Last week it was announced that Julie and Hillary Goodridge, the lesbian couple whose lawsuit prompted the Massachusetts court decision and launched our ongoing national debate over gay marriage, were breaking up. The moment I read this, I knew we'd be subjected to a string of "A ha! We told you so! Gay marriages can't last!" arguments from gay marriage opponents. I was right. And it's coupled with lots of bigoted nonsense about how gay couples are incapable of the same human emotions and attributes that straight couples are.
Brian Camenker, executive director of the group Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance, says the fact that Julie and Hillary Goodridge have decided to separate only two years after they were married in Massachusetts is no shock. Homosexual relationships, he contends, are not designed to last because they have no clearly defined structure.
I'll take vague and meaningless nonsense for $1000, Alex. What the hell does "clearly defined structure" mean in a relationship? I doubt Camenker could give any coherent answer to that question that is present in all straight relationships. Every relationship, whether gay or straight, is different. There are a thousand variables that define the dynamics of a relationship and none of them have anything to do with whether the relationship is gay or straight. Of course, the claim that gay relationships are not designed to last is proven false by the existence of millions and millions of committed, lifelong gay relationships. But why let a little thing like reality get in the way of a perfectly good delusion?
Camenker says such homosexual marriage or domestic-partner relationships are especially hard on the children caught in the midst of them -- kids like the Goodridges' ten-year-old daughter Annie, for example. "Putting a child through this kind of a thing because they want to have a child but not letting the child know, really, what real, normal relationships are like is very, very selfish and self-centered," he observes."I think it's very cruel, very self-centered, very selfish," the pro-family activist says, "and I think that's one of the real main tragedies of this whole thing." He believes homosexuals who attempt to co-parent a child are raising him or her in an environment that is inherently unstable.
As opposed to raising them as a single parent in a string of short term relationships? Camenker can't be honest and say what he really means, which is that he doesn't think homosexuals should be parents at all. Because if he admits that homosexuals can and should be parents to their children, then he will be forced to admit that a gay parent in a committed relationship is, all other things being equal, going to be in a better situation to raise children than a gay parent who is not in a committed relationship (for all the same reasons that children raised in committed straight relationships are, on balance, better off than children raised by single parents - which is not to say that a single parent can't do a terrific job of raising kids).
In fact, I'll make a prediction right now. I'll predict that when we get gay marriage on a large scale in the US, the divorce rate among gay marriages will be lower than the divorce rate among straight couples. Why? Because there isn't the kind of social and familial pressure on gays to get married, regardless of whether they're marrying the right person. They won't be as susceptible to just marrying someone, anyone, just to fit some preconceived idea of when they're supposed to get married.
A sizable percentage of marriages, I am convinced and have witnessed countless times, occur only because the people involved have a predetermined blueprint for their life. We have this absurd notion that human beings are all the same and we are captivated by this notion of "happily ever after". So they have it drilled into them that a normal person gets married by a certain age, has 2.5 kids and buys a house in the suburbs. They don't question it, they can't imagine anything different, and so they simply fall into the pattern by marrying whomever they're with at that age. I'm convinced that this is why so many first marriages fail, because most people have given no thought at all to what they want in a spouse and because they're simply doing what they think is expected of them.
Among gay people, however, this pressure is virtually non-existent. Though committed, long term relationships are becoming more and more prevalent among gays (and that's a healthy thing, and ought to be encouraged), gay people still tend to live outside of that set of basic societal expectations. Because who they are tends to be contrary to societal expectations on a much more fundamental level, that cookie cutter life pattern that is demanded of straight couples never even comes into play for them (though I'm very curious to see if this will change once gay marriage is a reality and societal disapproval of homosexuality has been reduced to the underground level on which we see racism today).
The fact is, for those gay couples who want to marry today, it's a struggle. The pressures on them are enormous. The bigotry they must still endure is very real and very damaging. Those who manage to overcome those odds and forge a committed relationship amidst such hardship are likely to have stronger relationships. At the very least, they will tend to be much stronger than those straight relationships that exist solely out of a sense of societal obligation or inertia. When you have to fight for something, you aren't going to give it up as easily as those who can casually take it for granted.
