Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Life And Society
  4. / Sexuality And Gender
  5. / Gay Marriage
  6. / More Gay Marriage

by teknimage on November 17th, 2006

teknimage

Question

Help answer this question below.

Why is the "defense of marriage" argument focused on gay people wanting to get married? Far more married people get divorced than gay people want to get married. Wouldn't it be better to ban divorce rather than gay marriage, to "defend" the institution?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. Showing one answer.

  • by sheenashark on November 29th, 2006

    sheenashark

    Well, the reasoning is that if we make an exception for gay marriage, then the bar on who can and cannot get married gets liften and soon polygomy can no longer be illegal and someone could marry their cat if they really wanted to, because they were in love. Most liberals I've met feel that marriage is an archaich, stuffy old religious institution that has no place in todays society. Ultimately I think that pushing gay marriage is a way to get rid of marriage altogether. The whole concept of homosexuality is that you can be with whomever you want to be with and have freedom and liberty in your life. Marriage was set up by God (in pretty much ALL religions) to a covenant..a contract...between one man and one woman for life. Divorce has already made a bit of a mochary of marriage. Granted, there are times it is necessary, but I don't think we just aren't getting along is a good one. If you were to get out of any other legal contract you'd better have a darn good reason for it.

    A few additions:
    I don't necessarily agree with this article, but it bothers me in that it does state that there should no longer be any protection for children......

    In addition, many in the religious right have employed a version of the “slippery slope” argument, charging that the gay rights movement has led inevitably to tolerance for pedophilia by eroding all traditional norms of sexual behavior. However, the “slippery slope” argument is based on the false premise that the protection of children from sexual activity is a long-standing part of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which has only recently come under assault as a result of the gay rights movement. In fact, throughout most of history, the Judeo-Christian tradition tolerated and even approved of sexual relations between adult males and girls of twelve years of age or even younger. The contemporary taboo against sex between adults and minors developed only in the late nineteenth century, as societies became increasingly committed to the ideals of individual rights and personal autonomy, which led to concern about the possibility of coercion and exploitation in adult-minor relationships.

    And a link. I don't feel like delving into the gay community sites any more as the advertising and content really leaves me unsettled. (I typically avoid sites that have pornographic advertising regardless of orientation)

    http://www.narth.com/docs/bioresearch.html

    Just for those who are wondering, I am not a homo-phobe. I am not scared of people or think of homosexuality as a disease that can be caught. I think it is a sexual disorder and yes, morally wrong. I am entitled to my opion as are you. As far as the government legislating morals, every law is based on some sort of moral. Even murder is a moral issue. The murderer may feel a conviction to kill people, does that mean we should legalize it? (an no, I'm not calling homosexuals murderers, just making about about "legislating morals") Take what you will out of my comments, but you asked a question and I've given you an answer from "the other side".

    And yes, I'd love to ban divorce to be honest. If legal seperation were available in the case of infidelity and abuse I think it would really help our society to think about the consequences of their decisions for themselves and their children and take responsibility for their actions again.

    So let the flaming begin. As I've said before, both sides, liberal and conservative to it here. But you know what, my life value doesn't depend on my ranking on a website.

    ______________________________________________________________
    Ok, I wasn't going to respond because honestly I didn't think it meritted a response. Personal insults because I have view the outcome of homosexual and promiscous behavior and have come to the conclusion it is not an acceptable option for a lifestyle hardly makes me immature in my views about love and sex. And I don't think the homosexual lifestyle can be protected the same way race can because it has NEVER been proven that there is any biological reason to become a homosexual, you choose it (very often because of horrible things done to you as a child or because of early recruitment, look around, this exists in the public schools). I think it is a sad thing that 70% of males infected with hiv are homosexuals, and I think that says something about the lifestyle they've chosen. I also think it is a sad thing that gay advocates even say once a homosexual man becomes infected with aids he becomes MORE promiscous because the danger of getting infected is no longer there for HIM. Where is the love in that community? They are also finding that the actual homosexual lifestyle, not public view, is what causes depression. (funny, they tried to say it was public view on divorce and not the actual divorce that caused depression in children back when also, and now know and awknowledge that it is the actual divorce that causes it) And no, reading literature from exports supporting homosexuality, looking at statistics and talking to people who are involved in homosexuality, I would not want my children, nor anyone, to choose this lifestyle. You may think it is because I'm a hater, but if I hated people, I would bless their lifestyle and go on my merry way. But my Lord and Savior and the love He has given me for people will not allow that.

    Comments

    • I wasn't trying to say you did. Sorry if it came across that way. I just wanted you to know I didn't rate you up or down because we disagree.

      sheenashark

      by sheenashark on November 29th, 2006

    • sheenashark: You should really do your research on the history of marriage. God did not set it up. It was created by the nomadic tribes that eventually became the early Hebrews as a way of managing property. Lineage could only be traced maternally, so a clans property was naturally bound to a woman. Men saw women as property as well and used marriage as a way of gaining and maintaining property and wealth (think dowry). There certainly wasn't anything "divine" about it. Also, I take opposition to your assertion that "The whole concept about homosexuality is that you can be with whomever you want..." The "whole concept" about being gay is that you're gay. You're not straight. You're not bisexual. You're gay. By accepting that you are gay, THEN you find the freedom and liberty to love whom you wish. But this could be said of just about anything in anyone's life. Once you accept who you really are, you find the same things. And I won't rate you down because of your views.

      teknimage

      by teknimage on November 30th, 2006

    • Sheenashark: the unpleasant core of your argument isn't really being stated because it's too dark to acknowledge. Those who are repelled by homosexuality enough to fight against gay rights have cut themselves off from sexuality as a whole. They've painted themselves into a tight little emotional corner where only CERTAIN kinds of expressions of love and sex are understood and acceptable, and they're trying desperately to make sure all other forms get suppressed. This is a deep fear rooted in childhood conditioning (sometimes even abusive conditioning), it has nothing whatsoever to do with morality or God. It's just not having yet "grown up" with regard to love and sex.

      Stableboy

      by Stableboy on November 30th, 2006

    • Stableboy: This is VERY well-put and insightful. A very thoughtful way to look at this issue. Thanks!

      teknimage

      by teknimage on November 30th, 2006

    • Oh my! Where did you get your facts? Umm... let's see wher you went wrong... many religions don't have a god. Maybe a pantheon, maybe prophets, maybe spirits or loas... certain other cultures allow multiple wives... if marriage is done away with then homosexuals won't have any way to 'officialize' their relationship the way a heterosexual couple does by getting wed... going for the 'slippery slope' argument again... I think I'll stop there. However, your ignorance is helpful in that it illustrates the "why?" part of the question better than any rational answer based on actual, accurate facts could have; it is exactly the type of thinking that is causing this to be such an issue.

      8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009

      by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on November 30th, 2006

    • I want to rate stableboy's comment!

      Anonymous

      by Anonymous on December 12th, 2006

    • Well on my exploratory visit to the Hell level, I did pass the control room. I saw a knob marked "Rate comment" and didn't think much of it at the time. Be right back...

      Stableboy

      by Stableboy on December 12th, 2006

    • +6 for at least arguing with some tact

      Moongrim

      by Moongrim on December 5th, 2009

    • Like
    • Report

    8 comments | Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading Why is the "defense of marriage" argument focused on gay people wanting to get married? Far more married people get divorced than gay people want to get married. Wouldn't it be better to ban divorce rather than gay marriage, to "defend" the institution?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

Answerbag

a Demand Media company