- Michael Harrison
- Ann Arbor, MI
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is there anyone trying to ban heterosexual monogamous marriage?
1 in 5 marriages end in divorce, according to one TED talk, and 1 in 4 women will suffer from domestic violence, according to statistics from a fact sheet by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
That sounds fairly detrimental to society and the "sanctity of marriage", which should be enough to have heterosexual marriage legally banned, correct?
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Zaz Tao 30+
As much as the idea appeals to me, I'm all for religious freedom (including freedom from religion.)
What I would like to see is a dismantling of the connection to the state, and much of the reasons that gay people want to get into marriage.
As part of a contract to provide a stable environment for children: OK
As a tax break: No, it's discriminatory to people who don't want to get married.
As a legally binding commingling of income: No, I want this whole business of depending on income to survive to go away, it's unfair, wastes time and is bad for health, the environment, morality, etc. Not only should one not have to depend on a spouses income and assets, one should not have to depend on any income and assets. We can go beyond that and still make up some incentive game for luxury and unique things, places to live, whatnot.
What IS with this silly stuff about visiting people in hospitals anyway? Anybody should get in and the patient should have the power to have anybody kicked out. When it comes to medical proxies, okay, you can figure out some sensible rules there, but the whole legal racket needs to get softened up when it comes to life, death and medicine anyway. Real bad things happen and we have to deal with it, it shouldn't always be an income opportunity.
Rules and law are good to an extent, but they are really getting out of hand in so many ways. In the 236 years of nationhood, we must have a stack of laws that measure in kilometers now. This is probably doing more harm than good overall.
Marriage as a declaration of love and commitment is a sweet thing. As an insurance policy, corporate merger, retirement plan, control mechanism, employment program for lawyers, tabloid fodder, weapon, etc., it's just ugly.
But while all that legal/financial protection is still in place, it is not fair to exclude non-heterosexuals.
Michael Harrison
Such laws to some extent could even be said to be in violation, or close to it, of freedom of religion, and other constitutional rights.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Its more like 2/5 to 1/2 of marriages failing here.
I think the violence should be illegal.
I have no issue with marriage between consenting adults.
Suggest Non violent unhappy marriage is the right of all people, including homosexuals.
Mark Kurtz 20+
It seems like a huge "stretch" to say "detrimental to society" should be enough to ban legal heterosexual marriage. People who are "hetero" who want to get married would be victims of discrimination? Ban one discrimination to accept another?
Also, since LZ cites the US Constitution as the gay agenda, then people could ask, "Did the national forefathers face such issues during their formulation of the founding documents? Did they actually have issues with homosexuality at that time? They probably never thought of it; maybe if there were issues in families they were "swept under the rug". If there were public issues, would they have named homosexuality as an evil?
I am not in favor of discrimination of persons. But, another thought comes-----perhaps the Constitution is not fully evolved! It is a result of thousands upon thousands of years of human experience and perhaps there lurks around the corner an update we have never imagined. This does not address your question, but I think the Constitution could change in the next 100 years. Surely it would not ban legal "hetero" marriage, would it?
Food for thought.
Peace,
MK
Michael Harrison
I am not actually in favor of banning marriage of any kind, with the exceptions of when at least 1 member is unable to make an informed decision of whether to get married.
I am more interested in trying to use the threat of removing marriage, a privilege that most people take for granted, to make people reevaluate what they have, a sort of modern day version of Solomon's "cut the kid in half" solution, to make Gay Rights and Gay marriage, not about other people's rights, but about everyone's rights.
just how vulnerable would some people's lives and situations would become, if marriage, regardless of the gender, age, religion or anything else about of the people involved, were not recognized by the law?
Mark Kurtz 20+
If marriage were not recognized by the law.....hard for me to imagine. A free for all? Would mankind suffer degeneracy? Would civility suffer? Has anyone asked what is the purpose of marriage?
Just asking as I am not sure regarding your implied suggestion.
Peace,
MK
Michael Harrison
what I am wondering is if anyone is, or has used domestic violence, divorce, and the other negative issues that are fairly common among heterosexual marriages to make people reevaluate and confront marriage.
pointing out that some heterosexual monogamous marriages are just and demeaning to the sanctity of marriage as they claim homosexual marriages are.
I am curious as to how effective making these points, and threatening to take away the legal protections on marriage would be in persuading people to not treat homosexual marriage as some kind of threat.