When people talk about protecting marriage, how come no one mentions prenuptual agreements or divorce at all?

Answer 1

The conservative standpoint on the protection of marriage:

We do not want the government to give gay couples all the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples, because this involves all the rights to adoption. Marriage is primarily about raising children together, because anybody can already live with whomever they want, and sleep with whatever they want.

We cannot allow children to be raised in same-sex households. Before you start labeling me a hatemonger, perhaps you should think of the child instead of yourself. Growing up in a divorced household is bad for obvious reasons, the child's interaction with thier mother or thier father is limited. It is always a tragedy when a child loses a mother or a father. Gay marriage effectively takes away a child's right to a mother and a father.

Like it or not, children need both male and female parents, to have as positive role models, and to be so selfish as to deny a child a mother and a father is to be too immature to be a parent to begin with.

Because gay couples in most states already get all the same legal protections and tax benefits of marriage, and because they can "get married" whenever they want by a private ceremony with friends and family, they have all the same rights as married couples do.

The only issue is child adoption.

You can argue, well, having two fathers is better than no one.

That is true, but even heterosexual couples cannot adopt children unless they are married and have a stable household, and single people cannot adopt. There is no double standard here. The fact is, children grow up healthier and more well adjusted in a household with a mother and a father.

Finally, homosexuality is a choice adults are free to make. But it is psychologically harmful for a child to be raised by gay couples. If you do not believe me, research it yourself. Too many children raised by same sex couples end up in therapy and way too many of them turn out sexually confused.

Who cares? Any loving parent would care. Allowing a child to develop naturally in a family with a mother or a father allows them to choose for themselves which gender role they want to have later on in life. Growing up in a same sex household denies them the experience of having either a mom or a dad.

Most conservatives do not care what people do with other consenting adults, nor to they "fear" or "hate" gay people. We simply do not want to introduce impressionable children to alternative lifestyles until they are really old enough to make choices for themselves, thats all. This position is based upon unselfish caring and love, not hatred or bigotry.

By the way, if I am such a hateful person, why does the majority of the gay community support me on this? Less than half of all gays support the redefinition of traditional marriage.

If you cannot reason without attacking me personally, then don't bother commenting on my response, because it shows your intolerance and prejudice towards people you disagree with, and reveals your hatred. We should be able to have a civilized discussion on these issues without labeling each other bigots.
Don't treat me with contempt.

Answer 2

Prenuptial agreements are designed to protect the individuals IN the marriage and not the marriage itself ... I don't believe there is any evidence that prenups do any particular harm to marriages; what's harmful is the spirit underlying it: that marriage is temporary and that "I" is more important than "We"

People don't talk about divorce being harmful to marriage for the same reason that people don't talk about making possession of alcohol a crime ... there are too many people who want to preserve their rights in each of them.

In all events, there aren't all that many people truly interested in "protecting marriage" and a lot of people interested in sounding off on the juicy debate about whether gays should be able to marry.

Answer 3

Marriage has become less and less about love and more about convenience. The rate of divorce has steadily gone up. People's tolorance and acceptance for their supposed "significant other" isn't strong enough to override the feeling of self protection and preservation. IMO, Divorce is for lazy people who don't want to deal with the realities of life and learning to compromise. If people want to really preserve the "sanctitiy of marriage," they are better off living together but not getting married until they are willing to deal with the everything living with another person can bring for you.

Answer 4

Prenuptual agreements and divorce issues are not tied to "love" at all.

Answer 5

I do. one component maximum uninformed people fail to comprehend is that prenuptial agreements are designed to guard the interests of both activities. the elementary false impression (between such diverse others) is that "the guy" is attempting to "placed one over on the female" - that is the way of their perpetual sufferer status. the actuality is, more desirable suitable to pick at the same time as minds are rational a thanks to somewhat take care of a probably catastrophic result than to attend and bypass to warfare later. i imagine immediately in this us of a and in a overseas us of a, marriage & having little ones is a scary proposition. at present, the divorce price is so intense by way of no-fault divorce. once you've youthful ones, for females people - meaning they carry each and each of the playing cards. a guy at present has to comprehend that, love and "the dream" aside, the risks to adult males/fathers a strategies outweigh the rewards. verify the source - some tremendous books on only this difficulty. relations courtroom is tilted heavily in choose of girls people/moms. moms have each and each of the rights, get each and each of the advantages, and pa is only too typically relegated to a targeted visitor in his baby's lives at the same time as being an ATM device fro mom. He can lose 1/2 (or more desirable) of the money, autos, domicile, investments, etc... and worse - the youngsters. heavily, if I had customary then what i understand now about how the divorce device sucks in fathers, grinds them up, and spits them out so unceremoniously, i'd have under no circumstances gotten married and given up my dream of having a relations. with out-fault divorce (the most important killer of marriage and households) you do not choose an excuse anymore to interrupt up. you only do not could experience like being married anymore - and with that actuality comes the reality - a wedding ceremony is now no longer a freelance, so what's the point except to placed your self and your destiny in threat at the same time as someone "would not experience like it anymore?" With women people (who've little ones) beginning only about 3/4 of divorces at present (maximum adult males do not even see it coming), that is the sensible guy who chooses no longer to get married and really no longer have little ones... and that is a shame.

Answer 6

because addressing those issues make the people promoting the protection of marriage seem silly.

Answer 7

Because, they are more worried about people marring their dogs than dealing with people's infidelity.

Answer 8

Because they are homophobes and they can only focus on gays.