Love and Marriage, or at least marriage

Love and Marriage, or at least marriage April 27, 2009

Nothing stirs the spirits of anti-family forces like the marriage of young adults.  No, I’m not speaking of teen marriage, a taboo bridge we’d crossed long ago.  I was half tempted to write “…the marriage of people before middle age,” but that would have been too provocative by half.  For all the talk of Humana Vitae of bringing others into the sex act, it seems anymore others are being brought into the sex act to create fertility rather than obfuscate it.

Bringing about this ire seems to be a rather innocuous op-ed in the Wash Post stating the obvious.  The obvious is that making a family has taken a backseat to other needs.  These other needs turn out not to be all that important in making a marriage last.  Peter Suderman over at the American Scene can manage to concede, “So for those who want children, there might be some very small benefit to early marriage.”  Mr. Gobry, also writing at the American Scene, feels the need to defend his lifestyle choice of marrying young without being able to bring himself to state that some choices are better than others.  To wit, “I think people should get married whenever the hell they want.  Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks and all that.”  And one wonders why liberal catholics have no difficulty seeing erecting a firewall at gay marriage as the arbitrary and ultimately impotent act it is. 

The thing is that one needn’t be Catholic to consider ingratiating society to Peter Pan Syndrome is destructive.  Every society that has managed to persist on earth has very strong traditions and taboos regarding the bringing forth and forming of children.  As we cavalierly abandon those, I’m afraid we are going to regret the society that forms.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • It’s remarkable how people react to young marriage. Most people look at me like I just told them that I was an alien when I tell them I’m planning to get married in my first year of law school.

    I think it has to do with more than just raising children; I think it has to do with an attitude that individual success is more important than familial success. The idea, and the article touches on this, is that you have to secure your worldly honors first and then seek marriage. Put yourself first, and then worry about others.

    I think this has to do with a rejection of gospel poverty (as marrying young almost certainly involves material sacrifices) as well as individualism.

    • M.Z.

      There is nothing quite like counseling a person at 30 whose recently wed and in angst over his first child when you have several children and have been married for close to a decade and are … only 30. Congratulations on your engagement by the way.

  • It’s remarkable how people react to young marriage. Most people look at me like I just told them that I was an alien when I tell them I’m planning to get married in my first year of law school.

    I think it has to do with more than just raising children; I think it has to do with an attitude that individual success is more important than familial success. The idea, and the article touches on this, is that you have to secure your worldly honors first and then seek marriage. Put yourself first, and then worry about others.

    I think this has to do with a rejection of gospel poverty (as marrying young almost certainly involves material sacrifices) as well as individualism.

    • M.Z.

      There is nothing quite like counseling a person at 30 whose recently wed and in angst over his first child when you have several children and have been married for close to a decade and are … only 30. Congratulations on your engagement by the way.

  • One should not presume why people are not married, even if they are in their 30s, because there can be many reasons, including things not in their own hands (how can you marry if you do not meet the one you should marry?) While I think you are right in saying we should welcome earlier marriages, and it would help deal with several sexual issues, this does not answer to other concerns, including the fact that today’s youth at 18 would have a hard time taking care of themselves, let alone a family. And while we should not say “if you are poor, don’t get married” on the other hand, economics do play a role in the success of marriage today (which is something we need to work against).

    • M.Z.

      Henry,
      One of the side taboos mentioned in the article was age difference. 40 years ago, the age difference was typically just over 4 years. Today it is under 2 years. For a man like yourself to marry a 20-year-old woman would border on scandal today, whereas 40+ years ago you would have been considered good marriage material. That would be the new taboo against marrying a person who doesn’t share the same life experience as you. I certainly don’t think there should be a stigma on being single. Those that live a chaste and single life should be commended.

      I think the author was looking more at marriage between 21 and 24 rather than 18 to 20.

  • One should not presume why people are not married, even if they are in their 30s, because there can be many reasons, including things not in their own hands (how can you marry if you do not meet the one you should marry?) While I think you are right in saying we should welcome earlier marriages, and it would help deal with several sexual issues, this does not answer to other concerns, including the fact that today’s youth at 18 would have a hard time taking care of themselves, let alone a family. And while we should not say “if you are poor, don’t get married” on the other hand, economics do play a role in the success of marriage today (which is something we need to work against).

    • M.Z.

