Democrats should have a plan to save Marriage

One lesson that everyone in politics should learn is that no matter what the issue, you can't win on defense.

I advise all people who value the institution of marriage to advance a positive agenda that promotes the goodness of America.

Democrats should have a plan to save and strengthen Marriage.

Since the "buzz word" of our time is: SECURITY.

I support MARRIAGE SECURITY.

The reason this should be a Democratic rather than Republican issue is that our party believes in the use of the power we the people through our government can wield to promote the general welfare.

The Republican Party at least rhetorically is opposed to the power of government, and therefore is in a poor position to actually do good in this area.

For Marriage Security, I propose:

First and foremost define Marriage as a sacred institution between 1 man and 1 woman.

We should increase the benefits of getting and staying married, while increasing the disincentives to divorce, "shacking up", and general out-of-wedlock births.   For the latter, we must take care to do this while not promoting abortion.

Here's how some of it could be done:

1. Have candidates up and down ticket actually speak the words about the ideal.  Almost all of them show their families as a political calculation, and use their spouses and kids as props, so this is just one more step.  Using the bully pulpit to promote goodness.  We need Obama to say in his stump speech:

A.  you should wait to have sex until you're married.
B.  you should work hard to keep your marriage strong--stick with your vows.
C.  Divorce should be a last option not a first, second, or third option unless there is physical abuse or other imminent danger.
D.  If your girlfriend is pregnant, you should try to convince her to marry you.  You should be a man accept the responsibility of a family.  If you don't want to, then don't do what creates this whole topic.

I support  birth control education.
I support abortion rights.

and I also support trying to do things the right and ideal way.

E.  Family and friends should work to help couples stay together like most of them pledged in a church at the wedding.

Worse case scenario, it doesn't work, but we will have tried to do good.

2. Use the tax code to promote marriage so much so that reasonable people would choose to stay married for the money rather than get divorced over petty differences.  We should have an exemption for abuse or other extreme examples where people could keep the financial benefits and still separate for the overall good of the victims.  

*This could include a big marriage bonus on the tax deductions.
*Bigger deductions for children if the parents are married and living together.
*overall lower tax rate for married-working families.

3.  We need to increase the stigma of divorce both in civil society and also in the law.  First and foremost people should think harder and longer before getting married. It should be more serious and permanent, than, "for as long as it shall last".

We should have various marriage preferences in the law such as

*mortgage interest rates/middle/working class housing programs
*choices of public school (I support vouchers but if the govt. is going to control school selection, then make it matter for some good)
*health care benefits (I support universal healthcare--but again if we won't cover everyone then we should try to support our values in the ones we choose to cover)

The point is, getting married should be a really big deal, and getting divorced should be even bigger.  

3.  The government should fund artists who are more mainstream in their thinking.  Right now, everyone is trying to "out liberal" each other on television, and in the movies.  There are very few if any solid nuclear families portrayed. Where people leave the program thinking, "I want to get married and be like them".   We need people to be as creative in building up an ideal life as they are in dissecting and promoting alternative views.  If Democrats can support the NEA and other public broadcasting. We should make an effort to find people to create:

entertaining and positive programming that can influence young people.

I don't have any problem with popular culture being the way they are.  That's their choice.  My problem is with mainstream Americans not getting in the entertainment business and fighting it out in the world of ideas.  

Right now, having the govt. on the sidelines is not working.  We should expand the NEA and other groups so that we set some common sense goals and try to reach them.

It is easy to criticize other people and play political games.  Republicans do that well.  But I think the Democratic party should step up to the plate and actually work hard to keep perfecting our Union.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!



Display:


Re: Democrats should have a plan to save Marriage (2.00 / 5)

Highly rec'd!  We need the government to protect us from the scary homosexuals!

I'd like to personally thank the mods here at MyDD for allowing users like yellowdem a forum for their views.  I'm sick of sites that have standards of decency and have the nerve to ban homophobes and racists.  Thunderdome rules!


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:39:49 PM EST

Re: Democrats should have a plan to save Marriage (2.00 / 3)

Hey!  More bigotry from YellowDem.

