Some thoughts ... what are your opinions?

Question

People wish to ban same-sex unions because it threatens the sanctity of what marriage was meant to be. Based on that, I believe that if we ban same-sex marriage, we should also ban marriage for the following people:

-Those who have previously been divorced due to adultery on their part.
-Those who have had convictions of rape, violent assault against a spouse or significant other, and sexual abuse.

These things also threaten the sanctity of marriage. What are your thoughts?

Answer 1

Also anyone who is not a virgin too, because according to the "sanctity" of marriage, you're supposed to wait until marriage to have sex. They should also ban infertile people and senior citizens, because they can't procreate. And they should also ban people of different religions from marriage too. I like your idea, it just needed a few more things in there. Kudos to you!

Answer 2

This is a topic on which I have strong feelings and could easily launch into a veritable thesis on, however in a nutshell I do not believe that any person should be prohibited from having a recognised union with another person if they truly love one another. Same sex unions I am fully in favour of - society and people in general should be sufficiently advanced and evolved by now to accept the fact that two people of the same gender can love one another - it should be completely permissible for them to have that love officially recognised both for the ceremony and for the legality.

As for the other categories of non-marriage candidates that you propose, they are very general and unfair. Adultery may have a subjective (even objective) justification and it is not grounds for denying someone the chance to marry someone they love (perhaps they did not love their first spouse). As for rape and assault, it is the responsibility of the criminal justice system to deal with such offenders. A rapist or a violent criminal is no less capable of love than you or I. Perhaps they should be forever incarcereted, but why not allow their love for someone (perhaps the only person they ever could truly love) be recognised. To err is human, to forgive - divine.

Answer 3

Someone explain "sanctity of marriage" to me. It's a contract, plain and simple. It is the influence of organized religion that makes it a "sacrament." People are married in civil ceremonies every day. Is their marriage less "sanctified" than those who are married in a religious ceremony?

Banning rapists and violent spousal abusers from being married isn't going to stop them from raping and abusing.

Answer 4

That is the truth and should be publicly said aloud. But they were afraid of disrtoying the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

Answer 5

I teach non-violent self protection innovations - it relatively is especially communique innovations for de-escalating an agitated man or woman (and regularly the verbal stuff works - even nonetheless i be attentive to maximum persons won't have faith that, it relatively is real; you will not have faith some the relatively horrendous circumstances I even have been in and co-workers have been in and no person ended up getting harm.) as quickly because it gets actual, lower back, we've those innovations - quite often adapted from karate innovations yet minus the section the place you stomp somebody's foot or elbow their chin, and so on. - it relatively is in basic terms about preserving your self whilst no longer hurting the different man or woman. and that they certainly do artwork. Now if somebody has a gun and you do no longer, needless to say, those actual innovations won't artwork. this is why I strongly inspire people to hone their non-violent communique skills - reason this is your in basic terms wish in a issue like that. i'm curious what the "protection rigidity" people will say...perchance you may desire to purpose posting the question on the "faith/Spirituality" section. right it relatively is a large quote: "I merchandise to violence simply by fact whilst it appears that evidently to do stable, the stable is in basic terms non everlasting; the evil it does is everlasting." Namaste.

Answer 6

HA! Good point! Especially the assault against their spouse, if it was founded and there is proof. Ex spouses will say anything to put their exes in Jail or to take visitation with the children away.
I don't agree with gay marriage, but I do not think that it threatens the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. I think spousal abuse, adultery, numerous divorces, and quickie marriages in Vegas threatens the sanctity of marriage.

Answer 7

Excellent point. We would also have to ban the marriage of thieves and prostitutes, since those sins are equal with homosexuality in the Bible.

Answer 8

You bring out some extremely good points....unfortunately it will fall upon deaf ears and blind eyes. Society still hasnt grasped the concept that being gay/lesbian is no worse or better than being anything else! They still look at us as "less than" other people. It's really sad that more people cant be as intelligent and open-minded as you.

Answer 9

I think it's pernicious and damaging to suggest this. I would hope that we don't adopt the line "well if I can't have it - you can't!", then we should surely reveal ourselves to be too "young" and irresponsible to merit the opportunity to marry.

EDIT: I do agree though that the argument that same sex marriages would harm the "Sanctity of marriage" is rubbish, though. Thanks for the e-mail.

Answer 10

People wish to ban gay unions because they think there might come a miracle birth that makes Mary's look weak.