So I predict that gay marriages will have a much lower divorce rate than straight marriages for the foreseeable future. And while the breakup of the Goodridge's is sad, only those whose bigotry renders them wholly irrational will see that single example as proof that gay relationships are inherently unstable.
According to Camenker, homosexual couples who say they have been together for ten years or more are the exception, not the norm, and many of these are not held together by any sort of healthy dynamic. "Much of it is just the whole nature of these kinds of relationships," he says.
Often, in these relationships, Camenker adds, "there are all kinds of psychological issues going on, obsessions, things like that, that cause two men or two women to want to live together as husband and husband or wife and wife."
How exactly does Camenker claim to know this? It's highly unlikely that he has ever known any gay couples well enough to have any insight into their relationships. And if he's looking for psychological reasons that drive marriages, reasons beyond love and commitment, I dare say he can find all the examples he needs among straight marriages. Of all of the long term relationships that I've been close enough to be able to judge, a higher percentage of the gay relationships were healthy and stable than is true of the straight relationships (though there are far more of the second kind than the first).
For every married couple I know with a really healthy relationship based on mutual affection and commitment, I know of at least one other one where the couple is together for all the wrong reasons. For every marriage that has genuine love and respect, I know of at least one more where the dominant ethos in the relationship is thinly disguised contempt barely papered over with enough apathy to get them through their day. How many couples are there out there who stopped caring years ago, but now they're just so busy working to keep up with their credit card payments and overvalued mortgage to do anything to change it? How many couples do you know who are only together because of the kids, and they keep so busy shuttling them to activities that they manage to barely speak to one another, which is probably the only way they stay together? How many relationships have you seen where one or both of them is clearly unhappy, yet they just stay together because it would be so difficult to change the situation, so they live on separate ends of the house and only meet in the living room to watch American Idol once a week? For every good marriage I know, I know at least one of those, probably more.
A truly happy relationship is the exception, not the rule, and that's true for both straight people and gay people. But at least those in gay marriages aren't as likely to take it for granted as the rest of us do, or to enter into it so casually and without any forethought. It's given to the rest of us, so we have a tendency to treat it badly; that isn't the case for gay couples today. It wasn't given to them, they have to fight for it and overcome societal condemnation to get it. That makes them a lot less likely to enter into it frivolously.
- Log in to post comments
What the hell does "clearly defined structure" mean in a relationship?
I think we can guess: male headship, female submission.
In fact, I'll make a prediction right now. I'll predict that when we get gay marriage on a large scale in the US, the divorce rate among gay marriages will be lower than the divorce rate among straight couples. Why? Because there isn't the kind of social and familial pressure on gays to get married, regardless of whether they're marrying the right person. They won't be as susceptible to just marrying someone, anyone, just to fit some preconceived idea of when they're supposed to get married.
I suspect that after a while the same pressures will apply to gays as well. After the novelty of being allowed to marry wears down, after a generation or two of gays have been married those pressures will effect them as well.
I think the thing to note is that when both married, one parent had to deal with a step-child (unless the daughter has been raised in a lesbian household all along). The susceptibility of children (especially step children) to social pressures can go a long way to explaining why some couples divorce.
Mike
How does Brian Camenker explain that 1 in 2 straight marriages end in divorce? Is that due to structural problems as well?
Personally, I like the "clearly defined structure" idea. I don't know what it means, but since neither do they, we should exploit this to our advantage. Not sure how... just throwing it out there for others to think about.
I have often worried that there would be a run of gay divorces in the 1-2 year span after gay marriage was/is legalized. Based on my very limited knowledge of gay couples in MA (to be specific, two couples), I worry that a lot of gay couples jump to get married as soon as it legal, because they can, regardless of whether or not they are at that stage in their relationship. I just don't want to see a bunch of gay couples jump into marriage because they can, end up splitting later and then giving more ammo to the "look, gay marriages aren't stable" crowd.
I agree that, once it all settles out, the divorce rates for gay and straight marriages will probably be similar.
So since Evangelical Christians have the highest divorce rate of any religious group and atheists the lowest, does that mean we can expect Brian Camenker to announce his opposition to Christian marriage?
