In light of the high divorce rates and broken homes in the US, even among Christians, why not fix the institution of marriage first? then it would make more since to have all these Defense of Marriage Acts. Isn't it hypocritical to defend a broken institution? If marriage is all that, why is there so much divorce, broken homes, and people just deciding to live together? Recent US census figures state that for the first time in history there are more single adults than married ones. Two-thirds of children born in black communities are out of wedlock. In light of this situation, why is there all this fervor to define marriage between a man and woman?
2007-06-07 04:42:35 · 7 answers · asked by roughruggedraw 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Indeed, most of them did not understand the question...
It is an abstract question but it raises important issues. In contrary to other questions that want to be more about possibilities and strategies, this asks for something essential which is to instigate consciousness.
Why not fix the institution of marriage before defining who can and cannot marry? Why not take care of the most urgent and obvious problems in our society? One of my ideas is that as a culture, it is "painful" and scary to change. Cultural change takes time, revolutions, wars, failures, and more. In any context, that is social, individual or cultural, change has always been unsettling. It is uncertain and stressful of not knowing what will happen. We would rather stay in the same situation (even if negative and/or destructive) because that is what we know. The fact is that this fear exists at a conscious collective level, making the task of transformation rather large and time consuming. Here, the institution of marriage has declared from the beginning that only a man and a woman could marry together. It does not matter as you say if most of them are ending up in divorces. If many children are born out of wedlock nowadays. Let's wait a while longer. Then, a little revolution is appropriate. hehe
2007-06-07 05:37:05 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I have never understood people who feel the need to "protect" marriage from gays who want to marry, especially since so many of them have gotten a divorce (or two or three) at some time in their lives. My feeling is that the heterosexuals have done more damage to the institution of marriage than two men or two women wanting to marry could ever do.
2007-06-13 07:50:55 · answer #2 · answered by swtmix 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, Death, the question belongs right here. He DOES mean "hypocritical," and he has a point. There is a LOT wrong with what is called marriage in these United States, and in the "First World" in general.
But you're wrong about strategy, RoughRuggedRaw. The best way for gay people to support the institution of marriage would be to get into it and take it seriously! Every faithful couple, gay or str8, strengthens marriage. Every adulterer injures it, no matter who s/he is unfaithful with or who s/he is unfaithful to.
And in the meantime, because making people get married cannot work, we need to levy resources from irresponsible parents--if they have any--to help support the children they've brought into the world. We need to substitute birth control, artificial or otherwise, for abortions. (Fellow convinced Catholics: Check out the difference between "objective sin" and "actual sin." And between prudence and zealotry.) We need to facilitate adoptions to loving homes.
And we need to encourage people to act morally within their own morality, even when it differs from ours, and to support them--for instance, with available drug-addiction treatment. (It is unacceptable that ANYone who WANTS to go straight in this country ever has to join a months-long waiting list.)
2007-06-07 05:09:54 · answer #3 · answered by georgetslc 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Sorry but I think all of you are wrong. The problem with marriage today is that the parents of the previous generation did not pass on to the current generation the ideas of respect, love and understanding.
They passed on the traits that made the current society selfish, pigheaded and resentful. Along with filling them with hate, distrust, bigoty and intolerence.
If I go on I'll be here all day. Wrong soap box for me right now.
2007-06-07 09:02:55 · answer #4 · answered by .*. 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
"since" should be SENSE
"hypocritical" probably should have been "hypercritical"
"why is there so much..." would have come off better as "why are there so many divorces, broken homes..." (a list is a plural)
Also, your entire rant probably might have gone over a bit better in the "Religion and Spirituality" category...or even "Dating and Relationships"
Also...in regard to your question...what exactly are "they" assuming to be defending marriage from? MORE MARRIAGE?
Now THAT sounds hypocritical.
2007-06-07 04:54:00 · answer #5 · answered by DEATH 7 · 1⤊ 7⤋
You have to understand that is not easy to straight people understand gay people....the reason is because gays and straight are DIFFERENT......I'm an open mind person, I don't judge any gay person, actually my best friend is gay BUT for me as a straight person is difficult to understand a man being married with another man and same for women with women......is not easy my friend even if we want to understand!!!!! Do you understand me??? REGARDS!!!
2007-06-07 04:51:34 · answer #6 · answered by Isabella 4 · 1⤊ 6⤋
"They" won't understand this question- it's too rational.
2007-06-07 04:48:58 · answer #7 · answered by Active Denial System™ 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