I'm torn, on the shame rec, however.  What's your opinion Purple?


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:43:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats should have a plan to save Marriage (1.66 / 3)

I'm giving him the shame rec.

Maybe if he gets on the Rec.List the mods might finally get around to reading one of his rants.

I'm sure if any ever got around to reading them yellowdogdem would have been exiled a long time ago.

Homophobia and gay bashing is not acceptable.

Period.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats should have a plan to save Marriage (2.00 / 1)

I plan on rec'ing every piece of filth that hits the diary list.  The mods obviously don't care that they've got openly homophobic assholes and other various trolls making diaries left and right, so the only thing I can think to do is shine a flashlight on this garbage by rec'ing it.

I truly feel that we as a community are only as good as the nastiest stuff we allow here.  The fact that this guy is an active member of this community makes us all look bad.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:50:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats should have a plan to save Marriage (2.00 / 2)

All your "shame rec'ing" is doing is getting trash like this on the rec list, and making the people who rec it look silly.
It's pretty obvious that the admin is more interested in ad revenue than in keeping this a Democratic blog, so don't look to them for help.
Everyone complains about troll diaries, but they always end up on the rec list, so I think either the recs need to stop or the complaining does.
What do you think?
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:44:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats should have a plan to save Marriage (2.00 / 1)

As for shame rec'ing getting trash like this on the rec list, that's the entire point.  I truly believe that if the admins started seeing their site represented (via the rec list) by the garbage that they currently allow to fly under the radar, they would be more inclined to take out the trash.

As of now, we've got a broken ratings system that doesn't seem to do anything along with serial trollers that go ignored by the admins.  I respectfully disagree that simply ignoring these people is the answer here.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:02:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Watch out... (2.00 / 1)

These horrfying people are going to make you get a divorce at gun point, then pawn your engagement ring because WE'RE DESTROYING MARRIAGE

Photobucket


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:36:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First they silenced the homophobes... (2.00 / 1)

but I did not speak up, because I was not a homophobe.

Then they silenced the anti-semites.
But I did not care, because I was not an anti-semite.

Then they silenced the racists.  But I was not a racist so I did nothing.

Then they silenced me.  And nobody spoke up for me because all the racists and homophobes and anti-Semites had gone to troll on another blog.


by Dumbo on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:40:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats should have a plan to save Marriage (2.00 / 4)

Democrats should be homophobes who don't care about civil rights?

I don't want to be part of a party like that.


by pomology on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:52:03 PM EST

Re: Do you care that the divorce rate in in (none / 0)

the 40 - 50 percent range?

Or is it just another chance to talk about LGBT issues?


by yellowdem1129 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:57:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you care that the divorce rate in in (2.00 / 2)

It seems obvious to me that the more benefits you heap upon people who get married, the more you're encouraging people to get married for the wrong reasons and not the right ones.

The couples who are at the margins - the ones who aren't sure that they want to get married right now, but could be pushed over to the other side of the line if we offered them a few more tax breaks - those are the people who probably should be thinking it over a little longer, actually.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:02:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you care that the divorce rate in in (none / 0)

I think we should make it harder for people to get married.  Then make it harder to get divorced.

What I'm saying is this is a big problem that leads to problems with children in school and elsewhere, and worse.

We should be constructive and pro-active; rather than acting as though it shouldn't be talked about.


by yellowdem1129 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:08:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you care that the divorce rate in in (2.00 / 4)

I don't understand why, if two people don't want to be married any longer, we should be trying to make them stay married.

My parents were divorced.  It was tough on me.  It would have been a lot tougher if they had stayed married.  It would have been a lot tougher if the government had made the divorce process more arduous.

Divorce is a major decision.  Everyone knows that.  No one is running off and getting a Haitian divorce on a whim because they had a bad hair day.

If you want to strengthen marriage, strengthen the economic security of Americans to get rid of the stress that makes marriage more strained.  Support child care and family leave legislation that makes it easier for couples to raise kids.  Making divorce harder will not strengthen a single marriage.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:19:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you care that the divorce rate in in (2.00 / 3)

"I don't understand why, if two people don't want to be married any longer, we should be trying to make them stay married."

