Protecting the sanctity of marriage

[jjmalonejr]

I have some ideas for protecting the sanctity of marriage that would seem to me to be address problems that are more threating to families than the current debate on gay marriage.

How about we make DIVORCE illegal. Let's make "'til death to us part" have actual meaning.

How about we make ADULTERY a crime. Let's make "forsaking all others" have actual meaning.

I don't seriously advocate these ideas, but I think they serve to expose the essential hypocricy of the current debate. How many of the folks who are so bent out of shape about "protecting marriage" would support these ideas. How many of them are divorced? How many of them have been unfaithful to their spouse? I'd like to see those statistics.

Gay marriage is NOT a threat to traditional marriage the way divorce and infidelity are. The real threat to marriage is a society that doesn't take marriage seriously. I don't think that problem can be fixed by government intervention or constitutional amendments.

[redqueen]

1. Sad thing is I heard a Kerry supporter

call in to Washington Journal this a.m. saying he agrees with Bu$h on this.

:eyes:

[jjmalonejr]

3. Yeah, I heard that...

...although he didn't say he was a Kerry supporter, he said he did not support Bush's re-election.

Regardless, you can see that the gay marriage debate won't do much to save Bush despite Americans' general discomfort with the idea. Most Americans understand that there are more pressing issues. Those who don't would probably vote for Bush either way.

[noiretextatique]

2. and public stoning for adulterers

or at least make them wear the scarlet letter...

the "sanctity of marriage" is a smokescreen to keep the homophobes lathered up...otherwise, they might pay attention to the real failures and misdeeds of bushco.

[PA Democrat]

9. There would be a lot of scarlet letters

on the chests of the members of congress.

[Justitia]

4. The opposite of marriage is DIVORCE

I don't believe in outlawing divorce either, but this is the most effective counterpoint to that silly argument about strengthening marriage.

If we want to strengthen marriage, don't we want more marriage?
Less singledom? Less divorce?

Want to strengthen marriage? Then outlaw divorce and let more people get married. Duh.

It will never happen. This is ALL about homosexual sex and we ALL know it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Make sure you contact Congress. Try this or any of the other

activism sites out there if you need a letter to send:

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?ItemId=16487

[gpandas]

6. nice post, but...

the use of logic and common sense is antithetical to people of religion.

[Warpy]

7. anybody who wants to protect marriages

needs to consider raising wages, providing drug and alcohol rehab, and providing respite child care so that parents can take an occasional breather.

[Nadienne]

8. A bigger insult to marriage than same sex marriage is

Couples who decide to not get married because they don't need a legal contract to disuade or prevent their other from leaving them.

[Malva Zebrina]

10. "sanctity of marriage" is a religious concept

Marriage, as I see it, is a legal agreement that both parties agree to and sign contracts declaring mutual consent to the agreement. It allows both parties certain legal rights. It is a legal contract signed by both parties.

Seen in this light, it neither demands never ending love, unwavering devotion for life even in impossible situations, or declares itself under the jurisdiction of a god.

The "sanctity" part is a religious concept.

[Samoflange]

11. What always gets me is

how these fundie nutjobs don't see the blatant hypocrisy in what they're preaching.

The US government has no business protecting the "sanctity" of anything; as we are a secular nation, as set out by the 1st Amendment, any specific religion's "sacred" or "holy" object, ideal, or belief is off limits.

On top of that, these morans never seem to understand that even if the US government WERE allowed to protect the sanctity of religiously sacred objects, values, and ideals, it would have to protect those that belong to all religions: Cows, Sundays, Saturdays (7th Day Adventists), every single Native American holy site... (and they sure don't want to lose the beef industry, NASCAR and Football days, Saturday golf games, and vacations to national parks!)

Then again, these jerks will never understand the reason behind prohibiting government recognition of religion anyway.

[Redleg]

12. Someone please explain how gay marriages hurt my own

and destroy the fabric of society.

Just once I would like someone in the media to ask the right-wingers to explain this.

It seems to me that if the conservatives believe marriage provides stability for society, then why wouldn't gay marriage provide stability?

[Ducks In A Row]

13. The thing that annoys me the most about their reasons for "defending"

is that they bring up "the children". They insist that marriage is just for having children. Yet the numbers of hetero couples marrying and not having children has been rising (for many reasons).

No one is forcing hetero couples to sign a paper, saying they plan to have children in order to get that license.

No one is forcing these couple to give back their licenses if they haven't procreated within so many years of marriage.

Marriage isn't only about having children. Children are a happy addition, but is it fair to think that couple who marry must have children in order to have a real marriage?

Besides gay people have children all the time without marriage (biological, and adopted). Why doesn't the right-wing care about these children and allow their parents to marry and be eligible for all those benefits?

So if marriage is not just having children, the right-wing has to stop using that argument.