Comments on: A review of The Future of Marriage. By David Blankenhorn. http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/07/30/a-review-of-the-future-of-marriage-by-david-blankenhorn/ Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day... Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:39:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: jim http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/07/30/a-review-of-the-future-of-marriage-by-david-blankenhorn/comment-page-1/#comment-26356 jim Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:11:40 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/07/30/a-review-of-the-future-of-marriage-by-david-blankenhorn/#comment-26356 Hi Marge. Sorry about the delay in writing, I have been away and have only just returned. I just want to say that because something is common that does not make it right; smoking is common but the effects are disastrous; drinking is common but what are the results to families both financially and emotionally? Yes, there are many arguments to be put forward in regards to the common acceptance of marriage but I must ask why is it that something that has stood the test of time should be rejected for modern day popularity? I am not saying that marriage is perfect but I do believe that it is better than that which is proposed by the open thinkers in today's society. Jim Sturla Hi Marge.
Sorry about the delay in writing, I have been away and have only just returned.
I just want to say that because something is common that does not make it right; smoking is common but the effects are disastrous; drinking is common but what are the results to families both financially and emotionally?
Yes, there are many arguments to be put forward in regards to the common acceptance of marriage but I must ask why is it that something that has stood the test of time should be rejected for modern day popularity?
I am not saying that marriage is perfect but I do believe that it is better than that which is proposed by the open thinkers in today’s society.
Jim Sturla

]]> By: Ewan http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/07/30/a-review-of-the-future-of-marriage-by-david-blankenhorn/comment-page-1/#comment-24417 Ewan Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:57:13 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/07/30/a-review-of-the-future-of-marriage-by-david-blankenhorn/#comment-24417 In response to something Marge said, I think it is a negative thing that "de facto marriage and cohabitation are now common and no longer stigmatised by society, and the law has acknowledged the legal rights and responsibilities of relationships that are not necessarily bound by written contract." I also noticed that there is no mention of a marriage contract in the article, and that the definition of marriage as “socially approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man” could encompass cohabitation. Christians should resist the trend to accommodate cohabitation as a form of marriage, otherwise there is no such sin as 'fornication' - it just gets redefined as a de facto relationship. At a minimum, marriage needs to include a written contract and be witnessed. Ewan McDonald, Victoria In response to something Marge said, I think it is a negative thing that “de facto marriage and cohabitation are now common and no longer stigmatised by society, and the law has acknowledged the legal rights and responsibilities of relationships that are not necessarily bound by written contract.” I also noticed that there is no mention of a marriage contract in the article, and that the definition of marriage as “socially approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man” could encompass cohabitation.

Christians should resist the trend to accommodate cohabitation as a form of marriage, otherwise there is no such sin as ‘fornication’ – it just gets redefined as a de facto relationship. At a minimum, marriage needs to include a written contract and be witnessed.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria

]]> By: Rebecca Field http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/07/30/a-review-of-the-future-of-marriage-by-david-blankenhorn/comment-page-1/#comment-24393 Rebecca Field Tue, 31 Jul 2007 07:28:46 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/07/30/a-review-of-the-future-of-marriage-by-david-blankenhorn/#comment-24393 And we don't want to wait until individual decision makers realise, "Oops, I made a wrong ruling on this subject!" and in the meantime hundreds have been hurt by shoddy thinking and a destructive social experiment. We need to pray and inform our policy-makers on the many subjects they are so il-equipped to be making decisions to change any law. We need to do so much more pre-empting because reversals are so rare and so many people/children/marriages/society are damaged in the meantime. Rebecca Field And we don’t want to wait until individual decision makers realise, “Oops, I made a wrong ruling on this subject!” and in the meantime hundreds have been hurt by shoddy thinking and a destructive social experiment.
We need to pray and inform our policy-makers on the many subjects they are so il-equipped to be making decisions to change any law. We need to do so much more pre-empting because reversals are so rare and so many people/children/marriages/society are damaged in the meantime.
Rebecca Field

]]> By: Marge Williams, Vic http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/07/30/a-review-of-the-future-of-marriage-by-david-blankenhorn/comment-page-1/#comment-24319 Marge Williams, Vic Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:10:58 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/07/30/a-review-of-the-future-of-marriage-by-david-blankenhorn/#comment-24319 Hi Bill, Society is definitely changing its views on traditional marriage. De facto marriage and cohabitation are now common and no longer stigmatised by society, and the law has acknowledged the legal rights and responsibilities of relationships that are not necessarily bound by written contract. I notice that there is no mention of the marriage contract in your article, and the definition of marriage as "socially approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man" could encompass other kinds of relationship. What are your views are on the trend towards recognition of the legal rights (property, inheritance, superannuation etc.) of the partners in same-sex relationships? From what I have read, few homosexuals actually want their relationship to be called "marriage". Marge Williams, Vic. Hi Bill,

Society is definitely changing its views on traditional marriage. De facto marriage and cohabitation are now common and no longer stigmatised by society, and the law has acknowledged the legal rights and responsibilities of relationships that are not necessarily bound by written contract.

I notice that there is no mention of the marriage contract in your article, and the definition of marriage as “socially approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man” could encompass other kinds of relationship.

What are your views are on the trend towards recognition of the legal rights (property, inheritance, superannuation etc.) of the partners in same-sex relationships? From what I have read, few homosexuals actually want their relationship to be called “marriage”.

Marge Williams, Vic.

]]>