|
A) Confronting the Stereotype
Unfortunately, a great deal of erroneous information find women friends online has been disseminated in recent years involving meet women online chat rooms stereotypical portrayals of gay people, the gay rights movement find muslim women online, and a so-called “homosexual agenda” to undermine American find muslim women online cultural standards. With respect to marriage specifically how to meet women online david deangelo, these misconceptions often translate find single women on skype into a fear that once permitted to wed, gays and lesbians will make a mockery meet women friends online of the institution by treating the marital bond as less than sacrosanct meet women online chat rooms, or, worse yet, will threaten the institution how to find women online of marriage by deliberately sabotaging it from within.
Of course, these fears lie wholly unsupported in fact. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens who want to marry want to do so for much the same reasons heterosexuals do – ideas of mutual love, support, and commitment. Indeed, gay people would likely be the institution’s most “enthusiastic recruits,” seeking not to destroy the institution, but rather to take part in it, and thereby strengthen it.22 In the words of Rabbi Yoel H. Kahn: “I do not believe that encouraging commitment, stability, and openness undermines the institution of family — it enhances it.”23
|
| |
| B) The Hypocrisy of the Argument |
| |
| If conservatives are truly worried about the demise of marriage, why not target Las Vegas-style weddings, or no-fault divorce laws, or adultery? Why the fixation on the one group of people excluded from the institution, the one group of people who could not possibly be responsible for its decline? The answer is clear. As Stephen Chapman put it: “Conservatives say they abhor gay marriage because they value marriage. The truth is they abhor gay marriage because they abhor gays.”24 |
| |
| C) The Cross-Cultural Analogy |
| |
|
It seems strange, if not hypocritical find single women on skype, that the same people who proclaim the institution of marriage to be “the bedrock find single women on skype of our civilization” also argue that it is so fragile find single women on skype that allowing gays access to it will endanger it forever. Countries such as Denmark find single women on skype, Sweden, Canada and the Netherlands, which how to find women online have all legalized gay marriage and are hardly racked by moral find muslim women online decay, provide concrete evidence how to meet women online david deangelo that this fear is grounded in neither fact nor reason find muslim women online. And has been mentioned earlier, with the legalization closer find mexican women online to home, in the state of Massachusetts, the argument PUT STATISTICS find old women online HERE ABOUT MASSACHUSETTS DIVORCE RATES VS TEXAS find muslim women online DIVORCE RATES
|
| D) Strengthening the Institution |
| In some ways, one might expect that gay marriages would not mirror their heterosexual counterparts, an inevitable byproduct of gender differences between same-sex and opposite-sex unions. While some have theorized that this alteration in traditional marital structures would destroy the institution, a better argument would be that it would actually strengthen the institution by pushing marriage in its evolution towards being a partnership of equals. |
|
Professor Nan Hunter, for instance find single women on skype, theorizes that the traditional notion of marriage meet women friends online, with man as head of the household and wage-earner and woman as housekeeper how to meet women online david deangelo and childrearer, would necessarily be challenged find mexican women online by examples of same-sex households meet women online chat rooms where a woman is the wage-earner, a man is the housekeeper, or, ultimately find muslim women online, the partners share the roles.25 Recognition of same-sex marriages, she notes find women friends online, “would radically strengthen find muslim women online and dramatically illuminate the claim that marriage partners meet women friends online are presumptively equal.”26 In this vein, Hunter and others find russian women online theorize that heterosexual women could find single women on skype benefit from the legalization of gay marriage almost meet women online chat rooms as much as gays and lesbians.
Lets put this all in perspective. What is this all really about meet women online uk?
|
| |
| E) A Note On Change |
| |
| Finally, it would be wise to note that arguments which employ slippery slopes or refer to the “sanctity of the institution” are for the most part simply arguments of fear. People are always wary of change, and for many, gay marriage represents change of a particularly powerful kind. In this vein, as we explored with respect to slippery slope arguments, it might help to note that the institution of marriage has undergone tremendous transformations over the past few centuries; recognition of same-sex unions would not be the first, nor the most drastic, step in the evolution.127 |
| |
| 1. |
Indeed, some historians argue that gay people were the first to introduce the concept of “romantic love” into the Western system of thought – marriage not for the sake of biological |
|
| |
| Here’s a brief history lesson: To begin with, African-American slaves at one time had no family rights and were not permitted to marry. As a nineteenth-century jurist put it, “whether [slaves] ‘take up’ with each other by express permission of their owners or from a mere impulse of nature, [their marriages] cannot in the contemplation of the law make any sort of difference.”28 |
| While African-Americans were later extended the right to marry, miscegenation laws remained on the books. Virginia’s antimiscegenation law, for instance, was first adopted in 1691 to prevent “abominable mixture and spurious issue,” and was not declared unconstitutional until 1967.29 |
| The institution of marriage has evolved in other ways as well. At one point, marriage was essentially a business deal which had little to do with love. Marriages cemented family ties, prevented feuding between rival clans or countries, and provided social status for men and economic support for women. Marriages were typically arranged, and bride-prices were bargained between the father of the bride and her future husband.30 |
| Vestiges of these business transaction functions of marriage remained a part of the marital institution until recent times, including those which treated women as the “property” of their husbands. In 1967, for instance, every state exempted from its criminal laws a rape by a husband of his wife – a woman was seen as the “property” of her husband and had a “duty” to provide him with sexual gratification. Ultimately, women succeeded in convincing legislators that the entitlements of marriage did not include a husband’s free reign over his wife’s body, and every state either curtailed or repealed its marital rape exemption by 1993.31 |
| Indeed, if one takes a broad look at the institution, very few aspects of marriage have stayed the same: Marriage is not “traditionally” monogamous (in the Old Testament, Jacob’s two wives and two concubines produced the head of the twelve tribes, and King Solomon is said to have had 10,000 wives); Does not “traditionally” involve a religious blessing (in early Christian unions, marriage was not yet a sacrament); and was not “traditionally” recognized by law (centuries of European “parole” marriages were conducted outside the law).32 As scholar E.J. Graff notes: “Each era’s marriage institutionalizes the sexual bond in a way that makes sense for that society, that economy, that class.… Marriage is – marriage has always been – variations on a theme.”33 |
| |
| necessity but rather for mutual love, devotion, care and concern. In this vein, there is tremendous irony in the fact that gay people are made to feel that the institution which they helped create could be substantially threatened by their involvement in it. |
|
| |
