Friday, July 09, 2004
Why homosexuals want what marriage has become
As the debate over gay marriage and civil unions hots up, the following is a very insightful and salutary comment from the Howard Centre (the organisation behind the recent World Congress of Families in Mexico):
Once defined by religious doctrine, moral tradition, and home-centered commitments to child rearing and gender complementarity in productive labor, marriage has become a deracinated and highly individualistic and egalitarian institution, no longer implying commitment to home, to Church, to childbearing, to traditional gender duties, or even (permanently) to spouse. Gone is the productive husband-wife bond defined by mutual sacrifice and cooperative labor, replaced by dual-careerist vistas of self-fulfillment and consumer satisfaction. That homosexuals now want the strange new thing marriage has become should surprise no one: contemporary marriage, after all, certifies a certain legitimacy in the mainstream of American culture and delivers tax, insurance, life-style, and governmental benefits—all without imposing any of the obligations of traditional marriage (which homosexuals decidedly do not want). Thus, while the attempt to deny homosexuals the right to marry is understandable and even morally and legally justified, such an attempt is probably foredoomed if it does not lead to a broader effort to restore moral and religious integrity to marriage as a heterosexual institution.
The full article can be found at www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia_1804.htm
As the debate over gay marriage and civil unions hots up, the following is a very insightful and salutary comment from the Howard Centre (the organisation behind the recent World Congress of Families in Mexico):
Once defined by religious doctrine, moral tradition, and home-centered commitments to child rearing and gender complementarity in productive labor, marriage has become a deracinated and highly individualistic and egalitarian institution, no longer implying commitment to home, to Church, to childbearing, to traditional gender duties, or even (permanently) to spouse. Gone is the productive husband-wife bond defined by mutual sacrifice and cooperative labor, replaced by dual-careerist vistas of self-fulfillment and consumer satisfaction. That homosexuals now want the strange new thing marriage has become should surprise no one: contemporary marriage, after all, certifies a certain legitimacy in the mainstream of American culture and delivers tax, insurance, life-style, and governmental benefits—all without imposing any of the obligations of traditional marriage (which homosexuals decidedly do not want). Thus, while the attempt to deny homosexuals the right to marry is understandable and even morally and legally justified, such an attempt is probably foredoomed if it does not lead to a broader effort to restore moral and religious integrity to marriage as a heterosexual institution.
The full article can be found at www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia_1804.htm
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Marriage booming in Iraq
Instability in Baghdad has spurred many people to put plans on hold, abandoning half-built houses and dropping out of college. But despite the unrest - or perhaps partly because of it - the number of marriages has nearly doubled since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in April 2003, the Christian Science Monitor reports.
"The people I see are not affected by insecurity - I've had a 75-percent increase," says Muhammad Jawad Talikh, a marriage judge in the neighborhood of Kerrada for the past 32 years. "Young people are wishing for a better life, so they come to me and get married."
Karim Haider, deputy clerk at the Kerrada marriage court, registered 1,460 marriages in all of 2002. From May 1 to the end of 2003 - just seven months - he clocked 1,468. "And it's still increasing, every day," he says, stamping a flutter of engagement papers with an official seal.
"This year, we've been having weddings here almost every day," says Thamer Salim, the manager of Mashriq, a wedding hall that caters primarily to Iraqi Christians. Mashriq's accountant, Raed Khalil, estimates that the hall has twice as many weddings as before the war, mostly couples in their twenties.
There are many reasons behind this new enthusiasm: Before the war, military service was compulsory for men, and marriage was seen as a desertion risk. For that reason, young men needed permission from a host of government agencies.
Today, all they need is money. The dowry - money the groom's family gives the couple - is part of the official marriage contract in Iraq. The going rate is half a million dinars, or $350. (In case of divorce, the groom pays a penalty, usually double the dowry.)
But while most of Iraq is suffering from inflation, the price for brides is going down. "Today, the girls' parents aren't asking for as much, which tells us that their families don't want any barriers to marriage," says Mr. Talikh. "Sometimes, they only ask that he give her a copy of the Koran."
