An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Divorce Ban In California
A man in California wants a ballot measure to ban divorce.
His basic point is that if you banned same sex marriage to ‘protect traditional marriage’ then should you not also ban divorce, since it leads to the breakup of 50% of traditional marriages.
An interesting point I think, even if the measure won’t go anywhere.
83 Responses to “Divorce Ban In California”
It is an interesting point, although the logic in the argument is fallacious. Divorce, by definition, is the breakup of marriage. To argue that divorce causes the breakup of marriage is in essence to say that marriages are broken up because they are broken up.
Yes, DLL83, it is a fallacious argument. That's the point. It's stupid, in the same way that “gay people getting married will ruin straight marriage” is stupid.
So the overall point in this and virtually all other political matters is “We see your stupidity and raise you with twice as much of it”
Divorce may not be good for marriage, but it keeps the murder rate down.
As for the gay marriage issue that underlies this ballot measure, gays should have the same right to fight over the house, the retirement funds, the pets, the support and, yes, the children as the rest of us do when our marital bliss evolves into divorce proceedings.
Not sure where “virtually all other political matters” comes from, but in this case, sure — sometimes people need to contemplate losing their own personal liberties in order to be compassionate to those whose liberties are denied. It's not an uncommon argument (in the “what if it were you?” vein). While it's rarely formalized like this man is trying to do, the argument is essentially the same. Why is that a problem?
Ya know this would cut down on people getting married without truly knowing their partner.
I actually think this is a good idea and not as a poke in the eye for gay marriage, I actually think we should move everyone to civil unions and give marriage back to religions as it should have been all along. I think it is good because of how destructive divorce is to our families ourselves and our communities as a whole both emotionally and economically, the only people that really benefit are lawyers. Now I will admit to being in my mid 30's and never being married, but that is also because I am very careful about those choices and therefore chose to wait for an individual I trusted only to realize marriage mattered as little to her as it did to me so if we do get married it will be purely for any societal benefits that come with the piece of paper which again is not how it should be.
Me and my version of social conservatism will stay over here where we are personally responsible for us and ours and would back ending divorce while allowing civil unions for all. It sounds crazy but I have no business telling someone what they can and cant do that is not destructive to the community…but divorce actually is. Maybe I should just stay away from ballot boxes in CA.
I mention “virtually all other political matters” only because it seems like every single item up for discussion devolves into Left vs Right and who is “shocked, appalled, offended” more. At that point it seems like a strange episode of the Twilight Zone. I certainly don't doubt the man's sincerity or his cause, but justifying it by saying “yeah it's pretty stupid, but so is what they did” falls pretty flat. Two wrongs can't make a right; in this sense two stupids won't make us any smarter.
No it's not an “interesting point”. It's a stupid point. It is simple political crybaby -ism.
The people have spoken and every time the people are allowed to vote openly on same sex marriage, same sex marriage loses.
Why? Because it’s a freak show nobody wants in their neighborhood.
“Divorce may not be good for marriage, but it keeps the murder rate down.”
I'm fairly certain you meant this comment in jest, but as someone who's done a bit of work with domestic violence victims, I can tell you that it's not far from the truth. I honestly think that divorce is one of the two best things that have ever happened to women's rights.
Marriage is “supposed” to be the cornerstone of the basic family unit.
I see the “logic” behind the ban on divorce in an attempt to make a point. It is a good point if your definition of the family unit is other than a way in which to conceive, give birth to, and raise children.
Right now, half of marriages end in divorce, because the marriages began in a way that was against the precept of how marriages are supposed to be. These days, few consider virginity as a prerequisite to marriage. These days, the venue of choice for finding a mate is in a club or while drunk. Once again, we can thank the liberal movement for this wonderful social “bliss”. This began in the 60s with “free love” and continues today. Add that with the general selfishness of most individuals who approach most relationships with “what's in it for me”, and you get a 50% divorce rate. Until people can actually approach marriage with purity and actually treat it as the beautiful and selfless institution it is supposed to be, it won't change.