I'll be holding my breath down here in Texas, just let me know when that press release comes out. **inHALE! Aaaaaaaaaand hold ... **
I love the fact that they never once mention in the article that the Goodridges were together for seventeen years before getting married. There's some accuracy in reporting for you.
They even seem to imply that their relationship only lasted two years, by repeating the two year "since they were married" twice, and then noting that "homosexual couples who say they have been together for ten years or more are the exception", without pointing out that the Goodridges were part of that alleged "exception."
Jeff:
Those are the George Barna stats. Non-denominational Christian had the highest rate (34%), but not clear that correlates exactly with evangelicals. Baptists were at 29%, which are a subset of evangelicals. Atheists, Catholics, and Lutherans are tied for lowest rate, at 21%.
It is just so true. I am guilty of just going from one gay relationship to another. My first was when I was 22 and it lasted only 15 years, and now I've entered into another one, and while we are still together, it has only been just over six years. The worse thing is that he has two teenage kids. I mean what kind of example for them are we? We are both on our second relationships. His first was with their mother. Compared to all the straight families out there how can we show our faces? Oh? What was that? The divorce rate for straight marriages is what? Nevermind.
How about compiling a list of all the leaders of the anti-gay movement who have been divorced, fathered children out of wedlock, been busted for pickung up prostitutes, and are known to have committed acts considered deviant by the family values crowd?
Email me your citations (skip@bigskypenguin.com) with as much detail as you can and I will gladly compile them into a list and publish it on my own server. Let's expose these people for the hypocrites they are.
Feel free to distribute this message to other sites where people can submit their information.
Skip
What Bartholomew said. So I disagree that what we have here is "vague and meaningless nonsense." The rest of that paragraph (your second) is right, but that makes Mr. Camenker's claim not meaningless but false. Note the wording: homo relationships aren't "designed" to last; which is of course because they're not *supposed* to happen at all, and the only reason they do is because of perversity and disobedience and unnatural lusts. Etc.
The way God planned it (the story continues), the man is the head of the household and the wife is obedient to him. Of course the man provides "servant leadership" (Promise Keepers lingo), and the woman is head of the domestic area (diaper-changing, kitchen, etc.). That's the "structure" we're talking about: one leader, one cook, no spoiled broth. The reason straight marriages end in divorce, when they do, is easily "explained" by this model. People sin -- the woman doesn't know her place and rebels, the man is unfaithful to his vows, whatever. Not God's fault.
Actually, my guess is that even if, as you suggest, gay divorce turns out to be rarer than straight divorce, that still won't seem to Mr. Camenker et al like a reason to stop objecting to gay marriage. Because to him gay divorce is (at least potentially) a *good* thing: gays who stay together are wallowing in sin, while gays who split up might now have a chance to turn towards the light, meet a nice girl, go to church, etc.
Good point, ck -- I thought as much.
Ed,
I think you are missing the main thrust of the phrase "clearly defined structure". That being, who defines the structure, or the makeup, of the relationship. I would guess that I agree with Mr. Camenker that it is our creator God who defines this structure. And the structure would be one man and one woman, the accepted definition (until recently) of marriage.
I'm not all that concerned with the statistics concering marriages, whether hetero or homo. This would be like a politician determining their policy based on polls, wouldn't it?
How do you know what the word marriage means Ed? I'm not trying to "war" with you, just curious as to how you attach meaning to the word, or structure of, marriage?
Thanks,
Russ
I recently read an article that said the Catholics where much higher than this simply because when a pollster asked them they didn't count any annulled marriages.
Isn't this entire discussion somewhat pointless, trying to find the 'causes' of divorce to me is such a non-starter. To be entirely monogamous for 50-60 years is difficult for a species like ours. We've adapted for cultural reasons(sometimes) but in reality we're not really built for it. Divorce and such is not a symptom of something wrong with marriage, it's that marriage has never really been built around the nature of us.
And it's high time we stop looking at divorce as a negative. In many, many cases it ends up being a positive event. Whats worse than the human suffering inherent in bad marriages as mentioned in Ed's original post.
Except of course when he was defining the structure by awarding kings with 100's of wives.
"How do you know what the word marriage means"
Marriage, of course, has two meanings, which is one reason there is so much debate about gay marriage.
