Comments on: Other Developments in the Modernity of Kinship http://savageminds.org/2006/12/29/other-developments-in-the-modernity-of-kinship/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:06:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: aaron jason silver http://savageminds.org/2006/12/29/other-developments-in-the-modernity-of-kinship/comment-page-1/#comment-45296 aaron jason silver Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:39:07 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/12/29/other-developments-in-the-modernity-of-kinship/#comment-45296 Marriage, a religious institution? I’m having difficulty trying to understand what the people that are opposed to gay marriage mean when they say that marriage is a religious institution. Or that it will make a mockery of traditional marriages. If marriage were indeed a religious institution, why then are heterosexual couples afforded such a wide variety of ways of getting married that have no religious affiliation whatsoever? Heterosexual atheists are allowed to marry and they certainly don’t want any religious overtones to their marriages. Straight couples can get married by the justice of the piece; they can get married by a ship captain on a cruise ship. They can be married underwater or a mountaintop, it just doesn’t matter. The list goes on and on therefore, making the argument of about marriage being a religious institution absurd. I have also heard many opponents of gay marriage say that same sex marriage will make a mockery of traditional marriages, meaning I suppose between a man and a woman. I think that looking closely at all of the statistics about the success of traditional marriages do a damn good job of their own making a mockery of marriage. Then when one looks at the statistics of how many straight lay men and woman who have extramarital affairs doesn’t look so good either not to mention many couples of the clergy who seem also not to have the greatest track record. So then, what do the opponents of gay marriage really mean by saying that same sex marriages would make a mockery of traditional marriage? One doesn’t have to be a sociologist or have a degree in statistics to understand that allowing gay marriages to exist would hurt no one. In fact gay marriage would likely cause gays to have longer lasting relationships. There has been a common complaint generally spouted out by the straight population, that gay relationships don’t last very long. Statistics do however bear out one thing in regards to marriage verses just living together as a couple and that is that couples that are married verses couples just living together do last longer if they are married. Perhaps this could be the answer in motivating gay couples to work harder at their relationships if they were legally bound by a legitimate contract, rather than just being able to just walk away as so often happens when they hit some rough waters as all relationships do at some point whether gay or straight. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver [Editor- please don\'t provide personal information like address and phone number, as it makes you a possible target of identity theft.] www.aaronjasonsilver.com Marriage, a religious institution?

I’m having difficulty trying to understand what the people that are opposed to gay marriage mean when they say that marriage is a religious institution. Or that it will make a mockery of traditional marriages. If marriage were indeed a religious institution, why then are heterosexual couples afforded such a wide variety of ways of getting married that have no religious affiliation whatsoever? Heterosexual atheists are allowed to marry and they certainly don’t want any religious overtones to their marriages. Straight couples can get married by the justice of the piece; they can get married by a ship captain on a cruise ship. They can be married underwater or a mountaintop, it just doesn’t matter. The list goes on and on therefore, making the argument of about marriage being a religious institution absurd.

I have also heard many opponents of gay marriage say that same sex marriage will make a mockery of traditional marriages, meaning I suppose between a man and a woman. I think that looking closely at all of the statistics about the success of traditional marriages do a damn good job of their own making a mockery of marriage. Then when one looks at the statistics of how many straight lay men and woman who have extramarital affairs doesn’t look so good either not to mention many couples of the clergy who seem also not to have the greatest track record. So then, what do the opponents of gay marriage really mean by saying that same sex marriages would make a mockery of traditional marriage? One doesn’t have to be a sociologist or have a degree in statistics to understand that allowing gay marriages to exist would hurt no one. In fact gay marriage would likely cause gays to have longer lasting relationships. There has been a common complaint generally spouted out by the straight population, that gay relationships don’t last very long. Statistics do however bear out one thing in regards to marriage verses just living together as a couple and that is that couples that are married verses couples just living together do last longer if they are married. Perhaps this could be the answer in motivating gay couples to work harder at their relationships if they were legally bound by a legitimate contract, rather than just being able to just walk away as so often happens when they hit some rough waters as all relationships do at some point whether gay or straight. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver [Editor- please don\'t provide personal information like address and phone number, as it makes you a possible target of identity theft.] http://www.aaronjasonsilver.com

Report this comment

]]> By: JulieEHESS http://savageminds.org/2006/12/29/other-developments-in-the-modernity-of-kinship/comment-page-1/#comment-45217 JulieEHESS Fri, 29 Dec 2006 23:08:52 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/12/29/other-developments-in-the-modernity-of-kinship/#comment-45217 Anthropologists Laurie Hart and John Borneman wrote about this in the Washington Post, and the article is copied here: http://www.buddybuddy.com/born-01.html And Peter Wood responded on the National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wood200504260810.asp Anthropologists Laurie Hart and John Borneman wrote about this in the Washington Post, and the article is copied here:
http://www.buddybuddy.com/born-01.html

And Peter Wood responded on the National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wood200504260810.asp

Report this comment

]]>