Many of you may see the above as a “puritianical” view. It's not, really. It's all in your perspective. The failure rate of homosexual couples is 64% (Source: Psychology Today, Jan/Feb, 2007. ). What makes anyone think that homosexual marriage will help lower the divorce rate?
“The failure rate of homosexual couples is 64%”
Spurious. Misleading. My personal failure rate for relationships in which I was most certainly in a “couple” is roughly 87%. My personal failure rate for relationships which lasted longer than a year is roughly 66%. My personal success rate for marriages is 100%. That's why I married who I married. To say that every failed “serious” gay relationship would have gone from marriage to divorce were marriage legal is silly, even on a superficial level.
Ok, now I've got to look through the rest of your comment.
One of the interesting hypocrisies of the Protestant church is their acceptance of divorce. We have to give credit to the Catholic church for at least sticking to the teaching of Jesus on this one. Protestants choose to fight gay marriage…an issue that is not often addressed in the bible, yet they accept divorce…which Jesus was very much against.
Doesn't make sense. If we want to legislate the bible…divorce must be illegal.
jchem — I don't disagree with the sentiment that there's a lot of left-right “Twilight Zone” stuff that goes on in politics, in the “well they did it, so I'm giong to too” motif. Maybe you're missing the point that that's not what this guy is doing? As in: it's not that this man actually thinks divorce should be illegal, or that outlawing divorce would be beneficial to marriage. It's taking a Jonathan Swift-like proposal to a formal level in order to pointedly demonstrate the logical fallacy behind “gay marriage is bad for marriage”. I almost feel stupid writing that, because it seems so obvious to me…you get that that's what he's doing, right?
MSF _
Delighted to see I'm not the only one who thinks the gov't should get out of the marriage business & put it back in the hands of religion. I'd go a bit farther than you and argue that the gov't only has need to know of “households” for tax and benefit purposes. All else, marriage or civil union can be entered into privately as the partners wish.
Hi roro -
Yes, it was meant in jest. It's actually a take off on my ex-wife's sense of humor. We're still very good friends. She tells people (especially if I'm there), “I had a choice of killing him or divorcing him and decided he wasn't worth going to prison for.”
The serious side of your comment is well taken. I too have been involved in many cases involving domestic violence, including two cases of spousal homocide, one where husband killed wife and one where wife killed husband. The seriousness of relationship based hatred and abuse is not lost on me.
roro80, I understand it full well. Perhaps my issue is just with the “Twilight Zone” nature of much of the political game. I actually read about this on NPR the other day and thought it was pretty comical. But then:
Ok, I think I understand what you're saying, jchem. But since there's such a vanishingly small percentage of people who actually think divorce should be illegal, I find it kind of a clever retort to the idiocy of voting on other people's marital status. Sure, some will think the tactic is over-the-top and childish, which it very well may be.
JD -
Well, I won't call your views Puritanical, but be forewarned that if you ever come to burn me at the stake I'll put up a fight. LOL.
Seriously, I respect your discipline and your faith if you choose that life, can commit to it and can honor that committment.
As alluded to in reply to MSF, the government need not be involved in what is essentially a religious rite. The government doesn't license or perform baptism or communion, why should it license or perform the religious rite of marriage? If the government were to get out of the marriage business, your religion or church could decline to marry gays, other religions with different beliefs could choose to marry gays, and it wouldn't be an issue for the NY legislature, or ballot referenda. People's religious beliefs and the religious ceremonies they choose to participate in are personal choices that should not be interfered with by the government. My silly, but strongly held, view.
Polygamy is a traditional form of marriage too. Which I happen to support as well as gay marriage, and polyandry. Let consenting adults enter into whatever type of matrimony they choose, just keep the government out of it and treat it like a civil contract between the involved parties. No tax breaks or joint filing for anyone, no matter what kind of marriage.
Statistics back that up. I can't find the thing, but I saw a survey many years ago that sorted sexually active couples into four groups:
1. unmarried, didn't believe in marriage;
2. unmarried, believe in marriage;
3. married, had sex before marriage;
4. married, abstained before marriage.
