The divorce-threatens-marriage lie

[Tigermike 3,039]

The divorce-threatens-marriage lie

Dennis Prager

April 12, 2005

One of the most frequently offered arguments by proponents of same-sex marriage is that it is not gays wanting to marry a member of the same sex that threatens the institution of marriage, it is the high divorce rate among heterosexuals.

One reason this argument is so often made is that it appeals to the religious as well as the secular, to conservatives as well as liberals.

This is too bad, because the argument is a meaningless non sequitur.

First, while divorce ends a given marriage, it does not threaten marriage as an institution. Of course, many marriages fail and end in divorce -- while some other marriages fail and do not end in divorce -- but why does this threaten marriage as an institution?

To understand the foolishness of the argument "divorce threatens marriage," let's apply this principle to other areas of life. Let's begin with parenthood. It is undeniable that vast numbers of people fail -- and have always failed -- as parents.

Yet, no one argues that the many parents who fail to raise good children threaten the institution of parenthood. Why, then, do marriages that fail threaten the institution of marriage?

Likewise, few people are calling for the redefinition of parenthood because parents so often fail to raise good children. Why, then, redefine marriage because many marriages fail?

When we think of parents failing, we think of ways to improve parenting, and we discourage people from becoming parents before they are ready. Why, then, don't we do the same regarding divorce -- think of ways to improve marriages and discourage people from marrying before they are ready? Why must we radically redefine it? That redefinition is what threatens marriage.

There is a second reason the divorce-rate-threatens-marriage argument is disingenuous: If gays marry, they will divorce at least as often as heterosexuals do. That is why the divorce issue is entirely unrelated to the question of whether we should redefine marriage. The only reason the argument is even offered is because gullible people will buy it. The gullible include well-intentioned centrist Americans who think, "Hey, that's a good point. Straights sure haven't done such a great job with marriage; why not let gays have a crack at it?" And the gullible include well-intentioned religious Americans whose loathing of divorce overwhelms their critical thinking.

A third flaw in the argument is that it presupposes that every divorce constitutes a failure of a couple's marriage. Sometimes this is true; sometimes it is not. I know a couple married for 30 years who made a beautiful home for their three now-married children. The couple divorced last year because they had both concluded that they had drifted too far apart to continue living together in any meaningful way (one aspect of the drift was one partner's increasing devotion to religion and the other's decreasing interest in it).

Who has the hubris to call their marriage a failure? Their children surely don't think their parents' marriage was a failure. It produced three wonderful married adults, and it provided them a beautiful and loving home in which to grow up. One can only wish all marriages so "failed."

It is simplistic to maintain that the one criterion of success or failure in marriage is permanence. There are marriages that provided years of comfort to a couple and a fine home to their children that eventually end; and there are permanent marriages that have provided neither comfort to the couple nor a loving environment for their children. If the end of something renders it a failure, every one of our lives is a failure, since they all come to an end.

Finally, marriage is threatened not by divorce, but by people not marrying in the first place -- as is increasingly the case in the two European societies that have redefined marriage to include couples of the same sex. Our present high divorce rate is not stopping the vast majority of Americans from wanting to marry. Nor should it. Nothing provides the antidote to narcissism, or the environment for the healthy raising of children, or the way for people to take care of one another, as does the marriage of a man and a woman. And while most divorces are terribly sad, divorce itself no more undermines the institution of marriage than car crashes undermine the institution of driving. In fact, the vast majority of people who do divorce deeply wish to marry again; painful divorce has not undermined marriage even among those who have divorced.

There may be honest reasons to support the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples. The argument that heterosexuals divorce a lot is not one of them. It is, in fact, demagoguery.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisp...p20050412.shtml

[Tiger Al 0]

It's funny, I've heard more young people say, "So many marriages end in divorce anyway so what's the point," than I've ever heard say,"Gays are getting married now so what's the point."

[BamaGrad03 0]

It's funny, I've heard more young people say, "So many marriages end in divorce anyway so what's the point," than I've ever heard say,"Gays are getting married now so what's the point."

Probably because they arent recognized as being married. (gays i mean). Assume gay marriage is allowed...and lets revisit your comment a year after.

[Tigermike 3,039]

Actually several of the gays who were married in Mass and/or NY have already gotten a divorce. Go figure.

[Tiger Al 0]

It's funny, I've heard more young people say, "So many marriages end in divorce anyway so what's the point," than I've ever heard say,"Gays are getting married now so what's the point."

Probably because they arent recognized as being married. (gays i mean). Assume gay marriage is allowed...and lets revisit your comment a year after.

