Gay’s ‘Divorce’ Argument May be Damaging to Cause

The GLBT community has recently addressed high divorce rates in their continued effort to win over public opinion in favor of same-sex marriage. Their argument is best illustrated through the “2010 California Marriage Protection Act”.

It is apparent that the GLBT community neglected to see how easily their attack on those defending traditional marriage, can actually be quite damaging to their own argument.

When high divorces rates are mentioned by the GLBT community, they do not claim that divorce rates or marriage as an institution would improve with same-sex marriage, but are rather arguing the following:

“Marriage as an institution is already suffering and failing…you might as well just give up on it all together. It’s already so bad, just stop trying to salvage any ‘sanctity’ and abandon any ‘traditional’ ideology that has apparently not worked in preserving marriage.”

It is important to realize that no reasonable person is really trying to outlaw marriage, and no one in their right mind actually believes either side of the debate wants to outlaw divorce. The GLBT community has created the “2010 California Marriage Protection Act” as a satirical means of making the aforementioned argument.

As society has moved away from traditional family values through premarital sex, co-habitation, and no-fault divorce, etc. an increase in divorce rates has followed. This understanding immediately flips the GLBT argument against them. It appears that divorce rates have skyrocketed as a result of moving away from traditional family values.

Another point damaging to the GLBT community’s acknowledgment of high divorce rates is that the vast majority of people recognize that homosexual relationships are less stable and more promiscuous than heterosexual relationships. This fact has been verified with studies and statistics. In Sweden, where the entire nation has had same-sex “registered partnerships” since 1995, a 7-year study shows that lesbian women without children are 3 times (200%) more likely to “divorce” than heterosexual couples. statistics therefore suggest that same-sex marriage would cause a significant increase in divorce rates…and no one would argue that higher divorce rates are a good thing for society.

Some homosexuals suggest the reason for increased “divorce” rates among same-sex couples is because of the stress and hardships gay couples face in society. This argument will likely fail with most heterosexuals who feel that feeling uncomfortable (or at worst not being invited) at the family holiday gatherings pales in comparison with other marital stresses such as a miscarriage (something gays can’t understand 1st-hand), financial challenges, or serious health complications. Rather, the gay community has established a sub-culture that seems to contradict the ideal of monogamy.

As CA’s Prop 8 continues to be challanged and same-sex marriage is being pushed in other states such as Maine, time will tell if the gay’s use of high divorce rates will help, or in fact harm their agenda.

Advertisements

8 Responses to Gay’s ‘Divorce’ Argument May be Damaging to Cause

  1. Megan says:

    I have to say this to OK now’s remark, “They (meaning Mormons) do not have the right to affect the public beyond those walls.” When a proposition is put on a ballot, then we DO have that right, as all legal citizens do.

    Also, both sides DEFINITELY need to settle down. John Stossel gave this report last year: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=5370536&page=1
    Granted it mostly talks about straight sex, but I love how he ignores the moral card – that having sex blatantly around us all the time cheapens it, or distorts our views of it.

    With the whole “thanks! that sounds so romantic,” why can’t it? Why can’t domestic partnership be renamed something different, like “alternate love” or whatever?

    • Nick says:

      With all do respect Megan. That proposition was pushed and funded heavily by Mormons (not necessarily the church itself) or it wouldn’t have been on a ballot. The decision giving you as a woman the right to vote was made judges voted in by the people to make sure that everything is constitutional and equal. If that decision had been up to the people you may very well not be voting at all right now. Almost every major civil right has been made by judges. If those landmark decisions had not been made many things we don’t even think about today (I.E woman voting, interracial marriage, slavery) would not be possible or would still be happening. In certain non democratic societies to this day you can own a slave and women aren’t aloud to read.
      *Reality Alert*

      Canadian Mormon’s are doing just fine gays haven’t forced there way into temple marriages and so on and gays are legally married there. God fearing folks in other gay friendly country’s are still practicing. Gays have not taken over those country’s schools and churches and turned them into the bright pink gay havens of love as some ridiculous fear mongers would have you believe. I was watching some anti-gay marriage commercials out of Maine and it really is just getting comical how monstrous the ads were trying to make equality look like. As a gay guy I was actually laughing at times.

      In answer to Garrett’s thought. Even if gays were more promiscuous or divorced more often it still doesn’t give one group the right to take something away from contenting adults NOT breaking a law.

      Romance and CA 297.5 The romantic part of two Mormons getting married is the non government related beautiful ceremony that takes place in the temple. The state giving you your marriage cert is not necessarily the romantic part it’s the law/statement/business part. So, my ceremony with my man will be the romantic. I still have (some) laws my side am now banned from the equal statement part. What gays are being reluctantly given in lesser than, period.