They then asked the couples how satisfied they were with their sex life. The first group had around 40% very satisfied, the second and third came in around 60%, with little marriage itself making little difference, and the fourth group was close to 80% very satisfied. That also ties into the fact that the biggest sex problem that couples have, is an inability to relax.
I would think that if atheists ever developed a moral system based on scientific principles and statistics, they would end up with something very similar to the Puritan code.
I used to advocate the same thing, especially in light of how easy they've made divorce. But then people pointed out that marriage is also something the non-religious want, and a bedrock concept of civilization in general. To move it back into the civil only arena, using normal written contracts, would take some careful planning. With politics in the state it's in, I'm not sure that's possible at this time.
I also agree with you there, Tidbits. The government getting out of the marriage business would solve a lot of problems, in my opinion. I also happen to agree with most of what Jefferson Davis believes about the topic, but I don't think our laws need to be based on those principles (and I'm not saying you do, JD). I think that if my beliefs and way of life really are worth anything to society, it will become apparent to others when they see what the results of those beliefs are (i.e. what my life and the lives of others who believe similarly are actually like). In my experience, the minute you go beyond simply being an example of your values and you try to impose those values on others, that is when people get annoyed at you and are even less likely to agree with you.
Many of you may see the above as a “puritianical” view.
Actually, I don't see it as “puritanical” at all. I see it as simple-minded — incredibly simplistic, revealing no understanding of life's nuances, complexities, shades of gray. Everything about marital success comes down to “virginity” to “purity” and other moralistic buzzwords like this. There is absolutely no room in your philosophy — not even a sliver of a crack — for the real world to get in.
You are aware that people living in Blue States have the lowest divorce rate and People living in Red States have the highest…
Now I would be grateful if all Red Staters would start fixing their marriages and butt the hell out of other people's marriages…
Again, you've lost me. He's talking about what is the best way, not a law, at least on the heterosexual side. I understand that you don't agree with his legal view on gay marriage, but are you really disagreeing with his personal view of heterosexual marriage?
“the government need not be involved in what is essentially a religious rite. The government doesn't license or perform baptism or communion, why should it license or perform the religious rite of marriage? “
Tidbits…..
Leave it to you to actually be the ONE person to make some sense.
That is a very very good point. At least one that will keep me pondering for at least a week.
Well done!
“I don't see it as “puritanical” at all. I see it as simple-minded — incredibly simplistic, revealing no understanding of life's nuances, complexities, shades of gray……not even a sliver of a crack for the real world to get in”
Real world? Kathy, that's exactly what I've been saying all along. Your real world is breaking apart the social fabric of our nation. Without a common social bond, any nation will fail. Read what I said above about love. Even though you may not want me to, I love you Kathy. You press my buttons and infuriate me sometimes (as I'm sure I do you) but that makes me a better person at the end of the day.
And this isn't “my” philosophy. I've studied this issue (after much personal wrestling) til I was blue in the face. The overwhelming conclusion was that homosexual acts are not natural occurrances, no more than having sex with a tree is natural. The act of loving another human being, however, is completely natural. If people want a contract to solidify their relationship, then let them go get one – businessmen do it all the time to protect their interests. But to call it a marriage is not the right thing to do – unless your only goal is to legitimize it – or to condone it, by making it just as acceptable as going to the store.
Great source, DQ. I went to the interactive map and checked it out.
That further reinforces my argument, though. In blue states, more people have “common law” marriages or simply live together instead of getting married. Those numbers failed to make it to the survey.
Also, the footnote at the bottom of the source states,
“In this analysis, “married” includes all currently married adults ages 15 and older except those who are separated.”
Because people in red states get married earlier, that is a cause of divorce. I'm sure you'd agree. In my original statement, I simply stated that premarital sex, selfishness, and immaturity (among many others) have been the norm – which explains the high divorce rate. Asky yourself why divorces were once a rarity. What was different prior to the 60's that kept marriages in tact?
I understand that you don't agree with his legal view on gay marriage, but are you really disagreeing with his personal view of heterosexual marriage?
Yeah, I am. I'm not sure why that surprises you so much.
Wow, DQ, that's an incredibly useless (and deceptive) statistic.