155426[/snapback]

You're engaged, right? Is the fact that gays have married giving you second thoughts about following through? Why or why not? If it's causing you to not want to marry because you might be associated with them, then what is your alternative or will you just live life as a single man?

[Tiger Al 0]

Actually several of the gays who were married in Mass and/or NY have already gotten a divorce.  Go figure.

155431[/snapback]

Just goes to show you that sometimes marriage is a crapshoot. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But, you know what? My marriage hasn't changed one bit because of it.

[channonc 466]

This article was more about divorce than gay marriage.

Regarding gay marriage: People are afraid of what they don't know. I would be willing to bet that most of the people who are totally 100% against gay marriage, don't know one completely devoted gay couple.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I would be willing to bet that most of the people who are totally 100% against gay marriage, don't know one completely devoted gay couple.

155443[/snapback]

Maybe thats a big part of the problem with the prospect of gay marriage.

[Piglet 0]

I never figured out what all the fuss was about. If a coupla gays in San Fran Sissyco want to get hitched, why is it my business? Personally, being married brought such a sense of well-being into my life that I just can't justify denying that happiness to others.

It also seems to me that that article's dead wrong on at least a couple of points. Like where it says divorce doesn't threaten the institution of marriage. Now, I don't buy that whole "letting gays do it threatens the whole institution" theory in the first place, but if we let it make any sense at all, how can widespread divorce NOT be just as threatening? Isn't Christian marriage defined as "till death do us part" every bit as much as it is "one man-one woman"?

And that example about some divorces not being failed marriages. Sorry, but if you get divorced, the marriage failed. Maybe it did a lot of good over many years first, but by the time you need to break up, it's failed. That's like saying Woolworths can't possibly have failed by going out of business, because it succeeded for so long first.

What we really need is a distinction in words so we can tell whether we're talking about "marriage" in the legal sense, or who is "married" in the Christian sense. Churches don't ever have to recognize gay marriage, and they shouldn't be required to perform them either. But their concerns and the legal concerns--inheriting property and stuff--are different. Maybe using the word "marriage" only in the religious sense and "civil unions" for the legal sense is the answer.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Many have come out and said that civil unions for insurance and legal purposes was fine.

But like abortion...compromise is not acceptable. It has to be considered "marriage" or they wont be happy. And in my opinion, marriage is a religous bond that is not to be recognized within a gay union.

[Tiger Al 0]

I never figured out what all the fuss was about.  If a coupla gays in San Fran Sissyco want to get hitched, why is it my business?  Personally, being married brought such a sense of well-being into my life that I just can't justify denying that happiness to others.

It also seems to me that that article's dead wrong on at least a couple of points.  Like where it says divorce doesn't threaten the institution of marriage.  Now, I don't buy that whole "letting gays do it threatens the whole institution" theory in the first place, but if we let it make any sense at all, how can widespread divorce NOT be just as threatening? Isn't Christian marriage defined as "till death do us part" every bit as much as it is "one man-one woman"?

And that example about some divorces not being failed marriages.  Sorry, but if you get divorced, the marriage failed.  Maybe it did a lot of good over many years first, but by the time you need to break up, it's failed.  That's like saying Woolworths can't possibly have failed by going out of business, because it succeeded for so long first.

What we really need is a distinction in words so we can tell whether we're talking about "marriage" in the legal sense, or who is "married" in the Christian sense.  Churches don't ever have to recognize gay marriage, and they shouldn't be required to perform them either.  But their concerns and the legal concerns--inheriting property and stuff--are different.  Maybe using the word "marriage" only in the religious sense and "civil unions" for the legal sense is the answer.

155466[/snapback]

Piglet, you know as well as I do that the "destruction to the institution of marriage" is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover up the real reason. They aren't opposed to homosexual MARRIAGE or even "civil unions", they're opposed to homosexuality period and have always gone to any lengths to get any evidence of its existence outside the city walls. Homosexuals are not to be tolerated in the workplace, the military, the schools, the government, in public or, as it turns out, even in the privacy of their own homes.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I dont approve of homosexuality. But that doesnt mean i cant see them as human and understand that they have faults as do I.

That is what Christianity teaches.

[Tigermike 3,039]

I dont approve of homosexuality. But that doesnt mean i cant see them as human and understand that they have faults as do I.

That is what Christianity teaches.

155475[/snapback]

Don't bring that in BG. The libs have a problem even acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin.

[Tiger Al 0]

Don't bring that in BG.  The libs have a problem even acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin.

155549[/snapback]

Whether it is or isn't, what does that have to do with public policy?

[Tigermike 3,039]

Don't bring that in BG.  The libs have a problem even acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin.

155549[/snapback]

Whether it is or isn't, what does that have to do with public policy?

