I asked a question about whether divorce should be banned and it was a pretty strong consensus that we should not ban divorce.
Supposedly gay marriage hurts the institution of marriage.
Divorce obviously hurts the institution of marriage.
If one can be banned should we also ban the other?
2007-02-03 09:39:03 · 22 answers · asked by Mrs. Bass 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
My logic is fine.
Both things supposedly hurt the institution of marriage. Why ban one and not the other?
Perhaps your logic should be questioned.
2007-02-03 09:42:58 · update #1
Over 50% of marriages today end in divorce. Divorce is the greatest threat to the institution of marriage, followed by spousal and family abuse.
Since gay marriage has not been legalized in most of the country, I don't know how anyone can call it a threat to the institution of marriage. It wasn't that long ago that it was illegal for people of different races to marry in many states of the US. Now it is legal, and I don't ever see a mixed race marriage causing a neighbor's marriage to be harmed. I believe we will find that gay marriage will have the same impact upon the institution of marriage. The only marriage that someone should be concerned about is their own.
2007-02-03 09:45:41 · answer #1 · answered by KCBA 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think you're comparing apples and oranges, but okay - it's just a theory, right?
I have a lot of gay friends and I definitely think they deserve legal protection - but I also understand the point of view that is against gay marriage because where *do* we draw the line? If the gays marry, the polygamists are going to demand their rights, too. Then, the freaks who want to marry their dog or cat will start demanding rights, too. Don't say it won't happen - some flake already married a dolphin. Just do a search - you'll find it.
I think gay couples at the very least should be protected by civil unions, but I honestly don't see how we can change the definition of marriage for homosexuals and not for the polygamists or people who just love their pets a little too much.
2007-02-03 10:20:49 · answer #2 · answered by Jadis 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The people have a right to vote on how to define marriage. Divorce, while not a positive thing, can sometimes be necessary. Right now, the people who voted to prohibit marriage from being changed, like the gay/lesbian advocates wanted, don't feel that a ban on divorce is the best way to go. I would support ways to reduce the number of divorces that occur in this country.
2007-02-03 09:48:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I agree with you--and this is a very, very good question.
I'm straight, but think that gays should have the right to marry, and the benefits that marriage offers.
Divorce is too, too common--how many people, these days, have a mom and dad living in the same home? Why have they made it so easy to divorce? It's like getting married is just dating, anymore.
2007-02-03 09:48:27 · answer #4 · answered by Holiday Magic 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
this is a pretty good question... and something that should be an issue. you have to remember that over 50% of the marriages in the United States end up in a divorce, so removing the privelage of divorce is a huge thing. well it is true that divorce hurts marriage, but again people have free will on what to do, so i dont know.
2007-02-03 09:47:11 · answer #5 · answered by watisman 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They should since they supposedly care about 'protecting the santicity of marriage'. Yet, many conservative Republicans are divorced like George Allen and Joe Scarborough and Newt Gringich.
2007-02-03 16:05:42 · answer #6 · answered by cynical 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Great point! I haven't been able to figure out how gay marriage would hurt the institution of marriage...from a legal standpoint - but I can sure see how legal divorce can hurt the institution of marriage...
2007-02-03 09:43:45 · answer #7 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 9⤊ 2⤋
No. Banning divorce will lead to a rise in domestic violence, including homicide and suicide. We know that we cannot legislate the heart.
The issue of gay marriage is not synonymous with the issue of the high divorce rate, and is a red herring.
The issue is what is beneficial to society, and clearly heterosexual marriage is. Homosexual marriage provides a benefit only to those individuals, and they do not need marriage to have the benefits, as the benefits are there for the good of children.
When heterosexual marriages end in divorce, the benefits are lost.
2007-02-03 10:18:33 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
I see nothing wrong with a gay man and woman getting married.
But you make a good point.
I counter with this argument.
Divorce does not hurt the institution of marriage. In all cases of divorce, the marriage was damaged beyond redemption before the actual divorce decree. The divorce is merely officializing it.
Homosexuality is called an "unnatural act" in my state and homosexual acts are illegal here. Aren't abstinence and birth control unnatural acts also though?
BTW: I am straight and against people of the same gender getting married. My reason is because I do a lot of genealogy, and it is already insane enough trying to track my relatives.
2007-02-03 09:43:22 · answer #9 · answered by Darth Vader 6 · 1⤊ 6⤋
GOD gave us FREE WILL. HIS greatest gift to us. And, there should be no baning. Due to Free Will.
GOD gave us FREE WILL your Gay or Lesbian I see no reason why I canot go to your house and marry you.
I have performed several Gay or Lesbian Marriages. And, when court asks me why? I said 1 sentence and they approve.
GOD gave us FREE WILL. And, they decided to use there free will to get married.
While I see straight people getting divorced left and right. Like it is some type of football game.
2007-02-03 09:49:13 · answer #10 · answered by Kitty 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