On the one hand, marriage is a structure defined by the state for the purpose of futhering a variety of societal goals involving ownership of property and the raising of children. On the other hand, marriage is a religious institution sanctioned by various faiths as a means of accomplishing various ends which overlap but do not fully correspond with the state's interests.
It would probably be better for everyone involved if we used different terms for these institutions, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Russ-
If all Camenker meant by gay marriages lacking "clearly defined structure" is that they don't have a man and a woman, then it is indeed a meaningless statement - of course gay marriages don't have a man and a woman. By definition, that's true. But that has no bearing on whether they are "built to last". Clearly, he is attempting to argue that gay relationships can't last because they lack some "structure" that straight relationships have. But he hasn't defined what that structure is. If that structure is simply the fact that the two people are gay, then it's an entirely sterile statement - "gay marriages can't last because the people in the marriage are gay". Absolutely meaningless.
Uh, no, it's not at all like that. If one is making the claim that gay relationships aren't "built to last" because they lack some unspecified "structure", then the mere existence of permanent and committed gay relationships is enough to disprove that argument. And if it turns out that gay marriages have a lower divorce rate than straight marriages, then that argument is reduced to utter nonsense.
The first sentence and the second sentence here conflict. Asking how I know what a word means, and asking what meaning I attach to it, are two entirely different questions. I believe that the essence of marriage is a permanent, committed relationship, which brings with it a set of rights, protections and, equally important, responsibilities. I don't believe that gay people are any more or less capable of such a commitment than straight people, nor do I believe there is any compelling reason to withhold those rights, protections and responsibilities from those gay couples willing to make that permanent commitment.
If that's the case, then it would make Camenker's point completely tautological. He would effectively be saying "Homosexual relationships are not designed to last because they are homosexual."
Damn me for not refreshing fast enough.
Uber,
I could come on here and start chasing all kinds of rabbits such as the fact that some of the kings in the Bible had a bunch of wives or concumbines. I don't want to do that, I am honestly interested in an answer to my question above. Suffice it to say, my opinion is you are reading the Bible as *you* think it should have been written and not how it was actually written.
But again, how do you know what marriage should be defined as? Forgetting the Bible or religion for a second, is the purpose of marriage more than just being happy? If it is, then what is it? And if there is a teleological design behind it, does it apply to every marriage or just some?
I think these are questions we all have to answer, without being acrimonious or egotisticaly pithy. And this applies to all sides of the debate.
Thanks,
Russ
Russ wrote:
Would you care to attempt to make a coherent argument for "teleological design" of the concept of marriage without reference to the Bible or religion? I'd sure like to see it.
Gretchen,
I won't damn you for that, or anything else for that matter. :)
Ed,
Thanks for the straightforward response. I'm not sure his statement is a tautology, but ok, I'll give you your point on his statements, I'm not that concerned with agreeing with his actual statement here.
I'm also not so sure my two questions are in conflict, but thanks for aswering the second one. I agree with what you said, but would go furhter in my definition than you, to include the necessity of a marriage being an instituion between a man and a woman.
Unless I missed it though, you didn't answer my first question. I'll rephrase, because I probably did not word it well. Where did you get this understanding of the essence of marriage?
Thanks,
Russ
Ed said: "Would you care to attempt to make a coherent argument for "teleological design" of the concept of marriage without reference to the Bible or religion? I'd sure like to see it."
I could and may, but will you answer my questions to you first. Notice I said "if".
Russ
Russ wrote:
That strikes me as a bizarre question. I got it from the same place we all get our ideas of the meaning of words, from observation and experience. What other source could there possibly be? It's not as though a given set of letters has an intrinsic meaning. They mean what we all agree that they mean. But in this case, the meaning of the word is quite irrelevant to the substance of the argument. Forget the word "marriage" - do committed gay relationships deserve the same protections that committed straight relationships receive? My answer is yes, whether you want to call those relationships marriages or "blycklekleicas" (an entirely random combination of letters upon which we can place whatever meaning we wish).
