much more adept at detecting STDs and we test way more regularly. BCBS requires we test for chlamydia (and gonorrhea comes in that screen as well) for every female under the age of 25. We also routinely screen for HPV (cause of genital warts and cervical cancer) on every pap at certain ages. If we don't we are penalized financially. Again, only in my practice, the rate of symptomatic STDs, not just caught because we are screening, is way less. When I started 25 yrs ago we had a lot of Hep B, Syphilis, gonorrhea and PID (Chlamydia). It was a smorgasbord. 10 yrs ago where we were having an epidemic of herpes and genital warts. Now we have way less of all of this. I don't think there is necessarily a whole lot less sex (although the rate of 14 yr olds having sex has sig decreased!!) but kids are way more likely to use condoms. It is the adults who are idiots!

                          Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
                          WW mentioned that in states where education on the subject is available rather than an abstinence only curriculum that in fact the stats are much more positive.
                          Granted I am in a small family practice, but we are on the edge of a city that had one of the highest rates of teen preg in the state at one time. Teen pregnancy in our area has decreased significantly. We had huge # of teen pregnancy when I first started working (25 yrs ago ). This number went down after a statewide initiative to educate and provide access to BC. They cut the funding and the rates rose exponentially, esp in the trouble spots like the inner cities. Thankfully that Gov left to run for prez and the funding was restored. Numbers dropped again and have continued to do so.

                          My town has probably the most deficient health education in the area (we have a very active pro-life person who influences curriculum) and it shows. Kids are noticeably more ignorant regarding risks of STDs and regarding pregnancy prevention. They don't even know the basic anatomy and how they get their period at HS age. I invite the parents to sit in on the discussion and they are just as ignorant although they are unaware they are. This makes one wonder how we should leave education to the parents!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

                            Throwing my hat into the ring regarding the intial question for this thread.

                            What is marriage? To me marriage is a religious ceremony joining two persons together for a lifetime bond under whichever God it is they worship. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I feel it's up to that particular church if they want to marry the two individuals. Any service that takes place at a town hall, in front of a JOP, etc, is not a marriage, but a civil union. This is a governmental exercise where once completed the individuals have certain "rights" if you will (can't be forced testify against each other, power of attorney, tax breaks, etc).

                            When it comes to same sex civil unions (a service not performed for religious purposes), I want to know where the government gets off thinking they can deny people these rights? I understand there are many people in our government who are raging bigots and can't fathom that people love who they love, but if I wanted the government to come into my house and tell who I can be with, I would move to Saudi Arabia. The government isn't in place to deny people their rights. Telling heterosexual couples that they can have certain rights but gay couple can't is today's version of seperate drinking fountains. Hell, why don't we just have a new 3/5 compromise. Sure, gays can marry each other, but they only get 3/5 of the rights of straight people because we just don't like you. I used to think that marriage was just strictly man and woman, and I'm not a religious person, but the more I thought about it, I realized that it has no affect on me what-so-ever and I have no right to deny someone the potential happiness that marriage brings people.

                            Rant Warning

                            I understand a majority of the people who oppose gay marriage are republicans and I find it rather hypocritical that they want smaller government, but have 0 problem letting the government into their bedroom to tell you who you can have relations with and in what manner. Not to be offensive or attacking, but if those are your views, you can get *****ed. If you can't see that you are denying another person the same rights you have, which are granted by the government, because God won't be happy, then I hope your reproductive organs get dropped in a vat of acid because you don't deserve to reproduce and bring more bigotry into the world.

                            I want someone who has these views to come forward and say how having two gay people either get married (if their place of worship will grant it) or enter into a civil union in the eyes of the government affects your life. And if you even start by saying "in the bible it says..." you should just go join the Westboro Baptist Church and set yourself on fire.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

                              Originally posted by bottomdweller View Post
                              Throwing my hat into the ring regarding the intial question for this thread.

                              What is marriage? To me marriage is a religious ceremony joining two persons together for a lifetime bond under whichever God it is they worship. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I feel it's up to that particular church if they want to marry the two individuals. Any service that takes place at a town hall, in front of a JOP, etc, is not a marriage, but a civil union. This is a governmental exercise where once completed the individuals have certain "rights" if you will (can't be forced testify against each other, power of attorney, tax breaks, etc).