If you go through it, state by state, you'll find that there's also an incredibly strong link between the rate of divorce, and the rate of marriage. Shocking, I know, but true.
Your real world is breaking apart the social fabric of our nation.
No, it's not, JD. Your notion of “the social fabric of our nation” is in conflict with the real world. The real world is the real world. It's not “my” real world. It's the real world, period. And in the real world, marriages that begin in social clubs and bar rooms are not always based on superficial criteria and do not always fail, although of course some do fail. In the real world, arranged marriages — which still exist in some parts of the world — do turn out to be loveless and do fail in many cases, but by no means in all cases. Couples who are married via the arrangement of others sometimes fall in love. Couples who get married after falling deeply in love sometimes fall out of love. Virginity or the lack of it has no bearing on marital success at all, unless you live within a community of people who think premarital sex is sinful.
Again, the most credible example is always the personal one, since each of us can not possibly know anyone else's situation as well as we do our own. I did not meet the man I married in a social club or a bar, and I was not a virgin when I married (although I was also very inexperienced — but I can't say I was a virgin). My marriage ultimately failed. Did it fail because we met in a social club or a bar? Obviously not. Did it fail because I was not a virgin? Absolutely not. That had zero to do with why the marriage failed.
The overwhelming conclusion was that homosexual acts are not natural occurrances, no more than having sex with a tree is natural. The act of loving another human being, however, is completely natural.
This makes no sense at all. These two sentences contradict each other — clearly, cleanly, and absolutely. Two men who have been committed to each other in love for 30 years and have obviously engaged in homosexual acts with each other, as well as every other non-sexual activity that loving couples engage in with each other: The love they share is natural, but their love-making is not? That's really ridiculous, JD.
Even though you may not want me to, I love you Kathy. You press my buttons and infuriate me sometimes (as I'm sure I do you) but that makes me a better person at the end of the day.
I accept the second sentence, but not the first. And it has nothing to do with “not wanting” you to love me. I simply don't believe that you do. You may believe that you do, but I do not think you know what love — even in the general, humanistic sense that you intend it — means.
You have judged my beliefs and my life choices — to the extent you know them — so harshly and with such certainty of your own rectitude while knowing nothing about me or my life. You are a fundamentalist, born-again Christian who I'm willing to bet has not spent more than 15 minutes on Jewish study in your entire life, yet you somehow have convinced yourself you know what Judaism is, what the Jewish tradition says about a rainbow of moral issues, and what it means to be Jewish. You think you can tell me whether I am a good Jew or not. You think you know what a good Jew is or isn't. You think you know what it means to be observant. The very first time I said anything to you about Judaism was when I told you that the Jewish tradition has a much more nuanced position on homosexuality and abortion than fundamentalist Christianity does, you responded, “You are wrong.” I never reacted to that in writing, but you can have no idea how offended I was. That's why I told you I would never communicate with you again — a vow obviously I have not kept, but it certainly doesn't dilute how offended I was. It bothers me a lot that you can tell me — repeatedly, over and over — that I don't follow or keep faith with the tenets of my own religion, or that you can tell me I did a “very inhumane” thing by aborting two fetuses who had a fatal disease that *I lived with and saw the effects of* and you did not — and yet on a regular basis claim to “love” me. How can you act with such complete disrespect and lack of the most basic human sense of fairness and compassion, and yet say to me, “I love you, Kathy”?
Your views are narrow-minded and arrogant, and you express them with narrow-mindedness and arrogance. That's not love.
Asky yourself why divorces were once a rarity. What was different prior to the 60's that kept marriages in tact?
The law. Most states had laws that made it impossible to divorce for almost any reason. Divorces being a rarity and “intact marriages” are not the same thing. This is another example of what I mean about your simplistic analysis of issues. When divorce was illegal, a lot of wives were forced to stay in abusive marriages. Of course they still do today in many cases for fear of retribution from the husband, but at least there's a legal choice and many women have made that choice and saved their lives thereby.
Technically both correct and incorrect, depending on your interpretation of the Bible.