I guess for the same reason we should ban gay marriage - because it upsets certain heterosexuals (not this one, mind you) who would rather force people to be unhappy (remain stuck in a failed marriage, unable to marry the one they love) than live in a society where such things (divorce, same-sex marriage) happen.

If you think about it, the selfishness of such a position is mind-boggling.  Denying a divorce to someone who is simply married to someone they no longer love or who is simply not compatible severely impacts that person's life in a negative way.  Denying the right of someone to marry someone of the sex to whom they are naturally attracted severely impacts that person's life in a negative way.  And for what reason should these things supposedly be done?  Just so they don't have to be part of the background in which said selfish person lives.

It's pathetic than anyone should be so self-centered.


by Collideascope on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:27:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you care that the divorce rate in in (2.00 / 4)

Frankly, if you say "First and foremost define Marriage as a sacred institution between 1 man and 1 woman." I don't really care about what else you have to say.

If you want to address divorce rates and why they matter, you can do it without being pointlessly homophobic.


by pomology on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:02:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you care that the divorce rate in in (none / 0)

you are offended by that?

why not be tolerant of my viewpoint and find common ground on other aspects?

don't you want others to be tolerant of your viewpoint?


by yellowdem1129 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:04:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you care that the divorce rate in in (2.00 / 5)

In other words: Why can't you be more tolerant of my intolerance?  Gays are scary and I need the government to protect me from them!  Anyone who isn't frightened by gay marriage is abnormal!


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:06:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: please tell me (1.00 / 1)

how anything I proposed above does anything to any person's sexuality.

How does it harm anyone.

What does it matter to gays if the govt. tries to promote healthy marriages.

Why would gays want to get "married" with the obvious weakness of the current institution?

just asking?


by yellowdem1129 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:10:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: please tell me (2.00 / 2)

Why would blacks and whites want to get "married" with the obvious weakness of the current institution?


by pomology on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:13:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you care that the divorce rate in in (2.00 / 3)

Yes, I'm offended by the idea of not allowing gays and lesbians to marry and have their marriages recognized by the country in which they live.

I'm not going to be tolerant of a viewpoint that treats citizens of my country like second class citizens.

Can you see how offensive it would be if you said "Why not be tolerant of my viewpoint that blacks and whites shouldn't marry? It's against nature."


by pomology on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:11:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you care that the divorce rate in in (2.00 / 4)

This user has conflated homosexuality with bestiality, violent crimes, and incest in previous diaries.  Don't attempt to have a logical conversation with them... you're dealing with the blog equivalent of Rick Santorum.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:13:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you hold a viewpoint and are willing (none / 0)

to state it in a public forum.

I'll debate it.

If I'm right, I will win the debate.

I'll know I've won when:

you agree blacks and whites can/should get married

you won't respond anymore

you start calling me names.

If someone is wrong, it is evident.

I will defeat anyone with sound liberal ideas.

I'm not a left-winger but I am a liberal.

I never fear the expression of ideas.

If they are wrong, they will be shown, eventually.


by yellowdem1129 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:25:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you hold a viewpoint and are willing (2.00 / 3)

I will defeat anyone with sound liberal ideas.

I'm not a left-winger but I am a liberal.

The cognitive dissonnance here is stunning, no?


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:48:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no a left winger (1.00 / 1)

is someone who won't debate issues on the merit because they are so convinced they are right.

They are left-wing conservatives in my view.

I'm a liberal.

I think I'm right, so I'll debate.

If you can prove me wrong, I'll change my viewpoint.

It doesn't happen often but I dont' start from a viewpoint that you or anyone who disagrees with me is evil or backwards or whatever else.


by yellowdem1129 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:55:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

left wing conservative? (2.00 / 3)

is that like dry water?