      Henry,
      One of the side taboos mentioned in the article was age difference. 40 years ago, the age difference was typically just over 4 years. Today it is under 2 years. For a man like yourself to marry a 20-year-old woman would border on scandal today, whereas 40+ years ago you would have been considered good marriage material. That would be the new taboo against marrying a person who doesn’t share the same life experience as you. I certainly don’t think there should be a stigma on being single. Those that live a chaste and single life should be commended.

      I think the author was looking more at marriage between 21 and 24 rather than 18 to 20.

  • M.Z.

    Well, I look at traditional ages (canon law) as acceptable, though it also means we should prepare our youth better than we do. Nonetheless, my main concern is that we do not reduce why people are not married until later in today’s world to simply that of “desire for success first.” I do think that is a bad reason for delay; but I do think other reasons, like the fact that our youth are quite immature for much, much longer, are good reasons for delay.

    • M.Z.

      I must say it would be quite interesting to go back to the canonical norms. Imagine yourself as a young grad student of 22 marrying your 16-year-old sweet heart. (Oh scandalous.) You guys would have a little home near your parents and her parents. They would offer stability while you went away for 4 months at a time for your studies to finish up your degree or even 9 month stretches. At say 25 or 26 with Ph.D in hand you would return home and use your education or you would accept a position and move your family within a year. Needless to say it would be much different than today.

  • M.Z.

    Well, I look at traditional ages (canon law) as acceptable, though it also means we should prepare our youth better than we do. Nonetheless, my main concern is that we do not reduce why people are not married until later in today’s world to simply that of “desire for success first.” I do think that is a bad reason for delay; but I do think other reasons, like the fact that our youth are quite immature for much, much longer, are good reasons for delay.

    • M.Z.

      I must say it would be quite interesting to go back to the canonical norms. Imagine yourself as a young grad student of 22 marrying your 16-year-old sweet heart. (Oh scandalous.) You guys would have a little home near your parents and her parents. They would offer stability while you went away for 4 months at a time for your studies to finish up your degree or even 9 month stretches. At say 25 or 26 with Ph.D in hand you would return home and use your education or you would accept a position and move your family within a year. Needless to say it would be much different than today.

  • Henry:

    I do agree with you, that just because someone is not married yet is not an indication of poor character. My parents didn’t get married until my dad was 40 and my mom 36 because they just didn’t meet until later. I also have friends that are putting marriage off because of economic reasons (they’re both going to graduate school to pursue PhDs) as well as others who don’t quite have a handle on their career directions or maturity.

    I would however say that many cases of delayed marriage are due to societal pressures not to get married as well as societal encouragement of immaturity. People are not forced to grow up until they leave college if that early. We expect much less out of youth today and we get it. Society needs to value maturity more, as well as provide better economics structures to provide for marriage, in order to facilitate younger marriage.

    It’s not the only good choice, but it is a good choice, and that’s not something society seems to recognize today.

  • Henry:

    I do agree with you, that just because someone is not married yet is not an indication of poor character. My parents didn’t get married until my dad was 40 and my mom 36 because they just didn’t meet until later. I also have friends that are putting marriage off because of economic reasons (they’re both going to graduate school to pursue PhDs) as well as others who don’t quite have a handle on their career directions or maturity.

    I would however say that many cases of delayed marriage are due to societal pressures not to get married as well as societal encouragement of immaturity. People are not forced to grow up until they leave college if that early. We expect much less out of youth today and we get it. Society needs to value maturity more, as well as provide better economics structures to provide for marriage, in order to facilitate younger marriage.

    It’s not the only good choice, but it is a good choice, and that’s not something society seems to recognize today.

  • M.Z.

    I should add that a man should be very careful marrying in America today. The field of women is not at all appealing today.

  • M.Z.

    I should add that a man should be very careful marrying in America today. The field of women is not at all appealing today.

  • “Anti-family forces” might be a fun phrase to throw around, but it is not a helpful term. The only people I know of who are “anti-family” would be your average teenager.

    We need to get over the fact that family customs change in different times and in different contexts.

    I should add that a man should be very careful marrying in America today. The field of women is not at all appealing today.

    Huh??? What is this supposed to mean?

  • “Anti-family forces” might be a fun phrase to throw around, but it is not a helpful term. The only people I know of who are “anti-family” would be your average teenager.

    We need to get over the fact that family customs change in different times and in different contexts.

    I should add that a man should be very careful marrying in America today. The field of women is not at all appealing today.

