All right, you say, so cohabitation is a poor substitute for marriage and may even undermine those marriages preceded by cohabitation. But how does allowing persons of the same sex to marry harm the institution of marriage? As advocates of same-sex marriage (SSM) are quick to point out, “the sky hasn’t fallen” since SSM became legal in Massachusetts in 2004, apparently convinced that four short years is adequate to produce the predictable and deleterious public consequence of redefining marriage. Remember, however, that Unwin’s research demonstrated that the effects of such modification would occur over generations and not be immediate. Nonetheless, there is some empirical evidence already emerging that indicates the acceptance of SSM will, in fact, harm the institution of marriage and, subsequently, society.
Stanley Kurtz, senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute, reported in April of 2004 before the House Judiciary Committee that there is ample evidence available in Scandinavia demonstrating the effect of devolving marriage to include couples of the same sex. Dr. Kurtz holds a PhD in social anthropology from Harvard University and is regarded as both an excellent scholar and expert in this area. Commenting on the situation in Sweden, Kurtz writes:
The Swedes have simply drawn the final conclusion: If we’ve come so far without marriage, why marry at all? Our love is what matters, not a piece of paper. Why should children change that? (Stanley Kurtz, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia: The ‘conservative case’ for same-sex marriage collapses,” The Weekly Standard, 2 February 2004.)
Indeed, in Sweden the out-of-wedlock birthrate is 55 percent, Norway is 50 percent, Iceland is approaching 70 percent, and in Denmark 60 percent of firstborn children are born out of wedlock. So what? you ask. So cohabitation has replaced marriage, big deal; men and women are still having children, only without the formality of a marriage certificate. What’s the problem? According to Dr. Kurtz, studies in these countries demonstrate that these unmarried families break up at a rate two to three times that of married couples. This has only exacerbated the welfare state that is unparalleled in Scandinavia. Kurtz points out that “no western nation has a higher percentage of public employees, public expenditures, or higher tax rates than Sweden.”
And what does this have to do with SSM? All of the Scandinavian countries mentioned embraced de facto same-sex marriage, beginning with Denmark in 1989. The out-of-wedlock birth rates mentioned experienced their most dramatic increases in the decade following the acceptance of SSM in these countries. The separation of marriage from procreation and parenting was already increasing, as it is here; SSM only widened the separation. “In Scandinavia, gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood is acceptable” (Kurtz, “The End of Marriage”).
Dr. Kurtz offers further insight into the connection between cohabitation, rising out-of-wedlock birthrates, and same-sex marriage:
British demographer Kathleen Kiernan . . . divides the continent into three zones. The Nordic countries are the leaders in cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births. They are followed by a middle group that includes the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, and Germany . . . North American rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth put the United States and Canada into this middle group. Most resistant to cohabitation, family dissolution, and out-of-wedlock births are the southern European countries of Portugal, Italy, and Greece . . . These three groupings closely track the movement for gay marriage. In the late eighties and early nineties, gay marriage came to the Nordic countries, where the out-of-wedlock birthrate was already high. Ten years later, out-of-wedlock birthrates have risen significantly in the middle group of nations. Not coincidentally, nearly every country in that middle group has recently either legalized some form of gay marriage, or is seriously considering doing so. Only in the group with low out-of-wedlock birthrates has the gay marriage movement achieved relatively little success. Continue >>
RSS
Feet,
In previous posts you have said all actions must be weighed against the command to love one's neighbor as oneself. I cannot see where Jesus ever said this. Paul said that command was the fulfillment of the law + prophets, but he did not say to use it as a test. So I am wondering where you learned this idea. Since it is not found in scripture, it must be a man-made idea, and to use this "test" to dismiss God's commands in the old + new testaments places you alongside the Pharisees - look what Jesus said to them: And why do you, by your traditions, violate the direct commandments of God?
And when, by applying your test, you approve what God has called sin + disregard His clear teachings in Romans 1 + 1 Corinthians 6, are you not doing what Jesus spoke against, "And so you cancel the word of God for the sake of your own tradition. ...they teach man-made ideas as commands from God."?
i love the old testament, i love the spirit of it.
i take nothing from it. my point is the relationship to the law in the old compared to the new.
mathew 15 gives a good indication when jesus talks about honoring ones parents. jesus says that the heart is more important than the keeping of regulation.
scripture says the same thing about the 2nd commandmenmt in contrast to keeping regulation.
in other words it trumps it1.
I ask about those verses because I know how you feel about the old covenant. But at the time when the Spirit inspired Paul to write those words, a little over half the new testament was completed, so "All scripture..." refers primarily to the old testament. It serves as the foundation to the new covenant, + all of it is useful for instruction + correction, so that we may be equipped to follow Jesus as we ought.
most definitely.
knowing the bias that exists around the issue of homosexuality, craven lists a number of studies without qualification, to support his premise that homoexuality is degenerating.
he also uses the logic that if homosexual marriage is accepted anything that happens after that is caused by that acceptance. in an extreme example if earthquakes suddenly started occurring then the reason again would be because of this acceptance.
he then offers someone concluded a study that he says, not being a professional in the field is widely accepted, so we need to alter our behavior because 50 years from now this theory is going to happen.
is it no wonder that there is a disdain for things christian today, when logic of this nature is accepted in main stream christian circles?
what rational person would ever accept this or any other method of fear tactic.
particularly among us believers when we know that scripture says
1john4 :13We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. 16And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. 17In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. 18There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
Feet,
I cannot speak for them, but I think they would agree, and I hope you agree as well: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Do you believe this?
you must have me confused with someone else. my premise has alwys been that as believers science(social trends,biology,etc) does not determine our theology, but witness and testing of the spirit.
"you will recognize them by their fruits.(by the fruit of their spirit)
"test everything,keep the good."
the problem is that the majority of christendom still has one foot firmly planted in the old covenant. instead of "dying to the law", they look for new laws to abide by in the new covenant and then judge others for their not keeping those laws they have created.
all this when we know that the fulfillment of the law is love. it is not by following it and not thru judgement.
they have taken a "bible says, end of story" approach in regards to the law. the problem is that anything written that is about a legaity requires interpretation.
instead of owning that it is their interpretation, they claim it be universal biblical truth, and are unable to explain it thru objective reason.
how do they expect others to believe what they believe when they , themselves cannot explain their own beliefs.
perhaps you can offer the reasoning that they have been unable to give.
feet,
You said, "craven cant find any evidence in scripture to outlaw gay marriage. so instead he tries to use cultural trends to validate his case."
I've watched as you + others repeatedly decry those who explain the Bible is against homosexuality + ask them for nonbiblical proof that it's harmful to society. Then Craven does just that, + you fault him for not using scripture! Is there no pleasing you, short of agreeing with you?
As for their 50-year trend, he did state SSM was an effect as well as a cause in the deterioration of marriage. I think acknnowledged that on page 2. So unwed births were already commonplace. SSM has made things worse, not better.
And it was good to see a gay advocate be honest: SSM was(is) all about social acceptance, not being monogamous. The lack of pretense was refreshing.
craven cant find any evidence in scripture to outlaw gay marriage. so instead he tries to use cultural trends to validate his case. he uses the argument that because homosexual marriage was acceptable in sweden and they are showing trends toward cohabitation over marriage then homosexual marriage is causing these trends. the point he withholds is that for the last 50 years the swedes had already been trending in this direction. way before homosexual marriage was even a consideration.
he also fails to acknowledge that 40% of the births in the u.s. are out of wedlock. and out of all the western countries the u.s. has been one of the most resistant to homosexual marriage.
i am awed at the lengths of irrationality people are willing to go in their attempts to discredit gay marriage.