Prove a point, then we can debate, right now all you're doing is making a p does not equal q argument. Show me how gay marriage is damaging society and answer my question about divorce, Las Vegas weddings and premarital sex.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: left wing conservative? (none / 0)

I think he's very, very confused.
Well, that or he's a republican.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:02:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you care that the divorce rate in in (none / 0)

I believe that rape and murder are perfectly acceptable forms of self-expression. Why won't anyone be tolerant of my viewpoint? What's the big deal, guys? It's just someone's opinion, and I'm sure that we can find common ground elsewhere.


by Cincinnatus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:50:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you care that the divorce rate in in (none / 0)

look at the extreme you go to, talking about rape and murder.

I feel comfortable defeating anyone who thinks that is acceptable in any public forum.

why would i be scared to refute and destory their credibility?

i wouldn't need to call them names, the facts,logic would be evident.

thanks for making my point.


by yellowdem1129 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:58:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What does the divorce rate (none / 0)

have to do with same-sex marriage? You think less people will get divorced if gays aren't allowed to marry?

Are you going to answer my question...should we ban divorce?


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:57:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats should have a plan to save Marriage (2.00 / 3)

"First and foremost define Marriage as a sacred institution between 1 man and 1 woman."

"you should wait to have sex until you're married."

So ... gays appear to have three options in James Dobson's ----- umm, I mean YellowDem1129's ---- universe:

- Be celibate until death (a notion both miserable and laughably unrealistic - nice pairing, that)

  • Get married to someone of the opposite sex (you know, like YellowDem1129 and other "normal" people) and nail, bar, weld and brick up that closet door because, hey, pretending to be the way the diarist desperately wishes absolutely everyone was (ie, straight) is more important than actually living a satisfying life
  • Get "cured" of your homosexuality

Gee, that's one heck of a plan ...


by Collideascope on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:52:40 PM EST

I challenge anyone to find any (none / 0)

"homophobia" and quote it.

you guys should stop being paranoid.

I'm talking about making marriage strong in America.


by yellowdem1129 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:53:40 PM EST

Re: I challenge anyone to find any (1.50 / 2)

You can come out of the closet now.

Don't fight it.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:55:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I challenge anyone to find any (2.00 / 3)

So if you happen to be gay, what should you do to strengthen the fabric of society?  Kill yourself?

Let's say two gay people commit to each other, spend a lifetime together, support each other as partners, raise kids together.  How is that not a positive for society?  How would we not want to encourage that?  It's not like gay people will stop existing if we write them out of the laws.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:57:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I challenge anyone to find any (2.00 / 2)

"I'm talking about making marriage strong in America."

Your being a bigot won't go anything whatsoever to strengthen my marriage.

Marriage is not a zero-sum game.


by Collideascope on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:59:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I challenge anyone to find any (none / 0)

I think your answer, is:

well there isn't anything here.

You were talking about how to make marriage strong.

or else,

what is bigoted as you say?


by yellowdem1129 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:02:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I challenge anyone to find any (2.00 / 3)

"You were talking about how to make marriage strong."

No, I wasn't - you were.  And one of your plans to "make marriage strong" is to deny the right of consenting adults to marry members of the same sex.

"Let's strengthen marriage!" is code for, among other things, "Let's deny the right of gays to marry consenting adults of their choice".  Of course, the bigots hiding behind the cause of strengthening marriage can never explain how denying the right of Gerry and Lisa (just to name one committed couple who used to live next door to me but have never been able to marry in the eyes of the state, though they were married in a local church) to marry could possibly strengthen my marriage.

The fact is, the notion is moronic.  It is nothing short of idiotic to make such a claim.  It's stupid, nonsensical, and based on nothing but the endlessly-repeated mantra of "Strengthen marriage, strengthen marriage!".  But repeating a justification for your bigotry over and over isn't an explanation.

So serve it up.  How, pray tell, will continuing to deny same-sex marriage possible strengthen opposite sex marriages?

"what is bigoted as you say?"

You're a bigot.  You want marriage laws tailored to serve only the desires of heterosexuals.  You're every bit as bigoted as those who gnashed their teeth over Loving because they just couldn't stand the anyone other than a white man marrying a white woman.