    Huh??? What is this supposed to mean?

  • S.B.

    We need to get over the fact that family customs change in different times and in different contexts.

    That’s about as unhelpful and unthinking a mantra as one could come up with.

  • S.B.

    We need to get over the fact that family customs change in different times and in different contexts.

    That’s about as unhelpful and unthinking a mantra as one could come up with.

  • M.Z.

    When I look around my parish, I almost see a child-free zone. When we go see my wife’s family, there are few children at their church. I was at a Barnes and Nobles the other day and was surprised to hear a child crying. When my first was born, we had the opportunity to take a 5 generation photo. It is unlikely we will have a 4 generation photo that includes either my or my wife’s parents as the 1st generation. It is very likely on my side of the family, our children and my step-brother’s children will be the only children brought into the family that aren’t step, this out of 4 children combined. On my wife’s side of the family, it appears she will be the only child out of 4 to produce grandchildren. There is very clearly an anti-child culture.

    Huh??? What is this supposed to mean?
    A number of women do not believe marriage to be a lifetime commitment for the raising of children. Marrying such a woman is a way to see your income and children disappear in a future divorce.

  • M.Z.

    When I look around my parish, I almost see a child-free zone. When we go see my wife’s family, there are few children at their church. I was at a Barnes and Nobles the other day and was surprised to hear a child crying. When my first was born, we had the opportunity to take a 5 generation photo. It is unlikely we will have a 4 generation photo that includes either my or my wife’s parents as the 1st generation. It is very likely on my side of the family, our children and my step-brother’s children will be the only children brought into the family that aren’t step, this out of 4 children combined. On my wife’s side of the family, it appears she will be the only child out of 4 to produce grandchildren. There is very clearly an anti-child culture.

    Huh??? What is this supposed to mean?
    A number of women do not believe marriage to be a lifetime commitment for the raising of children. Marrying such a woman is a way to see your income and children disappear in a future divorce.

  • When I look around my parish, I almost see a child-free zone.

    This is strange. I forget where you live. Could that be part of it? In WV parishes, there are a lot of kids. Toronto parishes (in big, bad, “secular” Canada, mind you) have tons of kids. In fact, walk down Yonge street and the streets are full of parents and kids. There is likely more going on that simply “anti-child” attitudes, whatever that means.

    A number of women do not believe marriage to be a lifetime commitment for the raising of children. Marrying such a woman is a way to see your income and children disappear in a future divorce.

    If you haven’t noticed, a good number of men do not believe that either. M.Z., I encourage you to refrain from the sexist comments here in the future.

  • When I look around my parish, I almost see a child-free zone.

    This is strange. I forget where you live. Could that be part of it? In WV parishes, there are a lot of kids. Toronto parishes (in big, bad, “secular” Canada, mind you) have tons of kids. In fact, walk down Yonge street and the streets are full of parents and kids. There is likely more going on that simply “anti-child” attitudes, whatever that means.

    A number of women do not believe marriage to be a lifetime commitment for the raising of children. Marrying such a woman is a way to see your income and children disappear in a future divorce.

    If you haven’t noticed, a good number of men do not believe that either. M.Z., I encourage you to refrain from the sexist comments here in the future.

  • M.Z.

    I wasn’t addressing men and your assumption is condescending and insulting. You lack authority to demand that I refrain from anything. Assume you have that authority again and your comment will be deleted, something I do have the authority to do.

  • M.Z.

    I wasn’t addressing men and your assumption is condescending and insulting. You lack authority to demand that I refrain from anything. Assume you have that authority again and your comment will be deleted, something I do have the authority to do.

  • Dale Price

    I guess it depends on where you’re looking, but I think both M.Z. and Mr. Iafrate have a point, at least on the anecdotal evidence I see.

    My parish has a non-negligible number of kids in attendance every weekend, and our homeschooling group is blessed with a large number. But of the 8 bridesmaids/groomsmen at my wedding, they have 5 children total. I think there are forces pushing in both directions, and America’s birthrate shows that, being right at replacement, putting it at the top of the industrialized world that way. It will be interesting to see where those figures go in the next decade or so.

  • Dale Price

    I guess it depends on where you’re looking, but I think both M.Z. and Mr. Iafrate have a point, at least on the anecdotal evidence I see.