Russ,
Some questions for you - if marriage is "designed" to be a man and a woman, was Edward VIII, who abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson and become the Duke of Windsor, really married? After all, Mrs. Simpson reportedly was actually a man - or at least had XY chromosones. She also had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), which means her body did not respond "appropriately" to male hormones, and she externally developed looking like a woman, but without a uterus or ovaries.
What gender was she? And which gender should she be allowed to marry? And given that the intersexed, such as the Duchess of Windsor, are part of God's creation, why would He create marriage to exclude them for all time?
Russ,
It might be worth remembering that cultures on every continent had some definition or form of marriage long before Christianity was introduced there. Not all were necessarily monogamous and not all were done for the same reasons (property, reproduction, choice made by the potential spouse, etc.). I think it's important to think about what marriage means to people *now* rather than get hung up on one particular culture's historical interpretation of marriage. I would say that in American society, most marriages value the relationship between the two people in that marriage more than they value reproduction or property transfer or other historical values. That's not to say that those other issues aren't a part of it for some (or many). It's simply to say that the common thread of most modern marriages in the US is love and mutual commitment between the two parties.
I think the disagreement here is that you have "man and woman" as part of your definition, and most of us see that part as rather arbitrary, given that the core values that are common to almost all modern American marriages do not, by all appearances, require a man and a woman. We see "man and woman" as a conclusion to be reached rather than an axiom.
Alright russ I'll play.
This is such an obvious and weak canard. I don't read it as I think it should have been written. It says so and so have 100's of wives via gods blessing and that has nothing to do with my take on it at all. I smell a Scotsman coming.
Being happy? I think this has been a very minute part of the history of marriage, even today I doubt it's on 50% of marriages.
This teleological design is, quite frankly, bullshit. I know it's not a good debate style but it really is just bullshit. Marriage varies from culture to culture. In it's original state it was a contract for a woman from a father to a man. All the pomp and circumstance surrounded this simple fact. Religion co-opted it along the way to and gave the act significance. Hence people raised in a religion give the event religious significance. But it wasn't always so. Reason for celebration perhaps. Religiously motivated, nope.
But I also agree with Troublesome frog about the modern view of marriages.
According to Camenker, homosexual couples who say they have been together for ten years or more are the exception, not the norm, and many of these are not held together by any sort of healthy dynamic. "Much of it is just the whole nature of these kinds of relationships," he says.
So if they break up, it's 'cause they're sick; and if they stay together, THAT'S 'cause they're sick too. Yep, this guy's a bigot, all right. Oh well, at least he admitted, in an underhanded way, that staying together is part of "the whole nature of these kinds of relationships." Sorta like the way Larry Fafarman admits that creationism is bad science.
I'm not all that concerned with the statistics concering marriages, whether hetero or homo. This would be like a politician determining their policy based on polls, wouldn't it?
Yes, indeed it would, and both are equally unheard-of in democratic societies, aren't they? I mean, allowing the definition of marriage to change as people's attitudes change...what a bizarre concept! That's NEVER happened before, right?
Well, many comments have been thrown my way, and quite honestly my arms aren't long enough or numerous enough to throw too many back.
Let me make some brief comments and that might wind me up for a while.
Ed,
Sorry you think my question was bizarre. I was simply trying to get at what you believe your epistimological basis is for believing your view of marriage, or anything for that matter. I take your answer to be observation and experience. My question to you is, how do we determine what is true when we have radically different observations and experiences, not to mention when we come to different conclusions based on similar observation and experiences? I'm sorry if I put too much emphasis on the meaning of the word marriage. I think we are starting to discuss different things here, and that is probably my fault more than yours.
CTP Doom,
To answer your questions, I have no idea. I don't see your example harming my position though. The exception you allude to does not overule what I see as a natural estate.
Troublesome,
You said: "I think the disagreement here is that you have "man and woman" as part of your definition, and most of us see that part as rather arbitrary, given that the core values that are common to almost all modern American marriages do not, by all appearances, require a man and a woman. We see "man and woman" as a conclusion to be reached rather than an axiom."
This my friend, is the crux of our differences. Man and woman as THE core value to marriage is axiomatic to me. You are so correct. But your conclusion that I am arbitrary, to me, is the pot calling the kettle black. I would strongly say that it is you who are being arbitrary. This is because I have an objective standard or guideline for my core values, that does not change. My question for everyone here is where do you get your core values and why should I believe them? That is all I am asking.
