(I've seen this second writer, Peter Hitchens, on British TV while visiting there. He is a type of social conservative generally more common in American than in the UK.)
Something that Mr.Hitchens said "Mind you, homosexual civil partnerships are not contracted for life, any more than heterosexual civil marriages are, since both can be lawfully dissolved, and I think this makes them very different things from lifelong religious marriages. There's an argument for saying that heterosexual civil marriage has more in common with homosexual civil partnership than it does with lifelong Christian marriage." prompted me to look up the divorce rate in the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jan/28/divorce-rates-marriage-ons Does it mean that all these marriages were civil partnerships/marriages? Or what the hack is he talking about?
Hitchens is making a complicated argument about the "fundamental" purposes of marriage. I am guessing (but am not sure) that he would say that modern "civil" marriage is not for life, but traditional "Christian" marriage is. It's a whole modern change in attitudes toward marriage that's the problem. In his view, things started to go wrong a few decades ago, before the gay marriage issue even arose. The "sexual revolution" of the 1960s-'70s is the real underlying problem. (Part of why the anti-gay-marriage side is losing, I think, is that its arguments are complicated and abstract in this way, while the argument in favor of gay marriage, whether or not you agree with it, is easy to state and understand: "Everyone should have equal rights, regardless of sexual orientation.")
But you are correct, Monika, the divorce rates do not support arguments like Hitchens' very well. As your data show, they're actually falling nowadays (in the US as well as in the UK, I believe), which is the opposite of what the opponents of gay marriage have been predicting.
That article from Hitchens that I linked to was a few years old, incidentally (but someone else had linked to it in recent days; that's how I found it). His latest on the issue is here:
Basically, he's very angry with David Cameron for bringing the issue to a vote in Parliament. He thinks Cameron is deliberately trying to hurt the cause of the more conservative Conservatives in his party, because Cameron sees himself as a "modernizer" or more moderate Conservative and wants to blame the "Tory Right" after they lose the next election.
You are so right about this. Conservative commentators in Britain are not at all happy:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.spectator.co.uk/david-green/2013/02/a-serious-political-party-would-defend-traditional-marriage/
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/07/so-who-should-be-able-to-marry.html
(I've seen this second writer, Peter Hitchens, on British TV while visiting there. He is a type of social conservative generally more common in American than in the UK.)
Sorry, make that "in America," not "in American." :-S
ReplyDeleteSomething that Mr.Hitchens said "Mind you, homosexual civil partnerships are not contracted for life, any more than heterosexual civil marriages are, since both can be lawfully dissolved, and I think this makes them very different things from lifelong religious marriages. There's an argument for saying that heterosexual civil marriage has more in common with homosexual civil partnership than it does with lifelong Christian marriage." prompted me to look up the divorce rate in the UK.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jan/28/divorce-rates-marriage-ons
Does it mean that all these marriages were civil partnerships/marriages? Or what the hack is he talking about?
Hitchens is making a complicated argument about the "fundamental" purposes of marriage. I am guessing (but am not sure) that he would say that modern "civil" marriage is not for life, but traditional "Christian" marriage is. It's a whole modern change in attitudes toward marriage that's the problem. In his view, things started to go wrong a few decades ago, before the gay marriage issue even arose. The "sexual revolution" of the 1960s-'70s is the real underlying problem. (Part of why the anti-gay-marriage side is losing, I think, is that its arguments are complicated and abstract in this way, while the argument in favor of gay marriage, whether or not you agree with it, is easy to state and understand: "Everyone should have equal rights, regardless of sexual orientation.")
ReplyDeleteBut you are correct, Monika, the divorce rates do not support arguments like Hitchens' very well. As your data show, they're actually falling nowadays (in the US as well as in the UK, I believe), which is the opposite of what the opponents of gay marriage have been predicting.
That article from Hitchens that I linked to was a few years old, incidentally (but someone else had linked to it in recent days; that's how I found it). His latest on the issue is here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2276323/This-gay-affair-sex-marriages-just-excuse-Tory-divorce.html
Basically, he's very angry with David Cameron for bringing the issue to a vote in Parliament. He thinks Cameron is deliberately trying to hurt the cause of the more conservative Conservatives in his party, because Cameron sees himself as a "modernizer" or more moderate Conservative and wants to blame the "Tory Right" after they lose the next election.