    My parish has a non-negligible number of kids in attendance every weekend, and our homeschooling group is blessed with a large number. But of the 8 bridesmaids/groomsmen at my wedding, they have 5 children total. I think there are forces pushing in both directions, and America’s birthrate shows that, being right at replacement, putting it at the top of the industrialized world that way. It will be interesting to see where those figures go in the next decade or so.

  • I wasn’t addressing men and your assumption is condescending and insulting.

    I didn’t “assume” anything. I thought your first go-around was sexist, but I asked you to explain yourself. You elaborated with a second sexist comment. Your comments were about as blatantly sexist as they come.

    You lack authority to demand that I refrain from anything.

    I didn’t “demand” anything. I encouraged you to stop making sexist comments. I need no “authority” to do so.

  • I wasn’t addressing men and your assumption is condescending and insulting.

    I didn’t “assume” anything. I thought your first go-around was sexist, but I asked you to explain yourself. You elaborated with a second sexist comment. Your comments were about as blatantly sexist as they come.

    You lack authority to demand that I refrain from anything.

    I didn’t “demand” anything. I encouraged you to stop making sexist comments. I need no “authority” to do so.

  • M.Z.

    No, the statements aren’t sexist. Calling Michael Jordan black isn’t a racist statement. That a good number of men don’t believe marriage to be a lifetime commitment for the raising of children doesn’t make the observance of women untrue or sexist.

  • M.Z.

    No, the statements aren’t sexist. Calling Michael Jordan black isn’t a racist statement. That a good number of men don’t believe marriage to be a lifetime commitment for the raising of children doesn’t make the observance of women untrue or sexist.

  • M.Z., I’m not going to argue with you about this.

  • M.Z., I’m not going to argue with you about this.

  • Left unsaid is the difficulty in raising a family in an atomistic culture where the nuclear family living in a faceless suburb is the norm. The bearing and rearing of children becomes so much easier, and so much healthier for all, when there is a large extended family to chip in. Yes, it really does take a village. It might not be pushing the envelope too much to argue that the flight from marriage and child-rearing is a response to the individualization of the family.

  • Left unsaid is the difficulty in raising a family in an atomistic culture where the nuclear family living in a faceless suburb is the norm. The bearing and rearing of children becomes so much easier, and so much healthier for all, when there is a large extended family to chip in. Yes, it really does take a village. It might not be pushing the envelope too much to argue that the flight from marriage and child-rearing is a response to the individualization of the family.

  • jonathanjones02

    A number of women do not believe marriage to be a lifetime commitment for the raising of children. Marrying such a woman is a way to see your income and children disappear in a future divorce.

    How exactly is this “sexist” ? It strikes me as quite true, just as there are a number of men who are all too happy to have one night stands.

    • Jonathan

      It’s sexist because it is generalizing about women, and making the gender the issue.

  • jonathanjones02

    A number of women do not believe marriage to be a lifetime commitment for the raising of children. Marrying such a woman is a way to see your income and children disappear in a future divorce.

    How exactly is this “sexist” ? It strikes me as quite true, just as there are a number of men who are all too happy to have one night stands.

    • Jonathan

      It’s sexist because it is generalizing about women, and making the gender the issue.

  • M.Z.

    I did no such thing. Descriptive, not normative.

  • M.Z.

    I did no such thing. Descriptive, not normative.

  • Liam

    so, let’s just cut to the chase:

    I should add that a woman should be very careful marrying in America today. The field of men is not at all appealing today.

  • Liam

    so, let’s just cut to the chase:

    I should add that a woman should be very careful marrying in America today. The field of men is not at all appealing today.

  • M.Z.

    Has it ever been Liam? 😉

  • M.Z.

    Has it ever been Liam? 😉

  • Dale Price

    As a father of two daughters and two sons, I agree with the principle as applied to both genders.

    I’d say the majority of men and women are carrying damaged and distorted ideas of love, fidelity, permanence and covenant as applied to marriage.

    It is not a healthy environment, with all the tragic import that carries.

  • Dale Price

    As a father of two daughters and two sons, I agree with the principle as applied to both genders.

    I’d say the majority of men and women are carrying damaged and distorted ideas of love, fidelity, permanence and covenant as applied to marriage.

    It is not a healthy environment, with all the tragic import that carries.

  • M.Z. – You did, in fact, generalize in your description of women. You also singled women out, to the exclusion of the utterly obvious (and arguably more extreme) distorted views of human relationship that exist among males with your “Hey guys, watch out, nudge nudge, har har” comment. Enough already. I encourage you to apologize and move on.