In Deuteronomy, considered to be God's law for man, Moses gives various conditions for divorce. It's allowed. Yet in both Matthew and Mark, Jesus states that divorce is wrong. This doesn't mean that the law in Deuteronomy didn't exist. In fact, he quotes it and says that Moses gave the law because he knew that their “hearts were hard.”
Now, here's where the interpretation begins… If you believe that Moses gave the laws, then you throw out all of Old Testement law as being valid as what God wanted. That includes laws against homosexuality– which Jesus never specifically addressed. If you believe that God gave the laws and passed them down through Moses, then here we have a specific example of God making a law where sin was not okay, but he apparently understood that man couldn't live by impossible standards and gave them a way out. It's a rather interesting point to consider when looking at gay marriage.
So really… I'd say that, depending on your interpretation of how to handle the law in Deuteronomy as compared to what Jesus says in Matthew and Mark, both kinds of churches are still abiding by God's law regarding divorce.
LGBT social rejection will always be there among the majority of the people. Sometimes it is reduced by “tolerance” out of sympathy or human generosity , but as soon as it begins to touch the lives of normal people with natural families, social stigma increases and suppression returns. It is a cycle that has ebbed and waned since such things have been recorded. Same sex coupling is abnormal, serves no biological purpose and is considered by most a mental illness. It is an aberration. A dysfunction. You are not born gay, you become gay. There is a sexual psychosis that permeates the subculture created by social rejection. Same sex coupling is a negative destructive influence upon any society, past or present.
“Most states had laws that made it impossible to divorce for almost any reason.”
While the subject of the thread is a stunt and is related to an extreme position (were it truly serious), what is in place now, along with the fraying social fabric, decline in civility, etc., etc,. is a legal climate that if anything, goes the wrong way, making it too easy to get divorced. (Astute readers will also say that it may well be too easy to get married, too, but that's a separate issue here and now.) In short, it is going too far when we have a not only risk-free entitlement-mentality cradle-to-grave environment, but when it comes to right and wrong with one and one's behavior, no-fault (including no-fault easy divorce) tends to support “no-responsibility” as well. (The same can be said about cohabitation and its effect on marriage, if a cause-and-effect relationship can be identified or merely surmised.)
Very well done! But I think that is just a made up loop hole conjured up by those afraid that not allowing divorce would hurt enrollment. Jesus clearly states that divorce is unacceptable.
And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
There is no getting around it…unless you are Jewish, but not for Baptist
As for believing whose laws were passed down in D. Well, I think it is obvious that “he” is Moses. “Moses allowed”…not God allowed.
But it is a big book and people will make of it what they wish.
By “abnormal,” do you mean it's science fiction, or supernatural — like little green men with antennae from Mars? Or like a fantasy or a myth — like the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, for instance?
It does serve a biological purpose.
It is not considered by most to be a mental illness. I've done a poll. I know.
Love is not a psychosis. Hatred and irrational fear are, though. Or, at least, they can contribute to a kind of psychosis.
I don't see anything negative or destructive about gay men and women. I've known, and know, a lot of gay men and women. There are many gay men and women in my synagogue. They all seem like very nice people to me — not negative, not destructive. I have not seen any of my synagogue's gay or lesbian members destroy anything.
I don't know where you're getting these ideas from.
You are one confused dude, DLS. Divorce is not easy. Divorce is never easy, regardless of the law. And especially if children are involved. No-fault divorce will not work and is not the right choice for everyone. For one thing, a divorcing couple has to be capable of cooperating with each other and with the process for no-fault to work. You have to be patient, because no-fault comes with a lengthy waiting period (18 months, in my state). But if those factors are there, no-fault can be the best way to go. IF you have that ability for you and your spouse to be cooperative and reasonably amicable, it's *much* easier on children if their parents are not accusing each other of terrible things and fighting all the time. Divorce is hard enough on children; to reject a particular kind of divorce proceeding for some kind of weird moralistic reason — that it doesn't provide enough blame or finger-pointing, that it doesn't demonize someone enough — is just a bizarre position to take, in my view, when you put that up against the welfare of a child.