Russ
Russ, what exactly is the objective standard or guideline for your core values which tells you that "one man, one woman" is axiomatic for the meaning of marriage?
Russ wrote:
My "epistemological basis" for reaching a conclusion in this situation is the same as my epistemological basis for reaching any conclusion in any situation - the application of reason to my observations of the world around me. I do not claim to have spoken to any gods about the matter, nor do I see any good reason to believe those who claim they do. The mere claim that one has received information from God does not make their claim any more "objective" than non-god-based claims, particularly if those claims are false. So merely starting from the "god says so and that settles it" position will not gain much credence here, since it is not axiomatic. I will be happy to examine any logical argument you'd like to make about this particular issue, but I have no interest in unverifiable "god told me" arguments, and I have even less patience for presuppositionalist arguments.
Hasn´t Russ said this? To him, marriage is as defined by God - via the common book of prayer, I assume!
I sometimes get the feeling it really is the word ´marriage´ which is the sticking point for many. Whether it is for Russ, I don´t know.
Can we ask where you stand on this, Russ? Are you personally OK with gay marriage,and if not, would you be OK with a purely civil institution for homosexual partnerships which offeredthe same protections to those entering into it as those extended - in the civil sphere - to hetero married couples?
If not, why not? Where is the line for you? What kindof homosexual coupledom institution would you countenance?
I know you´ve already been asked a ton of questions. I just thought that, in the circumstances,a statement of position might help.
Russ:
Regardless of whether we get our "core values," the real question you should be asking is why having a marriage between two people of the same gender is a MORAL question. As far as I am concerned, the real question in this debate is why, apart from someone's interpretation of God's command, is same sex marriage immoral?
You essentially are arguing that same sex marriages is bad because it doesn't fit into humanity's teleologcal "final cause," which I assume based on your posts is essentially to reproduce and have a family. If I understand family-value based Christianity right, the real ultimate goal from the Christian Right is merely to produce more people to be blindly subservient to God and to His church.
The problem that at least I have with this assumption is that I think you miss the whole point of what the "final cause" of humanity ought to be. Instead of subservience to an organized church, which history has demonstrated casues a lot more harm than good, I propose that the "final cause" of humanity is to serve others and their community without causing themselves or others harm.
If my version of what is the "final cause" of humanity is correct, then I see no problem with gay marriages because I don't see how it harms anyone to have two unrelated, monogamous people, come together and share their lives and bear the responsibilities of that shared life together without state intervention. In fact, it would probably be more beneficial to those two people and society as a whole because they could work as a unit to improve not only their lives, but the lives of those who surround them as well.
The only possible "harm" to society through gay marriage is the current irrational and much more harmful stereotypes that the Christian Right associates with gay people. I think this is more harmful to society than allowing gay people to marry. In fact, it would do a much greater service to society to allow gays to marry because we do much more harm than good classifying gay people as a group as immorral without looking to their individual contributions to society.
Plus, in the end, my "core value" has proven to increase progress and human liberty much more than your "core value." Regardless of whether you accept it or not is up to you, but I would much rather have a value or goal that emperically helps people rather than hurts them.
The problem with this whole discussion is teleology and final causes, as they have no real bearing on the real issue at hand, which is, what relationships does the society wish to bless with its stamp of approval and the 1000 or so practical advantages (and responsibilities) involved?
As has been noted, the definition of marriage changes from society to society and from time to time: This is as it should be, becuae marriage is, above all, a cultural institution. By that I mean that it is one part of a complex system whereby humans seek to maximize the satisfaction of their wants and needs. As a society changes (in terms of economics, ecology, geography, etc) the elements of culture will rearrange to meet the new conditions. It is very much a "market-based" approach, in the libertarian sense.
So the only question is whether the society will recognize change as it occurs, or fight against it. The only existential question is in the present. Marriage is precisely what the society needs it to be; anything more or less is at the discretion of the partners.
Russ, what does it say when the evangelical commenter on this site is against you? Peace, brother.