I know you hate being called on your bigotry - bigots almost always do.


by Collideascope on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:11:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I challenge anyone to find any (2.00 / 2)

No normal person wants 2 "married men living next to them"


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:04:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I challenge anyone to find any (none / 0)

first of all,

that is my opinion of the reality.  there is a factual basis to it.

Second of all,
IT ISN'T IN THIS DIARY.

you are focused on arguing instead of trying to work together to build a stronger dem party and stronger America.

You and others, said, MORE OF MY HOMOPHOBIA.


by yellowdem1129 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:06:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I challenge anyone to find any (2.00 / 1)

We are very focused on trying to build a stronger dem party and a stronger America. One of the key tenets of both: PEOPLE LIKE YOU AREN'T IN THEM.


by Cincinnatus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:52:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I challenge anyone to find any (2.00 / 2)

I'm glad I'm not normal, then :-)


by pomology on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:12:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You want to strengthen marriage? (2.00 / 2)

ban divorce.

ban quickie marriages in Las Vegas.

ban premarital sex.

you up for all that yellowdem?


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:13:49 PM EST

Re: Democrats should have a plan to save Marriage (2.00 / 2)

I didn't bother to actually read this diary because it probably has talk about them scary homos and that would just distract from the importance of marriage.  After all, we all know that homos don't really marry anyways.

So let's cut to the chase.  Hows about having all Dem candidates announce plans to ban birth control and divorce.  Go further and introduce harsh pemalties for anyone who dare dishonor the most sacred institution in the land.  The Democrats can be the true tough-love party.

.

 


A drink whenever Palin makes a Well-argued, Semantically Intact, Logical and Lucid Argument -- or WASILLA for short.
by January 20 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:16:03 PM EST

You are an agent provocateur right? (none / 0)


by conspiracy on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:21:16 PM EST

Pointless solution to a non-existent problem (2.00 / 4)

Same-sex marriage is no threat to opposite-sex marriage.


by JJE on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:22:21 PM EST

Re: Pointless solution to a non-existent problem (2.00 / 2)

"Same-sex marriage is no threat to opposite-sex marriage."

I keep waiting for someone to explain, precisely, how my marriage could possibly be strengthened by the continuation of a prohibition of same-sex marriages in my jurisdiction (Minnesota).

No one ever does.


by Collideascope on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:29:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pithy, concise, and spot-on n/t (2.00 / 2)


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:37:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats should have a plan to save Marriage (2.00 / 3)

This diary really sucks.


"But not me personally were those cheers for"
by QTG on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:25:03 PM EST

Re: Democrats should have a plan to save Marriage (2.00 / 1)

1. My marriage is doing quite nicely.  Thanks for the concern.  And though I am on the 'social-democratic' end of the liberal spectrum, this is one area where I think we should have even less government.  10,000,000 happily (or unhappily) married same sex couples would have no effect on my marriage.  Criminalizing homosexuality (the other extreme) would also fail to strengthen or vex my marriage, though it would vex and tax both of our careers as we'd be in the freaking streets until the plight of our fellow citizens improved.

2. If Obama were to come out (no double-entendre intended) with these proposals, it would destroy him.  No one would believe him.  He'd lose much of the party.  The whole thing is both an atrocious idea from an ethical standpoint and just really dumb politics.

3. One does not save liberalism by abandoning its core principles.  And NO, despite disagreements over some recent moves, I do not believe Obama has done that.  But please, we can argue about that on a different thread.  Let's keep this one on topic.

4. You are right about offense.  But Obama should not be going on offense on Conservative wedge issues.  He should go on offense on those he actually (and we actually) believe in.  I say he should come out strong for stem-cells.  It's a winner.  And then we can watch McCain sputter and hedge as the loony, young earth, creationist fanatics through a fit.  Obama should run as the PRO-SCIENCE candidate.  He began to allude to this when he asserted his readiness to compromise on the drilling moratorium, as long as environmental interests are protected, if doing so would enable a comprehensive energy polity.  He further argued that our energy policy must be based on "science and fact."  Leave marriage alone.  Go science!!!

5. Other than that, I think this diary is very nice.  And I think we should either abolish legal 'marriage' in favor of civil unions for all, or allow everyone to marry.


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:25:58 PM EST

as a party (none / 0)

we need to care that over 50% of black children grow up in single parent households.

It matters. It leads to big problems.


by yellowdem1129 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:31:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as a party (2.00 / 7)

what does that have to do with defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman? if you want more happy 2 parent families, why wouldn't you want to expand the definition of marriage, open up adoption laws and create happy 2 parent homes for everyone? I'm not going to sit here and say that 1 parent homes are preferable to 2 parent homes or that it makes no difference to a kid if he's from a 2 parent home or is a product of divorce, but what looks like good intentions on your part is only rightwing talking points in disguise.


by Todd Beeton on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:38:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as a party (2.00 / 1)

Couldn't agree more with this if I tried.  Thanks for saving me the typing time!


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:42:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as a party (none / 0)

This diary is about the mainstream of America.  Yet as so often happens, the dialogue goes to the extreme examples.

The problems in America that I'm addressing are with

so-called hetro coupls either not marrying or divorcing for often lifestyle reasons.

This leads to many social ills.

We as a party have not addressed that.
The only time people talk about "marriage" is in terms of the "gay issue".

I think that it is important that we define marriag up by making it more special and not less. More exclusive and not less.  
And find ways for people to take it more seriously.

Brittney Spears is a good example of what is wrong with marriage.

Many on the left use her as an example of why we should expand marriage, since people like her take it so lightly.

This is defining it downward, rather then upwards.

I want Democrats to stop avoiding this and other moral issues.

Almost all democrats talk about their "happy marriage" and show off their family as a political asset.  I'm talking about actually addressing things like why

so many blacks think it's ok to be a thug and not educated?

part of it is the breakdown of the family.

That is the point of this diary.
Yet, people are only interested in 1 man 1 woman.

If I left it out, people would have added it anyway.


by yellowdem1129 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:44:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I see lots of words ... (2.00 / 3)

... but I see no reason presented as to why denying gays to marry individuals of the gender to which they are naturally attracted somehow "strengthens" marriage.

I've asked repeatedly.

The diarist won't answer.  He can't answer, because he can't actually give any reasons as to how forbidding a given state from recognizing a church-sanctioned marriage between Mark and Jim or Ellen and Julie somehow improves, solidifies, or enhances a marriage between Roger and Melissa.

He can't answer, because there is no connection.

Claiming that forbidding same-sex marriage enchances opposite-sex marriage is as baseless as claiming that forbidding interracial marriage enhances marriages between two whites, two blacks, two asians, etc..

There is no logic at work there.  And the only point of making such a claim is to cloak anti-gay bigotry in the guise of 'caring about children'.


by Collideascope on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:52:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as a party (2.00 / 2)

You seem to be making two completely contradictory arguments. One, which I agree with, is that people are taking marriage too frivolously. I think you solve this by actually making it harder to get married, not easier. But you seem to also be saying that the problem is that not enough people are getting married. I say, if people don't feel like getting married, how is that any of my business? They can have perfectly happy lives anyhow.


by Cincinnatus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:59:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as a party (2.00 / 3)

"what does that have to do with defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman?"

It has nothing to do with it at all.  If you look at this diarists history, he jumps at any opportunity to connect various issues with gay marriage.  Barack's nomination, marriage "security", trans fats (no, I'm not kidding), and countless comparisons to bestiality, crime, incest, polygamy, etc.

This poster has an obvious agenda that he's pushing, and it seems antithetical to the progressive movement.  He's flat out said that anyone who is comfortable with 2 married men living next door is not a normal person, and then claimed that people attacking his disgusting arguments were attacking him because he is "normal."

I used to really enjoy my time here at MyDD, but since we've been giving homophobes and other various trolls a platform to spout their garbage, it makes us all look bad.  I still think the front page posts are almost always great, but the lack of moderation within the user diaries is giving this site a black eye.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:52:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um, Todd... (1.80 / 5)

is there any way you guys could ban this ass? He's been spewing homophobic RW garbage for months.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:32:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

we could ban black people from getting married. (none / 0)


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:38:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and preventing gays (2.00 / 1)

from marrying is going to solve that problem HOW?