This is personal experience for me. I know what a difference both the no-fault divorce and the fact that both me and my ex took equal responsibility for our daughter, didn't argue in front of her or talk each other down in front of her (and actually not very much at all, even when she wasn't there), or put her in the middle helped her get through a very traumatic situation in a psychologically healthy way. Of course, I can never know for sure, but I can't imagine she would be as stable and mature and emotionally balanced a person today, or have done as well in school, or have the warm network of friends that she has, and all her interests and stuff, if she had had to suffer through a bitter, ugly divorce scenario.
Edited to add: I want to be clear that a big part of why I believe the above is precisely because the divorce was so very painful for my daughter. It was terribly painful for her. But that was the pain of the family fracturing; my ex and I did everything we could not to make it worse by making her feel guilty or attacking each other, or by rejecting her feelings or her anger, etc., etc. I feel so strongly about this — maybe I'll do a post at some point.
No, Kathy…. Divorce was not illegal.
Who is being “simplistic” now?
Divorce was quite legal when infidelity was the cause.
“or the lack of it has no bearing on marital success at all, unless you live within a community of people who think premarital sex is sinful.”
Contrary to pop-culture wisdom, those who do choose to save sex for marriage are not doomed to a second-class sex life. Rather they typically report higher levels of sexual satisfaction and marital contentment. Moreover, early sexual experience has been linked to marital dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, and greater incidence of Divorce.(Hooten, Jeff. “The New Virgins.” 16 March 2004.)
There is a higher risk, 40 to 85%, of divorce between couples cohabiting before marriage than couples waiting until after marriage to share a home together. (Bumpass & Sweet 1995; Hall & Zhao 1995)
Of 100 couples living together, only 60 marry. Of those sixty, 45 divorce. Draw your own conclusion,.
“My marriage ultimately failed. Did it fail because we met in a social club or a bar? Obviously not. Did it fail because I was not a virgin? Absolutely not. That had zero to do with why the marriage failed.”
I don't know why YOUR marriage failed, Kathy. I do know that of all marriages, people who enter into marriage as virgins have a much lower divorce rate. The reason is simple psychology. Both men and women subconsciously wonder about those that came before them with their mates. For men, it's typically sexual (I wonder if I am the biggest and the best); and for women it is typically emotional (I wonder if he loves me more than the rest). This type of subconscious banter can snowball and ruin a relationship – leading to mistrust and apathy. Virgins totally take this entire problem out of the loop. They typically enjoy more trust, more sexual satisfaction, and many other things that make marriages last.
“You are a fundamentalist, born-again Christian who I'm willing to bet has not spent more than 15 minutes on Jewish study in your entire life…..You are narrow minded and arrogant…”
Wow. Now I'm no genious, but I know THAT isn't love. Try as you may to condemn my heart, you will not succeed. I do love you Kathy. But you cannot confuse disagreement with hatred. (You liberals do that a lot). And truth be told, there are many hateful right-wingers out there as well.
I have studied Judaism, Kathy. You try to portray Judaism as a religion that openly embraces homosexuality. You (and the Rabbi you mentioned in a previous post) appear to be a very small minority within Judaism on that subject. I personally called every Synagogue in our city and talked to a Rabbi from each. Not one even remotedly suggested that homosexuality was to be accepted.
Now Kathy…. That is not me trying to “judge your beliefs and your life choices — to the extent Iknow them — so harshly and with such certainty of my own rectitude while knowing nothing about you or your life”. That is me calling you out on a statement you made long ago that Judaism is perfectly fine with homosexuality. That ain't the “real world” as you put it. That is YOUR world. Your attempting to throw that into Judaism is no different than terrorists attempting to throw justified murder of innocents into the Koran.
No, Kathy…. Divorce was not illegal.
Who is being “simplistic” now?
Divorce was quite legal when infidelity was the cause.
Oh, I get what you're saying. You're saying that people could always claim infidelity even when it didn't exist so they could get a divorce when divorce for any other reason was illegal. Therefore, it's simplistic to say that divorce was illegal.
But you cannot confuse disagreement with hatred.
I do not confuse disagreement with hatred. And I also do not confused disrespect with hatred. I said that disrespect is incompatible with statements of love.
You try to portray Judaism as a religion that openly embraces homosexuality.
