This conversation is closed.

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?

  • thumb

    Zaz Tao

    • +1
    Jun 16 2012: I sure would give a listen to a better argument for that ban than the divorce and violence one given.

    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.
    • Jun 16 2012: I agree that current laws about marriage do seem to give something of an unfair bias towards certain religious/social practices, and it is unfair to provide laws that help certain religions/lifestyles more than others.

      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.
  • Jun 15 2012: Michael,
    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.
    • Jun 16 2012: Mark Kurtz,
      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?
      • Jun 16 2012: OK, for clarity, what is the idea you have worth spreading?

        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.

        • Jun 16 2012: one of the arguments against gay marriage, is the protection of the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage.

          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.
  • thumb
    Jun 16 2012: That one in five marriages may not last does not suggest marriage is detrimental- only that for 20% of couples the relationship could not work for their lifetimes. Many people who divorce do not, in fact, regret the years they spent together, though some do. Some people grow apart and find that they can lead better lives apart. The choice to marry was not necessarily detrimental to society or even to the married couple, nor the choice to divorce. In terms of domestic violence, I don't know how common it might also be in relationships that do not involve marriage. Violence among people who interact in any context is a bad thing, but that does not mean that human interaction itself is detrimental to society.
  • thumb
    Jun 16 2012: Interesting perspective.

    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.