  • M.Z. – You did, in fact, generalize in your description of women. You also singled women out, to the exclusion of the utterly obvious (and arguably more extreme) distorted views of human relationship that exist among males with your “Hey guys, watch out, nudge nudge, har har” comment. Enough already. I encourage you to apologize and move on.

  • M.Z.

    No I did not. I encourage you to apologize and move on. Enough already.

  • M.Z.

    No I did not. I encourage you to apologize and move on. Enough already.

  • M.Z.

    This discussion is a great example of how European feminists are different than American feminists.

  • M.Z.

    This discussion is a great example of how European feminists are different than American feminists.

  • jonathanjones02

    It’s sexist because it is generalizing about women, and making the gender the issue.

    What a devolution of terms!! Neither directly nor by implication did MZ state “All women are like x or y, a negative trait inherent in their gender”, which seems to me to be a much better approximation of “sexist.”

    “A number of” is no where near this. Let us watch doing a disservice to victims of sexism and to the meaning of terms.

  • jonathanjones02

    It’s sexist because it is generalizing about women, and making the gender the issue.

    What a devolution of terms!! Neither directly nor by implication did MZ state “All women are like x or y, a negative trait inherent in their gender”, which seems to me to be a much better approximation of “sexist.”

    “A number of” is no where near this. Let us watch doing a disservice to victims of sexism and to the meaning of terms.

  • The singling out of women to the exclusion of men is what I found particularly sexist, jonathan. Your position, though, is not surprising. And it’s also somewhat funny that you warn us about “doing a disservice to victims of sexism.”

  • The singling out of women to the exclusion of men is what I found particularly sexist, jonathan. Your position, though, is not surprising. And it’s also somewhat funny that you warn us about “doing a disservice to victims of sexism.”

  • jonathanjones02

    The singling out of women to the exclusion of men is what I found particularly sexist, jonathan.

    michael, This is not sexist.

    Your position, though, is not surprising.

    Nor is yours.

    And it’s also somewhat funny that you warn us about “doing a disservice to victims of sexism.”

    And, perhaps, also somewhat funny and predictable that sensitivities can be so delicate.

  • jonathanjones02

    The singling out of women to the exclusion of men is what I found particularly sexist, jonathan.

    michael, This is not sexist.

    Your position, though, is not surprising.

    Nor is yours.

    And it’s also somewhat funny that you warn us about “doing a disservice to victims of sexism.”

    And, perhaps, also somewhat funny and predictable that sensitivities can be so delicate.

  • michael, This is not sexist.

    Yes, in fact, it is.

    Your opinion, though, matters little to me, considering your constant, prayerful mantra:
    That’s not racist… That’s not sexist…

    You are more interested in defending racists and chauvinists than you are defending those on the receiving end of racist and sexist comments. That’s too bad.

  • michael, This is not sexist.

    Yes, in fact, it is.

    Your opinion, though, matters little to me, considering your constant, prayerful mantra:
    That’s not racist… That’s not sexist…

    You are more interested in defending racists and chauvinists than you are defending those on the receiving end of racist and sexist comments. That’s too bad.

  • M.Z.

    Imagine if the comment were read in continuation with the 11:12 comment. Of course the 11:12 comment was really sexist since it didn’t also discuss the possibilities of Henry being a woman.

  • M.Z.

    Imagine if the comment were read in continuation with the 11:12 comment. Of course the 11:12 comment was really sexist since it didn’t also discuss the possibilities of Henry being a woman.

  • jonathanjones02

    Your opinion, though, matters little to me

    Have no doubt whatsoever – I feel exactly the same way.

    And what is “too bad” is the devolution and confusion of terms, accompanied by the muddling of discourse through status preening and accusation. But if it makes you feel good in those moments, by all means.

    M.Z. – good post, and I share your sentiments. The decline of childbearing within the context of marriage is a massive domestic problem, perhaps our biggest, and we should proclaim loudly, proudly, respectfully, forcefully that marriage between one man and one woman is the very foundation of a good and properly ordered society.

  • jonathanjones02

    Your opinion, though, matters little to me

    Have no doubt whatsoever – I feel exactly the same way.

    And what is “too bad” is the devolution and confusion of terms, accompanied by the muddling of discourse through status preening and accusation. But if it makes you feel good in those moments, by all means.