LOL! I did not do that. I said that Judaism, or the Jewish tradition, has a more nuanced position on homosexuality than fundamentalist Christians do (or fundamentalists in general for that matter).
You (and the Rabbi you mentioned in a previous post) appear to be a very small minority within Judaism on that subject.
He's not. He's not a very small minority. Neither is he necessarily the majority. But he is part of a strong and growing viewpoint in contemporary Judaism that the Torah's prohibition of homosexual behavior has to be understood in the context of what we know today about homosexuality, what it is and what it is not.
I personally called every Synagogue in our city and talked to a Rabbi from each. Not one even remotedly suggested that homosexuality was to be accepted.
LOL again! You are funny, JD. How many synagogues are there in your city? And what is the name of your city? And how do you get off telling me that the rabbi I quoted is a tiny minority when you are claiming to know what Judaism says about homosexuality based on the rabbis in your city?
((hugs)) for you Kathy.
I had to think this one through, because it struck me out of left field. We were talking about guidelines, what is best and what isn't. It's the same as nutritional guidelines and sanitation guidelines. Eating vegetables and lean meats, and washing your hands, are all recommendations, or “best practices”, for health. Caution and commitment are best practices for marriage. I've heard people say that it's not possible in this world to adhere to such standards, but you're the first I've heard say that they're not good recommendations.
Hey ProfElwood — A lot of people think they aren't good recommendations. (I'll raise my hand here as well.) I would have a very, very difficult time recommending to a child of mine that he or she get married without ever having had sex with hir chosen partner, if asked. I think sex is a very important part of bonding with a romantic partner, and bad sex can be a relationship killer. I would also have a hard time recommending marriage before cohabitation. I would certainly not recommend to anyone that ze get married because ze is ready to have sex. Most people are ready to have sex by the time they're 18 or so (not that anyone should feel shame if they decide to beforehand or if they're not ready by that age), yet most marriages involving 18-year-olds end in divorce. Once the man in the relationship is over 35, the divorce rate drops very quickly. I really don't know anyone in my age group who wouldn't be divorced by now if they had married the first person they had had sex with, myself included. I could obviously go on and on about why I think JD's stance on marriage is fully wrong-headed.
“I would certainly not recommend to anyone that ze get married because ze is ready to have sex.”
I don't know where you got that anyone was recommending that, but okay, I can agree with that.
“I think sex is a very important part of bonding with a romantic partner, and bad sex can be a relationship killer.”
That's mixing up cause and effect. The more comfortable you are with your partner, the better the sex. Greater commitment leads to greater comfort with your mate. I research a few links, if you need proof.
“I would also have a hard time recommending marriage before cohabitation.”
JD answered that one already.
“yet most marriages involving 18-year-olds end in divorce.”
Yes, because that's just before some major changes are coming. What I would recommend is that someone check out a potential mate from as distanced a position as possible, and get some objective counseling before marriage. It's difficult to judge someone else, but when they depend on someone for food, shelter and/or sex, it makes that decision near-impossible. It's extremely important to get it right the first time, because children are always a possibility, and divorce and breakups are hard on them.
“The more comfortable you are with your partner, the better the sex. Greater commitment leads to greater comfort with your mate.”
Agree with the first sentence, not so much with the second. It's pretty hard to tell how comfortable you are around another person naked until you've done it. I think it's also true that some people are just sexually incompatable (good thing to know before you walk down the aisle, in my opinion). However comfortable two people are together in the rest of life doesn't necessary translate to the bedroom.
“JD answered that one already.”
First, JD's stats were taken 1990-1995. Since that time, the number of cohabiting couples has increased 88%; not only are the stats outdated, but they are misleading:
From this link: http://www.unmarried.org/cohabitation-f.a.q.htm…
Caution and commitment are best practices for marriage. I've heard people say that it's not possible in this world to adhere to such standards, but you're the first I've heard say that they're not good recommendations.
That's just a lie, Elwood. I did not at any time say that caution and commitment are not good recommendations for marriage.
((hugs)) for you Kathy.
And returned, roro.
Research it is then. I'll report back much later tonight.