Should Heterosexuals be allowed to married?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Jul 31 2007, 09:46 AM) [snapback]487995[/snapback]</div>

Perhaps refine that a bit more by saying celebrities seem to be constantly mocking the institution of marriage!

 

Hehehe... it would seem, with the overall divorce rate among heterosexuals as high as it is, that not just celebrities mock the institution---or else, there are WAY TOO MANY celebrities in the world!

 

Married? Yes. Have kids? No.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChristoB @ Jul 31 2007, 09:55 AM) [snapback]488003[/snapback]</div>

Speaking in VERY general terms, I think marriage on the whole has been devalued in society as a the most serious and forever kind of commitment to more of a do-over mentality if you don't get it right the first, second, or third time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Washington1788 @ Jul 31 2007, 11:10 AM) [snapback]488018[/snapback]</div>

Your statement is correct today its just a piece of paper and if you make your spouse mad enough they wont even try to work out the differences. They just move on to the next person.

Very different from the 20's-70's, seems we started the downward spiral in the 80's and each 10 years it gets worse...

 

I would tend to agree with you, very generally speaking, Washington, as the child of divorced parents who each remarried, and brother to a thrice-married sister.

Though is it really a "society today" mentality? Afterall, trace back to Henry VIII, who set the "do-over" bar pretty high! Yet for all his "justified" do-overs, he never did satisfy his noble intentions of securing a male heir on the throne (who would beget yet more male heirs) despite those 6 wives

All of which kinda begs the question---by today's measure, if in fact marriage is devalued and "throwaway" by a seemingly large portion of heterosexuals (ie, people eligible to marry) just what is left to "ruin" in that institution, should gays marry too? Seems under the current leadership by heterosexuals, the institution ain't doin' too good.

And of course, there are plenty of happily married, together-for-decades couples to try and balance against the high divorce rates... (Although, I'm reasonably sure that, mixed in with that pool are a number of couples who desperately want to divorce, but can't bring themselves to do it!) I'm just as sure there are also plenty of gay couples who would, once allowed, add to those together-forever numbers. (Just as there are plenty of gay couples, who would end up divorced eventually, just like their straight counterparts.)

 

Your marriage is what you make it. What Brittney and Kevin do has nothing to do with it. What Adam and Steve do, to follow the OP's point, has nothing to do with it either.

 

Excellent summation, Hyo! (Though of course, in my sister's case, I'd argue there's also a LOT to be said, for really knowing your mate well, *before* you take that plunge, and then find out you can't make it!

 

I knew it was a matter of time before the Gay Marriage side was thrown into the mix....

There I provided you with the facts on Gay Divorce rates, in a quick swoop.

 

The ideal of marriage was developed during a time when women often died in childbirth or soon after, life expectancy was very short, and marriage had much more to do with property, politics, and inheritance than it did the preferences of the parties involved.

The average couple could count on being married from 1 to 10 years, due to disease, childbed fever, etc. Men often remarried, so that someone would be there to care for the children (and, have more, of course). Women left alone often died in poverty, or entered religious orders in order to survive.

Fast forward to today. Life expectancies are much higher. A lot less women die in childbirth. Property laws have changed, politics have less to do with marriage ties between warring tribes, and inheritance is less of an issue. Couples can now look forward to being married 30-50 years, if not more.

I think that there should be a change in the marriage "ideal" to reflect the changes in life. When the kids grow up and move out, if the couple that is left discover that they were better parenting partners than friends, there should be an amiable, acceptable way to complete that relationship, and then move on.

And, for another perspective, this was in this week's This is True: http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-99cent_divorce.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Washington1788 @ Jul 31 2007, 11:10 AM) [snapback]488018[/snapback]</div>

almost like abortion - its so easy that why bother about preventing the formation of life in the first place -
divorce is so easy - why bother taking the time and effort to see if it will work.

in both cases, there is a need for them, but today they both seem to be a primary option rather than the option of last resort.

 

To marry? No. To civilly unite? Sure.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 31 2007, 01:45 PM) [snapback]488275[/snapback]</div>

I've met some couples that were definitely uncivil!

 

i have met a lot of people that should never have married, let alone reproduced. my parents were fully dysfunctional, and their following relationships were not that great either. i was never going to get married. i met my husband and 3 months later we were married. that was almost 8 years ago. i believe that people treat marriage like it's disposable, at the first sign of trouble the cut and run, or stay and cheat. marriage is a job, not a lifestyle. it is a great responsibility, as well as a constant gift. why should it be exclusive to heterosexuals? i am not married to reproduce, as i want no children. i am married out of love and companionship.

 

I'm grinning now, absorbing the 2 short-n-sweet answers posted above.
Afterall, the original question of this thread was, "should heterosexuals be allowed to marry"

1 vote for Yes, but they shouldn't reproduce
(that could certainly bring to a close the entire marriage debate, eventually...)

1 vote for No, but civil unions would be ok
(which suggests separating "marriage" (ie, the religious sacrament) from the the current civil benefits (ie, governmental/legal) bestowed on a union... which I'd interpret as then making those civil benefits available to all couples electing to form such a civil union between themselves. Seems a very fair approach.)

On a sidebar... I've loved being able to check out PC during the day... facing layoff in 80 days, and the workload has all but evaporated... lots of time to stay up to date on posts here!

 

Aside from sentimentallity, there is no real reason for the government to treat marriage differently than any other contract between parties.

 

marriage should be treated seriously, yes. but people do a lot of leaping before looking nowadays and put themselves and their families in really crappy situations. after all, there are a lot of people out there who badly mistreat their families, are drug addicts, involved in crime, refuse to support their families, etc. so i'd say in quite a few cases divorce is justified, even if it's caused strictly by lack of foresight from the parties involved.

i also know people who only continue to be married because they'd rather be married to someone they barely tolerate than be alone... which is also a depressing situation IMO. so there is a flipside.

 

Can't we all just have sex and get along?