    M.Z. – good post, and I share your sentiments. The decline of childbearing within the context of marriage is a massive domestic problem, perhaps our biggest, and we should proclaim loudly, proudly, respectfully, forcefully that marriage between one man and one woman is the very foundation of a good and properly ordered society.

  • But if it makes you feel good in those moments, by all means.

    Yes, I just feel grrrreeaaaaaat!

    Keep doing your part to give ideological-linguistic justification to racism and sexism (and, judging from your last comment, heterosexism!). We’re proud of you.

  • But if it makes you feel good in those moments, by all means.

    Yes, I just feel grrrreeaaaaaat!

    Keep doing your part to give ideological-linguistic justification to racism and sexism (and, judging from your last comment, heterosexism!). We’re proud of you.

  • jonathanjones02

    If e-representing the foolish and infantile is a fun way to pass the day, greeeeat for you. But do feel free, at any point, to add something that is actually substantive and not sneering and condescending. And until then, go ahead and feel proud of yourself for no good reason whatsoever.

  • jonathanjones02

    If e-representing the foolish and infantile is a fun way to pass the day, greeeeat for you. But do feel free, at any point, to add something that is actually substantive and not sneering and condescending. And until then, go ahead and feel proud of yourself for no good reason whatsoever.

  • jonathan, perhaps you will find this question substantive enough for your high intellect. Do forgive me if I can’t seem to reach those heights:

    You have not explained how singling out the (real or imagined) faults of (some) women while omitting a recognition of those of men is not a sexist activity. Can you do so?

  • jonathan, perhaps you will find this question substantive enough for your high intellect. Do forgive me if I can’t seem to reach those heights:

    You have not explained how singling out the (real or imagined) faults of (some) women while omitting a recognition of those of men is not a sexist activity. Can you do so?

  • M.Z.

    I’ll take non sequitur for $500 Alex.

  • M.Z.

    I’ll take non sequitur for $500 Alex.

  • jonathanjones02

    michael:

    Because omission is not an indicator of a sexist activity. It is not necessary, in other words, to attach to any claim of the faults of some the faults of any other(s).

    Instead of accusing M.Z. or anyone else of sexism, it would have been productive and charitable to have sought clarification on his thoughts of the faults of any other, had you determined a need. Instead, we have this absurd derailment. In this case, to assume the “worst” of M.Z. builds nothing but animosity. Maybe he is wrong or “sexist” – but to flesh this out, the burden is yours to provide the definition of the term, consider his clarifications and additions, and then demonstrate why the label is appropiate. You consistently fail to do so, which I expect is one reason why myself and more than a few others tend you find you rather obnoxious and full of a laughable, pathetic preening.

  • jonathanjones02

    michael:

    Because omission is not an indicator of a sexist activity. It is not necessary, in other words, to attach to any claim of the faults of some the faults of any other(s).

    Instead of accusing M.Z. or anyone else of sexism, it would have been productive and charitable to have sought clarification on his thoughts of the faults of any other, had you determined a need. Instead, we have this absurd derailment. In this case, to assume the “worst” of M.Z. builds nothing but animosity. Maybe he is wrong or “sexist” – but to flesh this out, the burden is yours to provide the definition of the term, consider his clarifications and additions, and then demonstrate why the label is appropiate. You consistently fail to do so, which I expect is one reason why myself and more than a few others tend you find you rather obnoxious and full of a laughable, pathetic preening.

  • Alright, everyone into the wading pool with jello.

  • M.Z.

    Omission implies some obligation. Michael and Henry don’t believe in gender. American feminism at its finest.

  • Liam

    M.Z.

    Here it is: Should straight women be encouraged to marry gay men? For some reason, this thread’s reminding me of a different discussion, on the NewsHour, after MA legalized same-sex marriage, where the “No” side comprised of Jerry Falwell and an Orthodox Jewish rabbi – the rabbi completely flummoxed his erstwhile debate partner by stating that he opposed same-sex marriage because in our culture gay men tended to epitomize more than straight men the Old Testament ideal of the loving, tender, emotionally available father and he wanted more of them to marry straight woman because they would also not reduce their wives to sex objects, et cet.

    You asked for it….

  • Because omission is not an indicator of a sexist activity.

    But it can be an indicator that one is a “pro-abort,” right?

    Instead of accusing M.Z. or anyone else of sexism, it would have been productive and charitable to have sought clarification on his thoughts of the faults of any other, had you determined a need.

