Skip Nav


Breaking the Silence: Redefining Marriage Hurts Women Like Me - and Our Children

❶That argument is this: My goal is to preserve freedom all around.

Navigation menu

Finished reading? You can make a difference, too!
No. I am not kidding.
Frequently bought together

In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat. In the resulting isolation, crime and abuse can flourish unimpeded. Children in polygamous communities are taught to fear the police and are not likely to report an abusive neighbor if they suspect their own parents might be caught up in a subsequent criminal investigation.

In a United States with legalized polygamy, responsible plural families could emerge from the shadows—making it easier for authorities to zero in on the criminals who remain there. The earnestness of these arguments is touching but idealistic. Two-parent families are not the reality for millions of American children.

Divorce, remarriage, surrogate parents, extended relatives, and other diverse family arrangements mean families already come in all sizes—why not recognize that legally?

Legalized polygamous marriage would also be good for immigrant families, some of whom have legally polygamous marriages in their home countries that get ripped apart during the immigration process.

Academics suggest there are 50, to , people engaged in Muslim polygamy in the U. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Now that you know a little more about Sudoku, play and enjoy this free online game. Easybrain is a mobile games publisher with the most popular Sudoku app on the App Store and Google Play, and from August is the proud owner of www. Learn more about the company on www. By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies to personalize content and ads, to analyse our traffic and for the performance of our website.

To learn more, visit our Cookie Policy. Cookies are small pieces of text sent to your web browser that assist us in providing our Services according to the purposes described. A cookie file is stored in your web browser and allows our Services or a third-party to recognize you and make your next visit easier and the Service more useful to you.

Some of the purposes for which Cookies are installed may also require the User's consent. Cookies can be "persistent" or "session" cookies. Persistent cookies remain on your personal computer or mobile device when you go offline, while session cookies are deleted as soon as you close your web browser. Functional cookies are set to recognise you when you return to our Website and to embed functionality from third party services.

Also, these cookies enable us to personalise our content for you and remember your last game progress. If I wanted to offer students evidence of the fact that political correctness and sound rationality are by no means an exclusive pair, I would probably have them read this book. I do not think that the Supreme Court will side with George et al. If nothing else, the authors make a persuasive case that whatever happens, revising the definition of marriage in a liberal-individualist direction is likely to have specific negative consequences at the individual and social levels.

There is no cake-and-eat-it. Some goods come at the cost of others. Also, it is a marvelous example of how the best argument against a thing does not have to be animated by reprehensible emotions towards one's opponents. I believe this brave book will have value even after the Court probably rules against the conjugal model of marriage as the authors--and pretty much everyone in the world since prehistory up until the last few decades in the West--understand it. The most pressing chapter, in a way, seemed to be "A Cruel Bargain?

I will not review their arguments here, although I think they do a careful job of analyzing and responding to this charge. It struck me, however, that part of the problem is that the popular image of heterosexual marriage--the one in a zillion books and movies--is not really about the conjugal ideal that the authors present here. It is purely about emotional attachment, which makes it quite natural that some people could say: In this regard, the conjugal view of marriage may actually include a crucial self-abnegating element, a sense of formal idealism and social duty that colors and perhaps even constrains affection as a principle of action.

On this view, the impulse behind arranged marriages may not be fundamentally unreasonable, even if such marriages can be imprudently or insensitively managed. But are they bungled more often than the self-arranged marriages of today? Perhaps the arranged marriage is the absolute example of non-gay marriage. In any case, today's popular image of heterosexual marriage is in many ways closer to the revisionist model than the conjugal model, which makes the moderate popularity of the "fairness" argument more understandable.

The authors distinguish two views: Conjugal marriage between a man and a woman which consists in a unitive and a procreative dimension. In the former the partners are joined in an intimate way,they become the "one flesh", which act of union is at the same time the way to procreation. The resulting offspring is the concrete form of their love and is thus protected and nurtured in a lifelong relation between the spouses. A sexual union is impossible between persons of the same sex and so same sex marriage is also impossible.

The authors are clear that procreation need not actually occur as in the case of infertility or other accidental defects. What is important is that the married couple are minimally able to represent in their bodily nature the array of goods available in conjugal marriage.

This is contrasted with Revisionist marriage in which it is only necessary that the partners pledge themselves to a kind of friendship love makes a family. These two are VERY different and should not be confused so that we need to reserve for reasons moral and social the term "marriage" to the conjugal. A neat and convincing argument. The question that arises,then, is why do we need such a book to explain what would be self evident to our ancestors going back over the centuries to classical times and no doubt beyond?

The authors object to a change in the definition of marriage but the problem is that the definition of marriage HAS already changed. The key to understanding this change lies in the universal almost acceptance of contraception. We are a contraceptive society. The procreative dimension of marriage is now regarded as an option,as in no way organically connected to sexual union. This in itself is to abandon the conjugal understanding of marriage.

Nearly half of Americans recently surveyed say that a marriage may be complete without children. Let us take an example: A man and woman have themselves surgically made sterile. They intentionally suppress their procreative nature but in so doing they intentionally suppress their unitive relation as well for intercourse is no longer directed toward procreation.

This is not like the case of infertility where it can make sense to say that the couple are "open" to procreation but are frustrated by a defect not of their making.

For their suppression of the conjugal is intentional. So what is the basis of their relationship? It must be a kind of friendship or mutual respect and a desire to live together.

But this is just the Revisionist position! And yet our couple are legally married because they are of the opposite sex. With no-fault divorce such unions can be easily terminated when friendship cools. And so we see how homosexuals might easily see a double standard here.

Our sterile couples "marriage" is hardly even a shadow of the richness of Conjugal marriage as so well described by the authors. These reflections also help to answer an often asked question: How has the campaign for same sex marriage gained such huge support in such a very short time? The answer is that for nearly a century heterosexuals have themselves been abandoning the Conjugal view of marriage via contraception with abortion as a back-up for failed contraception supplemented by no-fault divorce.

So I fear that the definition of marriage has de facto changed--not a development that I personally relish. So, to put it mildly, an uphill battle. I give the book 5 stars for cogency and clarity. See all reviews. Most recent customer reviews. Published 1 month ago. Published 2 months ago.

It Might Be Impossible to Get Government Out of Marriage

Main Topics

Privacy Policy

Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.

Privacy FAQs

The Gay Marriage Debate - Within this essay, the main focus will be to develop a thorough analysis and discussion in relation to the topic of gay marriage.

About Our Ads

Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con - Kindle edition by Andrew Sullivan. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con. Apr 15,  · Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as Santorum.

Cookie Info

A symbol used by the Marriage Project, a pro-LGBT group. 1. A symbol used by the Family Research Council, an evangelical Christian group. 2. Controversial essay topics are burning, hot issues, which raise heated debate and provoke confrontation concerning an ambiguous subject of a current interest.. These are issues about which people have very strong yet divergent feelings and opinions, which lead to much dispute and argument.