                              When it comes to same sex civil unions (a service not performed for religious purposes), I want to know where the government gets off thinking they can deny people these rights? I understand there are many people in our government who are raging bigots and can't fathom that people love who they love, but if I wanted the government to come into my house and tell who I can be with, I would move to Saudi Arabia. The government isn't in place to deny people their rights. Telling heterosexual couples that they can have certain rights but gay couple can't is today's version of seperate drinking fountains. Hell, why don't we just have a new 3/5 compromise. Sure, gays can marry each other, but they only get 3/5 of the rights of straight people because we just don't like you. I used to think that marriage was just strictly man and woman, and I'm not a religious person, but the more I thought about it, I realized that it has no affect on me what-so-ever and I have no right to deny someone the potential happiness that marriage brings people.

                              Rant Warning

                              I understand a majority of the people who oppose gay marriage are republicans and I find it rather hypocritical that they want smaller government, but have 0 problem letting the government into their bedroom to tell you who you can have relations with and in what manner. Not to be offensive or attacking, but if those are your views, you can get *****ed. If you can't see that you are denying another person the same rights you have, which are granted by the government, because God won't be happy, then I hope your reproductive organs get dropped in a vat of acid because you don't deserve to reproduce and bring more bigotry into the world.

                              I want someone who has these views to come forward and say how having two gay people either get married (if their place of worship will grant it) or enter into a civil union in the eyes of the government affects your life. And if you even start by saying "in the bible it says..." you should just go join the Westboro Baptist Church and set yourself on fire.
                              Great post although I would not be dropping peoples parts in a vat of acid or lighting them on fire. Instead I pray they will look at the Bible and see the God and later Jesus was more concerned with caring for the needy than if 2 people love each other and want to commit to caring for each other.

                              We had a Pastor once who was a Jewish convert. His sermons were fascinating; he told us the Jewish reasoning/motivation behind the laws or edicts in the Bible. He was very clear many of the laws regarding marriage (and the family) that we interpret as direction/subjugation of the women were to protect the family from abandonment or abuse by the man. One in particular was the edict against divorce. That was not to preserve an unwholesome union but directed against the man abdicating his responsibilities. In the time it was written the man could divorce a woman with no reason and that left him without responsibility for her. She became a nonperson and was at the mercy of her family of origin. Following that line of reasoning there would not be much written about 2 people of the same sex because there was not one person who was dominant over the other.

                              The elephant in the room is that if we give these people rights it upsets the current order. It means higher costs, revamping things like taxes, Soc Sec, and other benefits. I wonder how many people are opposed simply because of the financial aspects but using the religious stuff because the people who believe that are so vociferous. (OK, I know it is a run on sentence and the grammar horse will come get me)

                              Comment


                              • Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

                                Originally posted by bottomdweller View Post
                                Throwing my hat into the ring regarding the intial question for this thread.

                                What is marriage? To me marriage is a religious ceremony joining two persons together for a lifetime bond under whichever God it is they worship. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I feel it's up to that particular church if they want to marry the two individuals. Any service that takes place at a town hall, in front of a JOP, etc, is not a marriage, but a civil union. This is a governmental exercise where once completed the individuals have certain "rights" if you will (can't be forced testify against each other, power of attorney, tax breaks, etc).

                                When it comes to same sex civil unions (a service not performed for religious purposes), I want to know where the government gets off thinking they can deny people these rights? I understand there are many people in our government who are raging bigots and can't fathom that people love who they love, but if I wanted the government to come into my house and tell who I can be with, I would move to Saudi Arabia. The government isn't in place to deny people their rights. Telling heterosexual couples that they can have certain rights but gay couple can't is today's version of seperate drinking fountains. Hell, why don't we just have a new 3/5 compromise. Sure, gays can marry each other, but they only get 3/5 of the rights of straight people because we just don't like you. I used to think that marriage was just strictly man and woman, and I'm not a religious person, but the more I thought about it, I realized that it has no affect on me what-so-ever and I have no right to deny someone the potential happiness that marriage brings people.

                                Rant Warning

                                I understand a majority of the people who oppose gay marriage are republicans and I find it rather hypocritical that they want smaller government, but have 0 problem letting the government into their bedroom to tell you who you can have relations with and in what manner. Not to be offensive or attacking, but if those are your views, you can get *****ed. If you can't see that you are denying another person the same rights you have, which are granted by the government, because God won't be happy, then I hope your reproductive organs get dropped in a vat of acid because you don't deserve to reproduce and bring more bigotry into the world.

                                I want someone who has these views to come forward and say how having two gay people either get married (if their place of worship will grant it) or enter into a civil union in the eyes of the government affects your life. And if you even start by saying "in the bible it says..." you should just go join the Westboro Baptist Church and set yourself on fire.
                                Good thing you threw that qualifier in there, just so we didn't get confused.
                                That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X