The New Alliance Defending Freedom video

[RedDragon94]

For those of you who don't know, the Alliance Defending Freedom posted a new video yesterday on Facebook with this comment above the video, "Marriage is the lifelong union of a husband and wife. It is timeless, universal, and unique, and benefits society – especially children – in ways no other relationship can. That’s why marriage policy is rooted in the reality that children do best with a mother and a father." But the video goes even further into the conservative mindset of why they are so gun ho about marriage being between one man and one woman. Does the way that a society defines marriage have the power to transform that society? What do we believe will be different from previous societies if our society changes?

 

[Valjean]

That's what marriage is in his, particular culture. Anthropologically, marriage varies a lot.

 

[Valjean]

I don't follow. I was just pointing out that this ADF concept of marriage is hardly universal.

 

[RedDragon94]

I don't follow. I was just pointing out that this ADF concept of marriage is hardly universal.

I'm deleting that question. I should just let people talk.

 

[Curious George]

For those of you who don't know, the Alliance Defending Freedom posted a new video yesterday on Facebook with this comment above ithe video, "Marriage is the lifelong union of a husband and wife. It is timeless, universal, and unique, and benefits society – especially children – in ways no other relationship can. That’s why marriage policy is rooted in the reality that children do best with a mother and a father." But the video goes even further into the conservative mindset of why they are so gun ho about marriage being between one man and one woman. Does the way that a society defines marriage have the power to transform that society? What do we believe will be different from previous societies if our society changes?

Yes our definition of marriage certainly has the ability to transform society. To your second question- less hate mongering, more equality, better placement of children in foster care, more compassion, strengthening of the family unit, more commitment, better health, etc. Frankly, it is hard not to question an organization which would impede these societal changes.

 

[Nietzsche]

For those of you who don't know, the Alliance Defending Freedom posted a new video yesterday on Facebook with this comment above the video, "Marriage is the lifelong union of a husband and wife. It is timeless, universal, and unique, and benefits society – especially children – in ways no other relationship can. That’s why marriage policy is rooted in the reality that children do best with a mother and a father." But the video goes even further into the conservative mindset of why they are so gun ho about marriage being between one man and one woman. Does the way that a society defines marriage have the power to transform that society? What do we believe will be different from previous societies if our society changes?

Marriage doesn't transform society. Society transforms marriage. It's only been about "one man, one woman" for a blink of the eye in regards to human history. The One Man/One Woman definition is arbitrary.

 

[Marisa]

Ditto Nietzche. For centuries marriages were about peace treaties and property exchanges. Marriage for love is a relatively new concept.

 

[Jumi]

Seems to me like people opposing certain people getting married are making the whole institution seem arbitrary.

 

[Valjean]

I think these guys need to brush up on their anthropology.

Why should marriage be lifelong?
Why should it be just one husband or just one wife? In some societies this is untenable.
It's neither timeless nor universal. Marriage practices have changed even in the Judeo-Christian community.
Unique? There are dozens of different arrangements that can be called marriage.
In many cultures this form of marriage would not be beneficial. In many it would be completely unworkable.
There are hundreds of different child rearing practices around the world. Many, arguably, produce better results than the system described in the OP.
There is no "reality" where children do best reared with one mother and one father.

Do you have a link to this video, Dragon?

 

[RedDragon94]

Why should marriage be lifelong?
Why should it be just one husband or just one wife? In some societies this is untenable.
It's neither timeless nor universal. Marriage practices have changed even in the Judeo-Christian community.
Unique? There are dozens of different arrangements that can be called marriage.
In many cultures this form of marriage would not be beneficial. In many it would be completely unworkable.
There are hundreds of different child rearing practices around the world. Many, arguably, produce better results than the system described in the OP.
There is no "reality" where children do best reared with one mother and one father.

Do you have a link to this video, Dragon?

I looked for it on Youtube and couldn't find it on there. I looked again after you posted this. It's on their Facebook page if you really wanted to see it, Alliance Defending Freedom. I sort of find the name of the alliance ironic because it's like alliance defending freedom... for some people.

 

[Valjean]

OK, here's the link: Marriage & Family - Alliance Defending Freedom
As I suspected, freedom's definitely not a part of their agenda.

It's a fear-mongering, anti-gay marriage screed; a montage of innuendo and dire predictions of 'change' leading to social collapse. It's an appeal to emotion.

It begins with a list of social boons that only "traditional" marriage is capable of achieving.
It describes a slippery slope descending into all sorts of scarey weirdness; a higher agenda promoting changes for the purpose of undermining society.

It doesn't make a cogent, fact based analysis or argument. It's reminiscent of the moral panic and outrage that greeted things like woman's suffrage,freedom for slaves or citizenship for Indians.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

For those of you who don't know, the Alliance Defending Freedom posted a new video yesterday on Facebook with this comment above the video, "Marriage is the lifelong union of a husband and wife. It is timeless, universal, and unique, and benefits society – especially children – in ways no other relationship can. That’s why marriage policy is rooted in the reality that children do best with a mother and a father." But the video goes even further into the conservative mindset of why they are so gun ho about marriage being between one man and one woman. Does the way that a society defines marriage have the power to transform that society? What do we believe will be different from previous societies if our society changes?

The trouble is people who don't understand about love entering into the debate. When people consider love to be electrochemical processes in the brain, then all what they say about marriage I consider worthless. Yet intellectual circles are full of such people, who partake in shaping discusiion.

 

[Nietzsche]

The trouble is people who don't understand about love entering into the debate. When people consider love to be electrochemical processes in the brain, then all what they say about marriage I consider worthless. Yet intellectual circles are full of such people, who partake in shaping discusiion.

Marriage has only been about love in the west since around 1900. In the Central-Asian Muslim states, large swathes of Africa, chunks of the Middle-East, the Indian subcontinent and Indonesia it still has nothing to do with love. Women there are largely seen as property, to be married out by their fathers.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Marriage has only been about love in the west since around 1900. In the Central-Asian Muslim states, large swathes of Africa, chunks of the Middle-East, the Indian subcontinent and Indonesia it still has nothing to do with love. Women there are largely seen as property, to be married out by their fathers.

Ridiculous.

 

[Nietzsche]

Ridiculous.

So arranged marriages are sunshine & rainbows?