http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/same-sex-marriage-part-4/ Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:00:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/same-sex-marriage-part-4/#comment-16058 Barry Carey Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:47:23 +0000 http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/same-sex-marriage-part-4/#comment-16058 Kevin, I understand where you are coming from. Let me say that Greg here is not necessarily presenting a positive argument for traditional marriage. He is rather addressing specific objections raised by those in favor of same-sex marriages against those arguing for traditional marriage. Therefore, it may not come across as a coherent argument. It wasn't intended that way. The children issue is coming up soon in another post. Kevin, I understand where you are coming from. Let me say that Greg here is not necessarily presenting a positive argument for traditional marriage. He is rather addressing specific objections raised by those in favor of same-sex marriages against those arguing for traditional marriage. Therefore, it may not come across as a coherent argument. It wasn’t intended that way. The children issue is coming up soon in another post.

]]> http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/same-sex-marriage-part-4/#comment-16050 Kevin Winters Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:51:32 +0000 http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/same-sex-marriage-part-4/#comment-16050 Shouldn't we rather say that love is is not the reason for all marriages? Even with the fact that not all marriages are entered into because of love, there are those that <i>are</i> entered into for that reason. I would also dispute the claim that the marriage vows are (supposedly) there to "keep the marriage intact, not for the sake of love, but for the sake of children," for not only do some marriages (many, in fact) not involve children, but also I find those very oaths to be part of love. That, I feel, is the genius of "arranged marriages": it is not under the illusion that love is a 'feeling' that one has or does not have, but it is a commitment, it takes work, it takes devotion (of time, money, energy, patience, etc.). I find the whole argument so far to be rather tenuous just on its premises. Not that I don't agree on the conclusion, but this isn't an effective way to argue it. Shouldn’t we rather say that love is is not the reason for all marriages? Even with the fact that not all marriages are entered into because of love, there are those that are entered into for that reason. I would also dispute the claim that the marriage vows are (supposedly) there to “keep the marriage intact, not for the sake of love, but for the sake of children,” for not only do some marriages (many, in fact) not involve children, but also I find those very oaths to be part of love. That, I feel, is the genius of “arranged marriages”: it is not under the illusion that love is a ‘feeling’ that one has or does not have, but it is a commitment, it takes work, it takes devotion (of time, money, energy, patience, etc.). I find the whole argument so far to be rather tenuous just on its premises. Not that I don’t agree on the conclusion, but this isn’t an effective way to argue it.

]]>