You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Those who'd redefine it think like those who'd despoil the wilderness.
From the article: "Once we start to rediscover the lost honor and sacredness of marriage, our children and our children's children will, one day, reap the rewards." Marriage has been redefined many times throughout history, Dan Olson, largely to the benefit of our mothers and our mothers' mothers. What you describe as "redefinition" in the case of marriage equality is but another instance of recognizing the right of every consenting adult to commit him/herself to forming a family with the person s/he loves.
Same-sex marriage did not cause loss of honor and sacredness of marriage. Nor should our children and our children's children be denied the opportunity to reap the rewards of committing themselves to forming a family with the consenting adult they love.
Furthermore, amending our state constitution in such a way as to deny two consenting adults who love one another the right to commit their lives to one another is no way to rediscover the lost honor and sacredness of marriage. Look to the cause of loss of honor and sacredness in the social construct and direct your efforts at mending that loss.
"Since marriage and child-rearing have been rent asunder, the logic goes, we should redefine the institution. Other advocates of same-sex marriage point to the high rate of divorce in heterosexual marriages -- since marriages in general are being torn apart, the answer is redefinition.".........This is a straw man argument. The answer is to stop treating GLBT people as second class citizens while denying them the social, legal, and financial benefits that government-sanctioned marriage affords. The high divorce rates, however, do point out the hypocrisy of those that see same-sex marriage as being inferior to heterosexual marriage
Apples and oranges much? "The Wilderness" is just that, Wild. Ask any reputable biologist and you will be told that homosexual behavior exists in a myriad of species. Humans "in the wild" did the same thing. When we got our big brains we invented marriage for whatever reason. Doves and other wild creatures mate for life for their own reasons. Peacocks however do not. Do you suggest we all go back to being wild animals? I am all for preserving the wild because we can learn from it, but our big brains were given to us to know "Fairness." That is what the fight against the Marriage Ammendment is about.
"But the logic of same-sex-marriage proponents places priority on individual identity over the commitments intrinsic to genuine love."
Written as if same-sex couples are incapable of genuine love.
Thank you, Mr. Olson, for comparing my beliefs in equality, my same-sex marriage of over eight years, and my monogamous relationship of over 23 years to litterbugs "despoiling the wilderness." I will refrain from stating what I compare *you* to.
Gee, the usual cadre of same-sex marriage proponents arrive fast and early, with their tired arguments.
Hey, if you want to get married, marry somebody of the opposite sex. It isnt a complicated process, is it? If you want same-sex benefits, then find a legal contract to ensure those benefits. Once marriage is redefined, it becomes a silly notion, as about several years after it would change--->about 90% of same sex marriages would be the geriatric, heterosexual, widowed women marrying each other for the benefits. It would be worse than a joke.........
"Here old codes continue to be honored, and, according to sociologists, incomparable social stability is the result."..............The author neglected to mention that the American Sociological Association (along with the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Anthropological Association to name a few) supports same-sex marriage based on their research. It's disingenuous to make a statement that would lead the reader to wrongly infer that mainstream sociologists were against same-sex marriage.
Re: "as about several years after it would change--->about 90% of same sex marriages would be the geriatric, heterosexual, widowed women marrying each other for the benefits. It would be worse than a joke........." Whoa, goferfanz! Where'd that argument come from???
"Wilderness and marriage defenders have this in common -- they agree that the best way to preserve something is not redefinition but restoration."
First of all Preservation and Restoration are two different activities. To preserve means to KEEP something in its' original state, unchanged...to restore means to RETURN something to it's original state....which I submit is often impossible to do perfectly, once something has been altered.
And so, in the very act of "restoration", redefinition also takes place.
But as another poster has pointed out, marriage has been being "redefined" ever since it was invented, in different cultures and in other times. Nothing is static, nothing stays the same in this world, EVER. It must be painful for those people who can't accept this universal truth, as it applies to the institution of marriage or anything else.
"But the logic of same-sex-marriage proponents places priority on individual identity over the commitments intrinsic to genuine love." And here we have the crux of the matter--love does not render us from who we are or who the people we love are. Love is neither limited to marriage nor required for marriage. But marriage is legal and public contract with terms and escape clauses. Same sex couples can have committed love and they should be recognized and supported in law.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks