http://blog.oup.com/2008/05/on-marriage/ Introducing brilliant authors to the blogosphere. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:43:07 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://blog.oup.com/2008/05/on-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-151681 Tlatelku Teochitli Wed, 27 May 2009 15:43:07 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=1848#comment-151681 I am wondering at the actual motivation of the author. I wonder if there is not some desire to be able to have multiple relationships with females, which a present marriage relationship would tend to hinder, or discourage. The arguments made seem coherent, but rather weak. As well, it seems to be an underhanded slap at Christianity. No, not in an obvious way, since the writer is speaking of marriage in context, but included in the intent, it seems, is the desire to take away one more component which is traditional to the Christian church. Attacks don't have to be obvious to be attacks. One more factor not considered in the article, is the possible ramifications to society in general. To just say, "A world without civil marriage would not be without its own issues," and not include all the possible serious and very possible detrimental consequences of the proposed results, is lazy. I am wondering at the actual motivation of the author. I wonder if there is not some desire to be able to have multiple relationships with females, which a present marriage relationship would tend to hinder, or discourage. The arguments made seem coherent, but rather weak. As well, it seems to be an underhanded slap at Christianity. No, not in an obvious way, since the writer is speaking of marriage in context, but included in the intent, it seems, is the desire to take away one more component which is traditional to the Christian church. Attacks don’t have to be obvious to be attacks. One more factor not considered in the article, is the possible ramifications to society in general. To just say, “A world without civil marriage would not be without its own issues,” and not include all the possible serious and very possible detrimental consequences of the proposed results, is lazy.

]]> http://blog.oup.com/2008/05/on-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-146006 Kalynne Pudner Wed, 28 May 2008 23:40:19 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=1848#comment-146006 It seems to me that the push to recognize nontraditional unions as "marriage" is motivated, at least in part, by a desire for the distinguishing features, respect and legitimacy that the institution of marriage has traditionally enjoyed. Yet to the extent "marriage" is stretched to include an ever wider array of nontraditional unions, then it's likely to lose these very things. The definition will be diluted, and the movement to expand it self-defeating. It seems to me that the push to recognize nontraditional unions as “marriage” is motivated, at least in part, by a desire for the distinguishing features, respect and legitimacy that the institution of marriage has traditionally enjoyed. Yet to the extent “marriage” is stretched to include an ever wider array of nontraditional unions, then it’s likely to lose these very things. The definition will be diluted, and the movement to expand it self-defeating.

]]>