would it be a stretch to atleast outlaw DIVORCE for heterosexuals? Its such a sacred institution and all. And I would hate to see divorce turn this unsuspecting group that is ethically fit and morally astute into a loathsome group of egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigots.
2007-04-09 13:18:02 · 17 answers · asked by Active Denial System™ 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Thank God I am agnostic then ... your religious diatribe and guilt do little but compound the ignorance espoused by heterosexuals. And you didn't bother to answer the question, furthering your own inability to think past a silly book used to control lowbrow peoples.
2007-04-09 13:39:42 · update #1
Eureka, Lee-Anne!
You succinctly got it .. and I love it!
2007-04-09 13:50:58 · update #2
Good Question...... Anytime Gay marriages have been tried to be introduced into government, Religion is always the basis of the negative response, yet most religions do not recognize divorce (considered a sin) . Hypocritical? Big Time...... In other words what I am saying is..... If Divorce can be legal in the eyes of government and not the church, then why cant gay marriages.
2007-04-09 13:43:04 · answer #1 · answered by Leah 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
In July 2006 the US House of Representatives was debating a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. At the time, there were at least 29 divorced members of Congress.
Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN) said it was important to “go after the other threats to the institution” not just the threat from homosexuals.
The Congressional Record of his remarks are the following:
"Marriage is for life, and this amendment needs to include that basic tenant. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should expand the scope of the amendment to outlaw divorce in this country. Going further Mr. Speaker, I believe in fidelity. Adultery is an evil that threatens the marriage and the heart of every marriage, which is commitment.
"How can we as a country allow adulterers to go unpunished and continue to make a mockery of marriage? Again by doing so, what lessons are we teaching our children about marriage? I certainly think that it shows we are not serious about protecting the institution and this is why I think the amendment should outlaw adultery and make it a felony. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we must address spousal abuse and child abuse. Think of how many marriages end in a divorce or permanent separation because one spouse is abusive.
"And, Mr. Speaker, I personally think child abuse may be the most despicable act one can commit. This is why if we are truly serious about protecting marriage to the point we will amend the constitution, we should extend the punishment of abuse to prevent those who do such a hideous act from ever running for an elected position anywhere.
"We should also prevent those who commit adultery, or get a divorce, from running for office. Mr. Speaker, this House must lead by example. If we want those watching on CSPAN to actually believe we are serious about protecting marriage, then we should go after the other major threats to the institution. Not just the threat that homosexuals may some day be allowed to marry in a state other than Massachusetts. An elected official should certainly lead by example."
2007-04-09 14:00:47 · answer #2 · answered by χριστοφορος ▽ 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you completely. first, government and religion should remain separate. second, marriage is NOT just a religious right. I've known people who got married at a courthouse, and that is perfectly legal...and not religious.
third, considering the complete mockery some (not all, but some) people seem to make of the "institution" of marriage these days, they have no right what so ever saying that any other consenting, unrelated adult in a committed, loving relationship be denied the same right as any other citizen. it shouldn't matter what gender, race, religion or culture someone is, love is love, commitment is commitment.
can they deny the divorce rate? the infidelity? the number of single parents whose children were born out of wedlock? the domestic violence? and how about all the celebrities who get married and divorced as often as they change their clothes (like Britney's drunken 55 hour Vegas wedding, and, big surprise! her impending divorce from "K-Fed?")
how have they not damaged the "institution" of marriage themselves? how could we do any worse?
2007-04-09 14:11:28 · answer #3 · answered by redcatt63 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
check out the Jim Crow regulations, which existed up till the Sixties. Marriage between the races replaced into as quickly as banned, too. Segregation replaced into criminal for particularly a lengthy time! it is not so distinctive now, regardless of if now this is the gay people who would desire to go through on the hands of the nervous. no count while you're for or against gay-marriage, the actuality keeps to be that marriage should not be made unlawful for one edge of the inhabitants because of the phobia and "non secular" ideals of yet another. that's a private, criminal count. no you will get to vote on it.
2016-10-28 07:28:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My Dear One, I'd love to see Marriage and Divorce rates fall for both Homosexual and Straight Couples (and for those who don't like Homosexual Marriage... you may go away. This is *my* opinion). How about if we just make society Matriarchal instead of Patriarchal and then all of this religious/sex stuff will fall away....either that or how about a comprimise?
Lets all be kind to each other. (although I do really like the Matriarchy......)
Blessings.
2007-04-09 13:38:52 · answer #5 · answered by Mama Otter 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You know...before I got married (gay) I really asked myself why I would do that...considering the farce that the straight community has made out of such a 'religious' institution--they can't even get their sht together and do anything right...I guess I did it for other reasons..but not because of their basic sacred institution that they can't seem to abide by.
I have vented...I feel better. :)
2007-04-09 13:52:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Our government should keep out of the religious institution of marriage. As for extending rights and legal protection to couples, no matter what their sexual orientation may be, this should definitely be pushed for acceptance.
Keep government out of our religious institutions and our bedrooms!
2007-04-09 13:24:42 · answer #7 · answered by MaryCheneysAccessory 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is the basic hypocrisy that the government uses in "protecting marriage."
They talk as if gay & lesbian people getting married will harm marriage. I contend that if gay & lesbian people are NOT allowed to marry, it will harm marriage:
Same-sex couples will become more and more prominent, and their relationships more obviously similar to marriage. But as they are denied marriage, youth will identify with their gay friends and choose not to marry either.
The institution will be harmed immeasurably, perhaps beyond repair, unless the same-sex marriage is allowed to go forward.
- {♂♂} - {♂♀} - {♀♀} -
2007-04-09 13:48:26 · answer #8 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I agree.
If you take an oath to love,
honor, and obey someone
until death in god's name
(read marriage), you should
not be allowed, by the church
or state, to break that oath.
No divorce!
2007-04-09 21:34:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. Divorce is a perversion. It harms our children. Divorcés are always trying to convert others.
2007-04-09 13:37:41 · answer #10 · answered by castle h 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