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:51:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as a party (2.00 / 1)

I do believe the diarist is now suggesting that we ban black people from having children.


by Cincinnatus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:56:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as a party (none / 0)

That's what I heard also.  

Christ! Another self-loathing psychopath...


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:30:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (2.00 / 1)

I think he said that all black people should be forced into marriages with people they don't love...because that's how you strengthen a family.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:41:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

This guy is insane, and should be banned.  

If I could physically take a "dump" in one of YellowDem's diaries, I would...after a night of heavy drinking and bad Mexican food...that would be appropriate.


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:52:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oooo (2.00 / 1)

last night my cousins and I have a wild Mexican-themed party on the roof of our apartment building.

There was heavy drinking and Mexican food. I don't know if it's something different about the food here, but in Italy, salsa and guacamole don't have the same effect as they do in the States.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:58:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oooo (none / 0)

I know what you mean!

When I was in the Navy, I was stationed in Japan from 1992 to 1995. After a while, we lusted after Mexican food...any Mexican food.  What we got, was the Japanese version of Mexican food.  

It's really hard to describe.  ;-)


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:35:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

who cares about marriage? (none / 0)

not this guy.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:39:32 PM EST

Obviously... (2.00 / 5)

if we let "The Gays" get married, then all the heteros (including yourself) are going to run off and get a divorce, and then marry box turtles.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:50:02 PM EST

Re: Obviously... (2.00 / 2)

Box turtles?

Psh.

If "The Gays" can get married I'm going to marry my dog.

Doesn't that make sense?


by pomology on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:01:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obviously... (2.00 / 3)

I've just been waiting for my opportunity to marry three women, two men, and a goat. And then divorce them.


by Cincinnatus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:03:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obviously... (2.00 / 2)

And a goat? Now isn't that just being selfish?


by pomology on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:09:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obviously... (2.00 / 1)

Think about all the single parent goat-children that legalizing gay marriage will create!  We need Obama to address these issues now and wage a War on Divorce, for the future of America!


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:09:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How to strengthen Marriage (2.00 / 5)

The number one cause of divorce is actually financial incompatibility.  I have trouble believing that this type of incompatibility is caused by GLBT people who want to get married.  To strengthen marriage, let's institute policies that strengthen the middle class and help the poor.  I know that isn't nearly as much fun for you as harassing the gays, but it's probably more fruitful.

Source:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1 355/is_n1_v91/ai_18930297


by GreenHills on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:50:22 PM EST

Re: How to strengthen Marriage (none / 0)

memo:

I didn't bring up "gays".  Check the facts.

I think we should strengthen the middle class.

We need to have "financial" literacy, where we help people function better in society.


by yellowdem1129 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:04:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How to strengthen Marriage (2.00 / 2)

I think we should weaken the middle class!


by Cincinnatus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:06:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How to strengthen Marriage (2.00 / 1)

I'm just saying, fuck those guys.


by Cincinnatus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:09:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How to strengthen Marriage (2.00 / 4)

Earth to yellowdem:

Saying, "First and foremost define Marriage as a sacred institution between 1 man and 1 woman."

Is implicitly bringing up gays.

Something doesn't always have to be explicit. Sometimes people can read between the lines.


by pomology on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How to strengthen Marriage (2.00 / 3)

"I didn't bring up "gays".  Check the facts."

Apparently advocating discrimination against gays without actually using the word "gays" means you didn't bring them up.

From the diary:
First and foremost define Marriage as a sacred institution between 1 man and 1 woman.


by Collideascope on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:15:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

huh.... (none / 0)

"First and foremost define Marriage as a sacred institution between 1 man and 1 woman"

the whole "first and foremost" part seems to indicate that you did in fact bring it up and that it is the CORNERSTONE of your argument.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:10:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats should have a plan to save Marriage (2.00 / 2)

How about we form a superhero team of some sort to save marriage? They could have color-coded rings!


by Cincinnatus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:16:44 PM EST

As long as the rings... (2.00 / 3)

don't make a rainbow. Because then they'd be using thier super secret gay agenda to destroy marriage.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:21:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gay Marriage = Kryptonite (2.00 / 5)

Bob looks out the window.