    That’s precisely what I did. He “clarified” by producing another sexist statement.

    Michael and Henry don’t believe in gender.

    Yes I do.

  • Mariadevotee

    As a woman who got married at 38 (not for want of trying to find a husband) I’ll tell you how it is. Men and women see things differently when it comes to marriage. Women will adjust their lives for their men. Change jobs, cities whatever it takes because the relationship is the most important thing. Men, on the other hand, have some goal that must be reached before they get married. It can be grad school, or earning 40 K a year or they are 30 yrs old. This is in their heads and when that landmark is reached, they begin to cast about for a suitable mate. Not a really good system for men, as they are less discerning when the marriage buzzer goes off. If you are dating them when that occurs, you get the question popped, if you are dating them before the arbitrary goal is reached, you won’t be the one, so recognize that right off and save yourself some time. Look around or at yourselves and you will see that I am right.

  • M.Z.
  • M.Z.

    Liam,

    I would say no. My experience with gay men differs from the good rabbi.

  • Tom

    Wow, some folks are way too sensitive… to be unmistakeably clear, the argument that mainstream society is denigrating early marriage is not any kind of criticism of those who delay marriage for whatever reason. It’s simply to point out that a good and wholesome practice that would lead to large families is being attacked by our anti-child mainstream culture.

    How that very modest observation could be shocking or controversial is beyond me.

    To the question of almost childless parishes, the numbers speak for themselves: birth rates in this country at barely at replacement level, and excluding hispanics, would be under replacement level. The Catholic birth rate in this country is not appreciably above the national norm.

    Oh, but never mind our national suicide… continue the enlightening discussion of whether MZ is or is not a sexist.

  • Kurt

    Republican congresswoman says Matthew Shepard’s murder was “a hoax”
    by John Aravosis

    The House Republican chosen to lead the charge against including women, people with disabilities, and gays in America’s already-existing hate crimes law – existing law already counts violent crime based on the race, religion or national origin of the victim as a “hate crime” – just referred on the US House floor to Matthew Shepard’s murder as “a hoax.”

    You will recall that Matthew Shepard was the young gay man in Laramie, Wyoming who, a decade ago, was tied to a fence, Jesus-like, pistol whipped in the head some 50 times, then left for dead in the cold fall night, only to be found a day later clinging to life. Shepard died five days later. Even though Shepard’s murderers admitted that they killed him because he was day, the far-right bigots who control the Republican party couldn’t resist the opportunity to gay-bash Shepard one last time. Now by referring to his brutal murder as a hoax.

    Here is what North Carolina Republican [Congresswoman Foxx] had to say about Shepard’s horrific murder:

    If you didn’t vote for this bill — against this bill and against this rule for anything else, you could vote against it because we are spending additional money. i also would like to point out that there was a bill — the hate crimes bill that’s called the matthew sheppard bill is named afte a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. it wasn’t because he was gay. this — the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it’s really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.

    Now read what really happened:

    During the trial, Chastity Pasley and Kristen Price (the pair’s then-girlfriends) testified under oath that Henderson and McKinney both plotted beforehand to rob a gay man. McKinney and Henderson then went to the Fireside Lounge and selected Shepard as their target. McKinney alleged that Shepard asked them for a ride home. After befriending him, they took him to a remote area of Laramie where they robbed him, beat him severely (media reports often contained the graphic account of the pistol whipping and his smashed skull), and tied him to a fence with a rope from McKinney’s truck. Shepard begged for his life. Both girlfriends also testified that neither McKinney nor Henderson was under the influence of drugs at the time. The beating was so severe that the only areas on Shepard’s face that were not covered in blood were those where his tears had washed the blood stains away.

    Media Matters has lots of links, and quotes, from the mainstream media attesting to the fact that Shepard was murdered because he was gay.

    A hoax? Belittling the brutal murder of a 21 year old college student? And Republicans wonder why their angry, hateful, pathetic party is now only 20% of the US population.

  • Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Kurt.

  • This should be morally repugnant to everyone. Thanks, Kurt.

  • M.Z.

    I typically delete stuff like this. Needless to say, it is one big rabbit hole. It isn’t helped that the congresswoman’s argument isn’t being treated fairly. I am familiar with a story NPR did about a year or two ago claiming the same thing, that he was killed for money and not for being gay, as if that made the crime any less horrific.

    Comments are closed.