155550[/snapback]

I don't recall saying anything about public policy. I merely commented on BG's statement.

[Tiger Al 0]

Don't bring that in BG.  The libs have a problem even acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin.

155549[/snapback]

Whether it is or isn't, what does that have to do with public policy?

155550[/snapback]

I don't recall saying anything about public policy. I merely commented on BG's statement.

155552[/snapback]

No, but the thread which you started deals with public policy.

[BamaGrad03 0]

The reason I brought it up based on how the church views it...is because many people see "marraige" as a RELIGOUS bond. Not a governmental or public policy issue. And myself, like many people, dont want to see a RELIGOUS union associated with something that is detested by God.

But...outside of the disagreement with homosexuality...most of us feel that those people should be able to enjoy the things that fall under what IS public policy: joint insurance, hospital visiting rights as family, inheritance etc.

But when you say...NO...we dont JUST want those things...we want MARRAIGE too. Thats when we have a problem with it.

[channonc 466]

Al, haven't you figured out the conservative strategy. They don't want government involvment unless you have committed a "sin." Oh, and they get to define "sin" and get o regulate that "sin" whether or not you are in the privacy of your own home. The government shouldn't help those less fortunate, we should be regulating sex!

[Tiger Al 0]

The reason I brought it up based on how the church views it...is because many people see "marraige" as a RELIGOUS bond. Not a governmental or public policy issue. And myself, like many people, dont want to see a RELIGOUS union associated with something that is detested by God.

But...outside of the disagreement with homosexuality...most of us feel that those people should be able to enjoy the things that fall under what IS public policy: joint insurance, hospital visiting rights as family, inheritance etc.

But when you say...NO...we dont JUST want those things...we want MARRAIGE too. Thats when we have a problem with it.

155565[/snapback]

So your opposition, from a purely public policy perspective, is in the use of the word "marriage?" Is that a correct understanding on my part?

[Tiger Al 0]

Al, haven't you figured out the conservative strategy.  They don't want government involvment unless you have committed a "sin."  Oh, and they get to define "sin" and get o regulate that "sin" whether or not you are in the privacy of your own home.  The government shouldn't help those less fortunate, we should be regulating sex!

155566[/snapback]

You could be right. Let's give BG the opportunity to clarify his position on this. It could merely be a semantics issue. Right now, I'm willing to give him the BOTD.

[Tigermike 3,039]

Don't bring that in BG.  The libs have a problem even acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin.

155549[/snapback]

Whether it is or isn't, what does that have to do with public policy?

155550[/snapback]

I don't recall saying anything about public policy. I merely commented on BG's statement.

155552[/snapback]

No, but the thread which you started deals with public policy.

155556[/snapback]

And threads like conversations move and change and evolve.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Tiger...like I said...I have no problem extending rights to those who have a "civil union". I have no problem with the government extending rights to those who happen to be gay. I dont think the government should interfere with what gay people do within the privacy of their own home. I just want a distinction between their recognized civil union and my RELIGOUS bond of marraige. The rights can be the same...the benefits (tax, insurance, whatever) can be the same. But I have a problem with churches, judges, whomever...performing a wedding/marriage ceremony...when it directly conflicts with what marriage should be recognized as. I think it DOES cheapen what marriage means to me if it encompasses homosexual unions.

It has nothing to do with the individual. ANd it has nothing to do with "sin" and government. It has to do with what I feel marriage means.

[Tigermike 3,039]

Al, haven't you figured out the conservative strategy.  They don't want government involvment unless you have committed a "sin."  Oh, and they get to define "sin" and get o regulate that "sin" whether or not you are in the privacy of your own home.  The government shouldn't help those less fortunate, we should be regulating sex!

155566[/snapback]

channonc, you can twist with the best of them.

Disregarding public policy, is homosexuality a sin?

[Tiger Al 0]

OK, BG, you and I are pretty much on the same page here, more or less. What should happen in the states where civil unions are allowed when it comes time to do taxes, let's say. If the federal government doesn't recognize civil unions and have officially and legally defined the word "marriage" to include only a male and a female, how have we helped them?

I think that the term "marriage", in a legal sense not a religious one, because government doesn't have any right or business defining who a religion believes it can marry, should be open to include homosexual "marriages" or there should be an allowance for the term "civilly unionized" which would carry the same legal benefits, rights and responsibilities that the term "marriage" does. I really think that from a strictly legal perspective we are all "unionized" anyway.

[channonc 466]

I just want a distinction between their recognized civil union and my RELIGOUS bond of marraige.

That distinction isn't made in the government. Its made in your place of worship. Which is seperate from the government. When you get a marriage license it is purely secular. The state is not saying it is a "religious" union.