"Oh, my", he says to his wife.  "Looks like Steve and Frank next door just got married.  That explains my recent urges to gamble away our life savings and start beating the snot out of you, Dear."

"Heavens!", Jane replies.  "That would also explain why let the pool boy ravish me this morning, then physically abused the kids, Sweetie."

"LET'S GET DIVORCED!"

************** ***

Don't let this happen in your state!

Save your marriage by making sure Steve and Frank can never get married where you live!

"I'm Pat Robertson and I approve this message!"


by Collideascope on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:27:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We can also do this: (none / 0)

Save marriage from sharks!

I love The Onion.


by GreenHills on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:09:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats should have a plan to save Marriage (2.00 / 1)

Save marriage by making it more 'exclusive'.

They tried that back in the day with beta tapes.  That 'exclusivity' was the down fall of the product.

ANY party that adopts a position that actively works to discriminate against me and my partner while taxing us to support that position can go cram it's position plank up your ass.

Stop being an absolute republican tool.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:41:30 PM EST

WAR ON MARRIAGE! (none / 0)


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:10:46 PM EST

what an asshole (none / 0)

divorce = 1 man + 1 x


by citizendave on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:47:07 PM EST

Re: Democrats should have a plan to save Marriage (none / 0)

Even if you look past the blatant homophobia, these are really bad ideas.  I'm all for people getting and staying married, but it should be voluntary and uncoerced.  What buiness is it of the government whether or not a couple has sex before marriage, or breaks up, or has a child outside of marriage?  The proposals in this diary are big government at its worst.


by costanoan on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:48:21 PM EST

Re: Democrats should have a plan to save Marriage (none / 0)

There is a simple solution for strengthening marriage and reducing the divorce rate. All we need to do is adopt Sharia law in this country. I'll bet you'd be all for that wouldn't you, yellowdem?


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:41:33 PM EST

he won't answer (none / 0)

still waiting for him to answer about whether or not banning divorce is also a good idea.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:56:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gay marriage aside... (none / 0)

There are other issues with your diary.

1. A "sacred" institution. "Sacred" belongs to religions and churches, not American government.

2. Why do most marriages fail? Studies over decades have cited financial reasons as the primary cause. What might help fix that? Good jobs, a living wage, universal health insurance, affordable day care, affordable elder care - to name a few.

3. By the way, there are no financial incentives to staying single, so clearly, couples choose to do so for other reasons and monetary incentives won't change their minds. This isn't the 1800s, when you shipped a trainload of brides into some mining town.

4. Sex before marriage is not inherently bad as your diary suggests. Sex is an important part of married life, and for many couples, sexual compatibility matters. If what turns him on disgusts you, there's going to be marital problems for sure. For some couples, finding out before the vows isn't a bad thing at all.

5. Your reasoning about "mainstream artists" and TV nuclear families is flawed. Most Americans want to see shows that connect with them and their own reality, and they don't like to be lectured to. If a majority of 18 to 35-year-old Americans wanted to watch "ideal families" on TV, trust me, you'd see plenty more of them because that's how they sell advertising, and it's advertising that makes the money, not "creative artists" of ANY 'stream'.

6. Your diary misses the inherent humanity of marriage. Humans as a species are NOT - contrary to popular belief - naturally monogamous. They're just not. They CHOOSE to be, so it is entirely possible to honestly and legitimately fall out of love with someone over time. People get together and stay together because they really want to, and providing external "incentives" to "persuade" them is doomed to failure. (And let me just add, speaking as an adoptee, having couples marry solely because she's pregnant is another bad idea. If you want marriage to be "special" as you say, then it HAS to be out of love and not "duty" like some kind of job or other onerous task. That way lies divorce for certain.)

As a species, we've survived thousands of years of "civilization" in a less than perfect world, and as long as we don't completely pollute the planet out of existence, we'll survive, moral imperfections and all. So will marriage.


McSame '08: Against All Hope - and Proud of It
by Its All So Goofy on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:54:16 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.