It kinda sounds like you're saying that if there are more marriages allowed, there will be more divorces. Marriages in general tend to end in divorce. If more people marry, there will naturally be more divorces. That doesn't seem like much of an excuse for banning gays from getting married. Legislation that denies every other marriage, gay or straight, will cut back on divorce too.
I definitely agree with you that divorce is ugly. If either candidate really wanted to protect marriage, they'd target divorce's causes. They'd be ranting about doing more to support marriage counseling, and maybe encouraging relationship education in schools. Anything progressive would work. Turning to the constitution as Bush is doing is regressive, and shying away and leaving it to the states, like what Kerry is doing, is passive.
Or, you know, y'all could write in yours truly. I'd set things straight.
Re: I dunno...nokparantaNovember 2 2004, 04:13:33 UTC
you do have some well put points. let me clarify some things. i am not implying that if there are more marriages that there would be be more divorces. I am simply implying that there are so many more complications involved in homosexual marriage than in heterosexual marriage. Not to say that they cannot be life partners, but to be actual legal partners is another issue.
Re: I dunno...craqheadNovember 2 2004, 04:34:08 UTC
But don't you think that if gays couldn't be legal partners, there'd be more problems? As far as the law would be concerned, their kids would be bastards. They wouldn't be able to receive tax breaks that would help them raise their kids, for example. And I don't think that your example really shows that there are more complications involved in gay marriage than with straight marriage. I mean, what happens to adopted children with their straight adopted parents divorce? What about the use of surrogate mothers, or sperm donors, or egg donors? It doesn't even need to be that complicated. What if a straight couple divorces after they've had a kid for 8 months? These sorts of issues need to be left up to professionals that are trained to deal with these problems, not the iron fist of the law.
Re: I dunno...nokparantaNovember 2 2004, 15:59:47 UTC
When a Straight Couple divorces, the law is pretty clear; there is a process to who has custody, and who pays child support (generally the father, depending on the who has more money). To further note, their is a name ascribed to the child. That child is forever bound to that parent or parents form the birth certificate. Once that child has that name, even if the other parent is deadbeat, the government will be able to understand and grant fincancial assistance to that child and his/her family. If a homosexual couple gets married (who's name will they use, and even though that is a subjective call, it will matter in case of a split) what will happen to the child when their is a split, and one of the partners either remarrries and changes name. It is a tough call, and it is certainly more complex of a situation than the foster, egg & sperm donor, and surrogate mother cases. The law should not have a hand in WHO you marry, but how it is done. Marriage is seldomly for just that, marriage. It is an institution for family enrichment. It
( ... )
to quote you.. "there are so many more complications involved in homosexual marriage than in heterosexual marriage"
firstly, who are you to judge secondly, i'm curious as to what complications are furthered more in a homosexual relationship than a heterosexual relationship.
relationships, marriage, divorce.. society is an ugly ugly thing. i will agree with you there. but love, true love, is what holds it all together. so who are we, just normal citizens of this fucked up earth, to deny two people the right to love each other just like everyone else? regardless of what sex they may be..
Hey Nkem, I know it's your journal, and it might be okay with you, but I can't stand anonymous posts. I probably don't know the person but jeez, what is he hiding from?
Comments 7
I definitely agree with you that divorce is ugly. If either candidate really wanted to protect marriage, they'd target divorce's causes. They'd be ranting about doing more to support marriage counseling, and maybe encouraging relationship education in schools. Anything progressive would work. Turning to the constitution as Bush is doing is regressive, and shying away and leaving it to the states, like what Kerry is doing, is passive.
Or, you know, y'all could write in yours truly. I'd set things straight.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
"there are so many more complications involved in homosexual marriage than in heterosexual marriage"
firstly, who are you to judge
secondly, i'm curious as to what complications are furthered more in a homosexual relationship than a heterosexual relationship.
relationships, marriage, divorce..
society is an ugly ugly thing.
i will agree with you there.
but love, true love, is what holds it all together.
so who are we, just normal citizens of this fucked up earth, to deny two people the right to love each other just like everyone else? regardless of what sex they may be..
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment