You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
More and more, people don't want to tie the knot.
No, despite the superficial ramblings of this column, America is heading toward illegitimacy rates above 50%--and societal chaos. It is in large part related to devaluing traditional marriage in recent decades. That includes easy divorce laws, food stamp nation, paying mothers to have kids out of wedlock, allowing anybody or anything to "marry," etc and etc. America is deservedly a country in steep decline.
goferfanz said: " America is deservedly a country in steep decline." Better to be like the Spartans where the men lived in barracks separate from their wives and children. Or perhaps like the Romans where debauchery was an established past time. How many wives did Abraham have? Or Brigham Young? Maybe we could ask Pope Alexander VI for instructions on marital and spiritual fidelity. Just more claptrap from the right!
I disagree with the assumption that social conservatives are anti-GLBT marriage. Those who are against lesbian marriage may well be social conservatives, but that does not mean all social conservatives are...
Marriage is a union of two people - not a partnership, not an arrangement, not a safe togetherness that ends when a better deal comes along. We have moved to a society of self actualization, of being all you can be, of taking care of your own needs... You can't have a union where two become one when self actualization and your own needs are your primary concerns. Marriage suffers for it... Many marriages are the rite of passage for the woman, a status in her group, and a like situation for a man; and it is a means of emotional pleasure for a woman, and a man... And today in many marriages many men feel they are basically trophies for the wife and sperm donors and helpers until the child is old enough to go to school, and then there is no need for the man's "interference" and the woman can have "a life" with her friends again, and send the support checks. (And if you think that is nuts, ask a man.) The child is her emotional pleasure, and she is in control without the man... (The mother has no clue about raising boys paste age 11, but she "knows" - why? Because she is raising him to be what women need. Not what he needs, or what a man needs - what a woman needs. Yes, that IS as dumb as it sounds - but true)... If the man is like her and is taking care of his own needs first - no union. Maybe he realizes he has a family and can't accept the responsibility - (ask why if he really was supported) or he will accept it but he isn't in a union with a wife, he just has a convenient bed partner "who has her needs" first... You see the pattern - and it comes to this - What is the measure of "first", and who comes first for me in the marriage - me or the other? Hint - You can't be first if you take the "in sickness" part seriously, and you can't define what is first for you and expect it in a union where each cares enough and commits enough to put the other first. I.e., you don't spend time telling your other what you need - you each spend time arguing that they should have what they need rather than you have what you need... Are there marriage problems when neither one expects to have their needs taken care of by the other, but cares for the other and wants then to be happy? (You would be amazed at how many women tell me that each sacrificing things for the other is not how relationships work - a lot more than agree.) Nuff said...
Marriage is a union of two people - not a partnership, not an arrangement, not a safe togetherness that ends when a better deal comes along. ************ Agree, except that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It does not require a piece of paper to commit to this union.
Marriage is quickly becoming an unnecessary and anachronistic institution. No loss.
Really gopherfanz? 'allowing anybody or anything to "marry,"'. First of all, despite your and other’s efforts to enshrine discrimination in our state constitution, state law still discriminates against gay and lesbian couples. Contrary to your claim, we do not allow ‘anybody’ to marry in Minnesota. And please tell me which state allows or is even pushing to allow ‘anything’ to marry.
A marriage is a temporary union intended to produce children. Raise the kids, split up. Man and woman cannot live together for long.
A significant portion of the same sex marriage battle cry includes; It is not about children and keep the government out of my bedroom. As such, the reality is that since two or more individuals can live together without government's approval (marriage) and two people can have a child without government's approval, federal, state and local governments truly have no compelling reason to be involved in the sanctioning marriage. What should be done is for the several States (A Constitutional term) to define marriage strictly as a ceremony performed solely by registered religious institutions. Those seeding a relationship can solicit the services of a lawyer or work with their employer for benefits and legal arrangements. For those who disagree, the question that should be addressed is, what "value" is government providing that cannot be provided privately?
If conservatives want better labor laws that allow for more flexible work hours, then perhaps they shouldn't be gutting the unions.
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