Should heterosexual marriages be banned?

Question

Out of control divorce rates, fractured family's, uneducated youth, obesity at all time highs among married people, and a host of other issues, so, should we just chuck this old idea because it ain't working?.

Ok, I am speaking in irony. To me though, this makes about as much sense as "conservatives" that want to rid just about any social programs and/or government institution(s) because of problems associated with them. Fact is, change comes within and slowly for the better!

Answer 1

Yes, we should only be allowed "civil unions".

Edit: I just about spit the coffee out on my screen when I read Conservative's answer. BAN SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE? HAHAHAHAHAHHA! That was probably the most laughable thing I've ever read.
"Tonight we're gonna party like is 1699!"

Answer 2

The real rub comes when they use the excuse that legalizing same sex marriage would undermine the very foundation of heterosexual marriage. Every single evening when we watch the news, it is evident that the straight married couples are doing very well at that themselves with murdering their spouses and children, and even pedophilia with their own children.

Another excuse they use is that marriage is only for people that can have children. Many many straight married couples do not procreate either by choice or biological reasons (or age). Should those marriages be null and void or prohibited in the first place?

Marriage is a great responsibility and should be granted to ALL those American taxpayers that wish to enjoy the benefits too, regardless of gender.

Answer 3

Homosexuals would have the same problem. In fact, I'd suggest that homosexual male couples would have an even higher incidence of problems considering the other fact that men initiate about 80% of the divorce proceedings in this country. You put two men together and the likelihood of success drops dramatically.

Um, 'change is for the better' is definitely NOT a 'fact'. Welfare and social programs may have helped somewhat, but they've also created a dependent class in this country that has weakened the individual, undercut their self respect and self image and weakened the nation as a whole. Personally, I believe that this 'fact' far outweighs the 'pros' of the programs you laud. Government programs rarely take into account the cause and affect that they create and folks like you don't seem to take these system realities into account either. You want to help, that's commendable, but often...quite often...the 'cure' is worse than the disease. A related problem is that once you create a program of this type it NEVER goes away. The mistake, with all it's warts, takes on immortality and we're stuck with it.

Often change is good, but change without sufficient thought or understanding of the real consequences is what bothers me.

Answer 4

I understand your point, but your logic is flawed. People are not forced into marriage by the government, and marriage is not a government system that would have competition in the private sector.

Marriage remains an institution of private sector negotiation. Two individuals decide to incorporate their estates into one estate for mutual benefit.

A better comparison to make your point would focus that the private sector incorporation of two individuals into the enterprise of marriage has a great quantity of problems associated with it (see your own problems above). You would then be able to show that the public and private sector institutions to meet marketplace needs both have problems, and therefore it is a fallacy for conservatives to associate the problems with the social programs as a reason for their dismissal.

Answer 5

If heterosexual marriage became into banned there could be a important loss in gross sales for divorce attorneys. this is unacceptable, particularly at a time while the financial equipment is suffering to get better.

Answer 6

I think marriages and the ensuing tax breaks should be outlawed. I think that all of the right wing folk, in arguing against same-sex marriage, have made a really compelling case that marriage is steeped in religious tradition. Thus, in keeping with the separation of church and state, I think it would be best to eliminate any federal/state recognition of marriage and leave it entirely up to religions. It would settle so many problems. Additionally, the extra tax money could help support either the war or health care or whatever people want.

Answer 7

I think all state-ordained marriages should be banned.

If religion wants to be in that game, fine.

The relationship between two people needs legal support only when the two people want to part company. All that could be handled by a civil contract.

I'm surprised there isn't a Libertarian revolt protesting state involvement in this usually very private manner.

Answer 8

I think married people should pay higher taxes since they require more government services. End the "singles penalty tax!" Then outlaw divorce. If marriage is so "scared," making it permanent will get some people to think long and hard before they do it.

Answer 9

I find it incredible that conservatives call themselves Christians, yet they do everything in their power to condemn those who don't live the way THEY tell them to. Jesus would NEVER have done that - one of his best friends was a prostitute, and he never even SUGGESTED that her rights should be taken away. He washed her feet, for crying out loud. But they think gay people should be treated like dogs just because they're different. "Christian" is supposed to mean "Christ-like." I don't understand how this behavior is Christ-like. If someone could explain it to me, I'd be really grateful.

Answer 10

I like the analogy, but you know that some would argue that the difference between heterosexual marriage and social programs is that marriage is sacred.