Well, anyway, after messing up the first post… :roll:
I’ll copy and paste:
Something occured to me today. Mabey it’s obvious, or mabey I am just slow.
Long story short, I realised that a huge number of people who oppose the rights of gays to be married have themselves been divorced and remarried once or even more than once. In fact, common statistics say that around 50% of heterosexual people who get married file for divorce.
Should devorced people be listened to when they say gay marriage is a “mockery” of traditional marriage? Divorce is just such a mockery, and much more prevalent and common.
It seems to me that getting married, divorced, and remarried is more of a “mockery” than marrying a person of the same gender one time.
It’s not gay marriage, in particular, that they’re opposed to. They’re against homosexuality altogether. It’s just politically inconvenient to say that (gays do vote, y’know), so they target the aspects of homosexuality that they think they can get away with.
If they were really all that concerned with protecting “traditional marriage”, there would be more outcry against those weekend-long celebrity marriages, etc.. :roll:
To be fair, not all heterosexual couples are against gay marriage. It’s just that the portion who are against gay marriage make so much noise that it sounds like they have a majority.
Where I live, approx 50% of couples are not married - you have three options: (1) Marriage, (2) Civil Union and (3) Defacto Union. All three are available to same sex couples. The irony is that heterosexual couples are abandoning marriage in favour of civil union or defacto union, while same sex couples are fighting hard for the right to marry.
I guess I don’t look at it that way because I want to believe that people just oppose the marriage, like they say, and not homosexual people themselves, but what you said does seem to make sense. Until today I have assumed they were being honest when they said, “I want to protect marriage” (and no doubt some are), but after my “mini epiphany” I’ll probably look it at a bit differently.
A person’s sexual self-indentity, and their choice of a life partner (or whatever name we give it) is nobody else’s business but the people involved. It isn’t the government’s business, it isn’t my business… nobody’s business.
But yes, it smacks of hipocracy that those who would condemn same sex marriage, are also the same folk who turn a blind eye and a shut mouth to divorce… in addition to greater sins.
Just wanted to point out that the Roman Catholic Church is firmly against both gay marriage and straight ( ) divorce. Then again, the Church is also against gay sex, straight sex, …
You’d never have guessed that last Sunday was my first time at Mass in years!!
Nah… they are not being honest… at least many are not. They say they are protecting marriage, but they are really just desperate to keep from having to actually get to know and possibly even like someone who is so different from what they want to believe. As you said, if they really wanted to protect Marriage, then they wouldn’t be getting divorced at such great rates.
By the way, the 50% statistic is not accurate…I’ve read this before so I went looking for the backup. Accurate statistics are very hard to pin down, but here’s an article showing why it’s now actually estimated to be just over 40% (not that it makes much difference…just trying to shed a little light):
I voted against the ban here in Ohio, but I can’t say I lose any sleep because it passed.
Marriage is just a piece of paper, and not even an important one if you look at the lack of respect straight folks give it; Why not create your own oath ceremony that has more honor and dignity than any straight oath?
The majority said no, and as long as that voice doesn’t conflict with either the federal or state constitutions, I’m willing to live with it.
I’m really happy that it remained a state issue, and not a federal issue. More decisions should be left to the states. Just be glad it wasn’t a federal ban.
That’s true only if opposition to gay marriage is based on protecting the dignity of the marriage institution. If opposition is based on disapproval of homosexuality, and most of it probably is, then it’s not hypocritical to turn a blind eye to high divorce rates.
the term “Marriage” to me, has religious connotations associated with it, and as such, should not be the province of the state (or federal) government in the first place.
If two people want to enter into a “civil union”, in other words, hold property together, be responsible for the other’s medical, etc. - then they should be able to. Doesn’t matter if the “they” are man / woman, two woman, two men, mother and daughter, two friends, whatever.
A “marriage” is a religious ceremony where a religious community is giving it’s blessing on the union. The religious entity can set the parameters of said union.
But - this state doesn’t allow civil unions, so my thoughts mean nothing here (and I voted against the proposed amendment back in the fall).
This is just another of the many areas where I tend to think Libertarian-like and feel that the government has gotten into things it has no business being into.
A lot of people take marriage very seriously. When I got married, it did mean something. Whether it is analagous to a relationship has a lot to do with the debate.
My original thoughts to the anti-gay marriage argument was that it was some new manifestation of homophobia, but now I think I was wrong. I now think that many people saw the gay-marriage movement as going just one step too far. For many “traditionalists”, marriage is still a religious institution or sacroment, and they believe that the gay-marriage movement is taking civil rights into the religious arena. That’s how I see their side of the argument, and although I don’t share their fear that religion will be overrun by liberalism, I can see that their argument has some basis.
Interesting approach…I never thought about that. So if marriage is, in fact, a religious institution, then the “separation of church and state” (which doesn’t really exist) should be applied to prevent civil rights (government) from involving itself in marriage (religion). If I were to support that line, I would feel obligated to also support removing all tax benefits/liabilities for married couples, and stop issuing licenses.
Educated? About what? I don’t believe people who are against gay marriage are taking that stance because they’re stupid (okay, maybe some are, but most aren’t). As always, someone not agreeing with you (or anybody) about an issue doesn’t mean they’re stupid. They just don’t agree with you.
Then why don’t gay-marriage opponents propose civil union laws in their states which provide all the same legal benefits as marriage? As missy said, her state doesn’t even allow civil unions, yet they saw fit to ban gay marriage. Homophobia.
If marriage is a purely religious institution, then there should not be any legal rights tied to it. Get married in a church, synagogue, wherever, for the religious aspects. Go to a government official for a certificate of civil union for the legal aspects. Why wouldn’t that work?
Not quite. Marriage would become a civil union with whatever benefits the state sees fit to attach to it. This line of reasoning lead some European countries to institute secular marriage (in the late 19th century) which has to be formed before a state official and not (just) before a cleric. Also, secular (state) marriage permits divorce, while religious marriage does not (except in Judaism and perhaps some other religions I am not aware of).
Exactly! Saying you need to educate the public about X means that you think they would agree with you if only they knew the facts. It’s kind of an arrogant thing to say, because it completely denies the possibility that they are disagreeing BECAUSE of the facts. Furthermore, it makes debate impossible because they’re now coming from a position that they’re educated and you’re ignorant, rather than the standpoint that you are both educated people who disagree for equally valid reasons.
) divorce. Then again, the Church is also against gay sex, straight sex, …
)