Instability in Baghdad has spurred many people to put plans on hold, abandoning half-built houses and dropping out of college. But despite the unrest - or perhaps partly because of it - the number of marriages has nearly doubled since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in April 2003, the Christian Science Monitor reports.
"The people I see are not affected by insecurity - I've had a 75-percent increase," says Muhammad Jawad Talikh, a marriage judge in the neighborhood of Kerrada for the past 32 years. "Young people are wishing for a better life, so they come to me and get married."
Karim Haider, deputy clerk at the Kerrada marriage court, registered 1,460 marriages in all of 2002. From May 1 to the end of 2003 - just seven months - he clocked 1,468. "And it's still increasing, every day," he says, stamping a flutter of engagement papers with an official seal.
"This year, we've been having weddings here almost every day," says Thamer Salim, the manager of Mashriq, a wedding hall that caters primarily to Iraqi Christians. Mashriq's accountant, Raed Khalil, estimates that the hall has twice as many weddings as before the war, mostly couples in their twenties.
There are many reasons behind this new enthusiasm: Before the war, military service was compulsory for men, and marriage was seen as a desertion risk. For that reason, young men needed permission from a host of government agencies.
Today, all they need is money. The dowry - money the groom's family gives the couple - is part of the official marriage contract in Iraq. The going rate is half a million dinars, or $350. (In case of divorce, the groom pays a penalty, usually double the dowry.)
But while most of Iraq is suffering from inflation, the price for brides is going down. "Today, the girls' parents aren't asking for as much, which tells us that their families don't want any barriers to marriage," says Mr. Talikh. "Sometimes, they only ask that he give her a copy of the Koran."
Monday, July 05, 2004
UE down, but everything else up
First, the good news: unemployment figures are down in New Zealand - at a 14-year low, in fact. Now the bad news, all the other welfare figures are up.
In 1993, total core benefit expenditure was $9.004 billion. By last year it had grown to $10.438 billion, says welfare campaigner Lindsay Mitchell.
What else happened between 1993 and 2003?
Core benefit expenditure:
First, the good news: unemployment figures are down in New Zealand - at a 14-year low, in fact. Now the bad news, all the other welfare figures are up.
In 1993, total core benefit expenditure was $9.004 billion. By last year it had grown to $10.438 billion, says welfare campaigner Lindsay Mitchell.
What else happened between 1993 and 2003?
Core benefit expenditure:
unemployment and emergency benefits, -19%
sickness benefit, +62%
invalid's benefit, +149%
domestic purposes benefit, +41%
superannuation, +15%
Euthanase children, says professor
The controversial utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer has given more ammunition to his critics by firmly endorsing infanticide in a UK newspaper. In an interview with a UK newspaper, The Independent, Singer, now a professor at Princeton University, explains why.
"All I say about severely disabled babies is that when a life is so miserable it is not worth living, then it is permissible to give it a lethal injection. These are decisions that should be taken by parents -- never the state -- in consultation with their doctors."
In any case, he says, this is already happening. "What do people think amniocentesis and the selective abortion of Down's Syndrome foetuses are? All I am saying is, why limit the killing to the womb?
Nothing magical happens at birth... Of course, infanticide needs to be strictly legally controlled and rare -- but it should not be ruled out, any more than abortion."
The controversial utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer has given more ammunition to his critics by firmly endorsing infanticide in a UK newspaper. In an interview with a UK newspaper, The Independent, Singer, now a professor at Princeton University, explains why.
"All I say about severely disabled babies is that when a life is so miserable it is not worth living, then it is permissible to give it a lethal injection. These are decisions that should be taken by parents -- never the state -- in consultation with their doctors."
In any case, he says, this is already happening. "What do people think amniocentesis and the selective abortion of Down's Syndrome foetuses are? All I am saying is, why limit the killing to the womb?
Nothing magical happens at birth... Of course, infanticide needs to be strictly legally controlled and rare -- but it should not be ruled out, any more than abortion."