I actually see it the other way around. Because we're talking about whether gay marriage should be legal, not whether it should be "blessed" or even condoned. Saying something should be legal is not giving it a "stamp of approval;" it is effectively saying "We do not judge this to be a threat to our civilization," which is a very different thing.
Agreed, Gretchen, although I assumed people would understand my use of the term "blessed" was ironic. The whole point of my post is that we are only discussing "state" as opposed to religious marriage, and that the only apt definition is functional, ie, what currently exists, as opposed to what we might want to exist.
Whether or not one has moral qualms about gay marriage is irrelevant: The thing exists, we ought to recognize that reality.
How does Brian Camenker explain that 1 in 2 straight marriages end in divorce?
Probably by pointing out that they don't.
If you read the article Lettuce you'd see they still think it will be around 50%. Barna says it will be impossible for itnot to be so given the number of young people who have divorced before the age of 25.
Okay, I'll shoot, since no-one else seems to want to.
A question like that is far, far too vague and complex to go to in-depth, so I'll just stick to the topic at hand, if that's all right with you, Russ? Super. 'Cause the answer in that case is really quite simple:
I have a very dear friend who is bisexual, preferring women. She has told me that she has troubles forming relationships with men. I want her to be happy, so I want her to be able to form long-lasting relationships with whomever she is comfortable with, and marry that person if they so choose. It's that simple.
So why should your "objective standard or guideline for [your] core values, that does not change" be allowed to deny her that?
Science is timid about "teleology," rightly, because it imputes purposes, goals, and objectives on the "forces of nature," which clearly do not exist. But teleology is a very dominant feature in "human life" and "conscious minds." Most humans act for reasons, and most of those reasons are instrumental reasons, and therefore teleological. A does B to achieve C. Instrumental. Teleological. It's so obvious that Aristotle assumed it applied beyond human action to all action. Therein is the mistake.
Since marriage is a human institution, it is often a tool of teleological action (although I confess I don't understand how marriage qua marriage is itself teleological -- more later). Marriage is a vehicle to accomplish myriads of purposes, goals, and objectives, and in "this" sense can be said to be teleological, just as it is "instrumental." In fact, it would be hard to imagine a reason for marriage that is not teleological.
The resistance to "teleology" comes from two sources: (1) its misuse in science to impute animate objectives, goals, and purposes to inanimate forces; (2) Scholasticism's insistence that the "purpose of" is "to" in categorical and univocal senses. Aquinas gives two examples: (a) the purpose of the penis is to insert in the vagina, (b) the purpose of an acorn is to become an oak tree. Ex. (b) violates (1), and Ex. (a) is (2) and patently untrue. I can list many other purposes of both penises and acorns in addition to the ones he cites. Ex. (a) and (b) are not wrong, but imputing "exclusive purpose" to either is the mistake. In other words, making the claim that (a) and (b) are necessary and exclusive are THE error.
We impute to the liver functions and purposes that it was designed to accomplish. If, however, someone insisted the only purpose of the liver is X, we'd cry foul. That is exactly what the Scholastics did, and why they brought disrepute to teleology in philosophy. But, one cannot "do" physiology without including teleology. Humans cannot avoid teleological explanations because teleological explanations are the reasons for most human action. And anything that is "animate" is ascribed a teleology, even if on the level of pure matter it makes absolutely no sense.
Marriage has functions, purposes, objectives, reasons, is instrumental, etc. or it would be meaningless. The error is limiting the possibilities to "approved" functions, purposes, objectives, etc. Approved by who? Obviously the "objective" of a sterile marriage is not procreation, a marriage of convenience is not love, etc. The problem arises when anyone tries to limit marriage to "approved" purposes that discounts unapproved purposes. Based on what criteria? Says who? Why?
The supreme irony is that every "approved" purpose has exceptions. The Church and State both marry infertile couples, even fertile couples who intend on avoiding children, so procreation cannot be the sole purpose of marriage as many claimants claim. It's when teleology becomes "exclusive" and "approved" "only for" that all that follows is nonsense.
Uber, I would like to see that article you mentioned showing that the Catholic divorce rate is higher than reported because Catholic polled do not report annulled marriages. Please contact me at emilia_e_murphy@yahoo.ca.