Yes, it’s that. I don’t think we know precisely WHY this form is so successful. I’m also suspicious of any list of supposedly dispositive benefits that offers virtually nothing to one of the parties to the arrangement. (Note that I am not saying that marriage offers nothing to one of the parties; only that the suggested list of reasons that marriage succeeds as an institution includes nothing that would cause one of the necessary partners to the arrangement to care whether it succeeded or not. This leads me to suspect that the list is incomplete.)

And see:
“Defining Marriage Down… Is No Way to Save It” (Weekly Standard article)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/451noxve.asp

Lynn Wardle offers some good arguments. David Blankenhorn, as a liberal Democrat, offers additional ones.

we do not give follow tradition merely because of the time that has passed.

You want to reduce the divorce rate, quit making it so darn easy to dissolve a marriage. I know people who have been married for years who have worked through infidelity, poverty, drug addiction, etc. and are better people today for it. I also know people who got divorced after six months because they couldn’t agree on what private school to send their yet-to-be-born kids to.

again, very interesting achance.

Anyhow from the little bit of text that was there it seems that the hypothesis is that kinship comes with a radar and that one instance of that radar is an aversion to sexual contact with one’s own kin. This of course does not rule out the act of incest between siblings from occurring, merely that it is the exception to the rule. Add the element of shame associated with incest in society and that could further limit the actual instances of incest in society, because like it or not, shame does affect ones decision making processes, nuture and nature so to speak..

I would make a wager that one could do a scientific study also proving that we have a similar radar with respect to homosexual intercourse, and if the element of shame was still the social norm we would probably see proportionate acts of homosexual behavior as we do incestual (sp?) behavior between siblings.

The overall point is that science and society both dictate what we are capable of and what is an accepted practice. Furthermore, if incestual (sp?) relationships were not thought of as shameful, in time there would be more acts and eventually someone would claim it as a civil right to have sex with their sibling.

Rush did a parody on it a few years ago where the man is trying to do the simplest discipline and the woman is putting herself between him and the kid. Intellectually, my wife and I were pretty much on the same page when we were TALKING about the kids. But, when it came down to actually managing their behavior, she was absolutely constitutionally incapable of denying her babies anything. An otherwise intelligent, rational woman became a complete blithering idiot; no intellectual match for a six year old having a tantrum.

And my experience is no different except in details from my friends who’ve done the stepdad role. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. I get along OK with them now, it helps that they don’t live here anymore, but there were plenty of times that the ONLY thing that kept me from killing one of those boys was the threat of certain longterm incarceration. It wouldn’t have been murder, it would have just been exercising the right to choose in a very advanced trimester.

i’d be interested in seeing it.

up to you, of course. not trying to order you around.

“just leave it to the churches” doesn’t get us anywhere

link 1

link 2

To go back to the subject under discussion; what exists in Massachusetts right now is not marriage as per the definition of the institution (remember again that marriage is a worldwide phenomenon).

Personally, I think the can of worms opened in MA would become apparent the instant some guy and his sister/brother in MA decide to apply for a marriage license, and get their applications rejected. They’ll be able to take it to the SCOTUS as a violation of their 14th Amendment rights and they’ll have a very viable case.

But it is necessary to define marriage for many reasons, especially if you are in favor of taking the unprecedented step of permitting homosexual marriage.

I have not seen any proponents of homosexual marriage on this thread attempt to define marriage. Instead, they seem more interested in criticizing the definitions of others.

So I invite you to make the attempt. Post a diary on the subject. What is marriage? What is it for? Why should we continue to have it at all? And how will homosexual marriage be good for marriage?

If you’re serious about the subject, you should at least define the main term.