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. 11 helpful answers below.

  • by Wendora on November 29th, 2006

    Wendora

    Well, I think divorce should take a year to become final. You make a commitment, you make a promise and then you all of a sudden change your mind and want out? Getting married is too easy, so is getting divorced. You have to go through all these tests before you can drive a car and there is no competency test to find out if you can be in a lasting relationship with someone. At my husband's job they are now offering domestic partners both opposite sex and same sex the option of getting health benefits. Some people have no business getting married in the first place, just look at Britney Spears and Pamela Anderson.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by branciforte3241 on July 8th, 2009

    branciforte3241

    Because it was never about the defense of marriage. The movement was always about preventing gay marriage. It was given the name "Defense Of Marriage Act" so that the promoters wouldn't look like bigots.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on November 29th, 2006

    8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009

    I doubt it. Either you'd have more unhappy marriages, or less marriages. Would you like to see the returns of the old times when men considered women to be property like it was when the divorce rate was practically nil?
    Maybe you'd rather see people refuse to get married for fear of getting trapped in a life of unpleasantness and possibly abuse? Women are empowered enough that they may go that way, and any that I feel are intelligent enough to deserve to breed likely would do so out-of-wedlock.

    Would either of these outcomes defend marriage? Then again, the type of people who support this sort of thing are narrow-minded, short-sighted, optimistic ideologues so it never occurs to them that they might harm that which they're trying to protect, or invalidate their cause by looking stupid.

    • Like
    • Report

    4 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Anonymous on December 5th, 2009

    Anonymous

    It should be, "defense of bigotry" argument. If the good "defense of marriage" folks wanted to truly defend marriage, they would work to make adultry a crime punishable by death; outlaw divorce, and feed a few of the kids who aren't getting child support.

    I believe all marriges should be "civil" contracts, and couples can have a religous or spiritual service, if they wish, to be married.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • 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.

    • Like
    • Report

    8 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by muguet on November 17th, 2006

    muguet

    But many of those who are against gay marriage are not necessarily in favor of divorce. Many have expressed their dissatisfaction with the lack of commitment compared to the way relationships and marriage used to be about 50 or so years ago. What would you like them to do about it - outlaw divorce? Ostracize ANY divorced person? Even if divorce is not something with which others may agree, there's really nothing they can do about it. However, they CAN voice their opinions regarding gay marriage.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by JakobA I^_^I the alooney on February 3rd, 2011

    JakobA I^_^I the alooney

    Seeing as how both of the alternatives you mention depend on "Make a law against ..." I tend to doubt that either will be successful in 'saving' the institution of marriage. Force and coercion in spiritual matters are unlikely to achieve anything but an increase in hypocrisy and loss of spiritual honesty.

    regards JakobA

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by rebellious angel on April 11th, 2011

    rebellious angel

    gay marriage should be allowed and so should divorce. No one should have to be stuck in a crumbling marriage

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Moongrim on December 5th, 2009

    Moongrim

    Because like always, those who are afraid of gay people, will do anything to avoid mention of the real problems with marriages: their own actions.

    Banning divorce would only result in life insurance policies increased in being collected.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by sega256 on June 28th, 2010

    sega256

    you would think so, but then again the religious fascists wouldnt be able to rip away rights from a minority group

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Anonymous on November 24th, 2009

    Anonymous

    I'm with you. Gay people cant help but liking men Im Bi and i just might turn out to be fully gay but if i wanted to marrie the same sex ta hell with it i will i dont need a pice of paper to tell me if im in love with someone. I think gays should marry. GAY PRIDE!

    No 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 BUZZ

Hernia x ray
Would you agree with the argument of the defence
Argumentation about get married

Answerbag

a Demand Media company