      Garrett, I would love to force you to tell the partner of a gay/lesbian person who has lost the love of their life after 30 years that what they had was just of a sexual nature because they weren’t wanting the “hassle” of a relationship.

      • garrettmyler says:

        Hello? Is anyone willing to listen to and address the most critical point of the gay marriage debate? Nick, no matter how many times you repeat the “civil rights” lie, doesn’t make it valid. Real legal rights have to do with how people are treated. In CA, domestic partnerships are treated the EXACT SAME as married folk. You give different things different names. Blacks or white, male or female…they law gives them equal protection while still allowing us to use different names or titles. The American people still want to distinguish a difference between heterosexual relationships that can biologically result in children and family, and homosexual ones that cannot. Simple as that.

        You however would have the PERCEIVED “right” of gay “marriage” at the sacrifice of the very real and fundamental rights of democracy and the people’s right to amend their constitution. Whether you like it or not, this makes you a radical and a threat to the fundamental principles that built the great nation.

        Oh, and gay marriage, when forced by the courts have already begun to takes it’s toll on infringing upon the rights of parents and religion…as most apparent in Massachusetts.

        Finally, don’t you dare try to twist my words. You were the one that tried to dismiss documented “divorce” rates and promiscuity in the gay community by suggesting it was because historically gay’s could only carry on sexual relationships and nothing more. My comments where made merely to shed light on how ridiculous that excuse is.

  2. garrettmyler says:

    @can’t use real name: You said…

    “They do not have the right to affect the public beyond those walls. In America you have the freedom to do what you want on your side of the fence.”

    You just exposed the radical nature of the same-sex marriage agenda. That’s an anti-democracy and pro-anarchy statement if I’ve ever heard one. Los Angeles, California, the USA is comprised of Americans, whether they be Christians, Blacks, Homos, etc. Each have the right to participate in the gov’t that governs them. Just because a person is of a particular religion, doesn’t mean they don’t deserve the ability to participate in democracy and to have freedom outside of the walls of their church. You speak of some kind of a fence, as if we all aren’t part of a greater society that collectively governs what behavior is appropriate. Your “I can do whatever I want on ‘my side of the fence'” argument sounds more like anarchy than democracy.

    Also, everyone deserves the same legal rights, but THE PEOPLE have the right to define marriage. If your concern is that “domestic partnership” isn’t romantic enough…voice your insecurities to THE PEOPLE, put it on a ballot, and see if you win their votes. But if you want “marriage” enough to fight democracy and promote anarchy in order to obtain it, then you should go to “the other side of the fence”…Canada.

    What you’re saying is that the gay community is more promiscuous because historically, gays could have secret sex, but that it was “impossible” to have a secret relationship? Still sounds like a pretty messed up sub-culture to me…merely an excuse to justify having sex without the “hassles” of a relationship. Look, you may feel you are an exception, but lets get real…no one who has ever seen a gay pride parade would believe they are a bunch of people who want monogamous relationship. Again, Swedish statistics provide tangible evidence of this understanding. Stereotypes don’t appear out of thin air.

  3. Megan says:

    My friend Andrea and I had a discussion on Facebook recently over Stephen Colbert’s coverage of Washington’s recent adaptation of domestic partnership: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/colbert-eviscerates-gay-m_n_335076.html

    As a somewhat liberal Mormon (meaning I’m an Obama supporter, Yes on 8 voter, anti-war in Iraq, pro universal health care if it’s like Kaiser Permanente chick), I asked my friend why she didn’t support gay marriage being called something different while having the same rights. Her response, in summary? “It’s still not marriage.”

    Some gay and lesbian couples feel that having the right to use the word marriage to describe their union is more important than the rights/privileges that COULD be associated with domestic partnership. When Prop 22 was passed, many people said, “as long as they call it [meaning gay marriage] something else, that’s fine.” But obviously in WA that wasn’t the case, as the Protect Marriage coalition there created a petition against giving domestic partners the same legal rights as a married couple (where the definition of marriage is man/woman).

    I don’t think I would’ve signed that petition. That goes against the feelings I had with Prop 22, and with Prop 8 – that if gay and lesbian couples wanted more rights, they needed to go through the proper channels to get them, as domestic partners. Elton John agrees with me. 🙂

    http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm

    Granted, if the Church took a stance on it, I’d pray and naturally follow the prophet.

    It’s a hard thing for me to know that gay people hate me for voting and actively supporting Yes on 8. In college I read “In Quiet Desparation” and have cried many times hearing the stories of Latter-day Saints who are torn because of their sexual preference, who commit suicide on stake center steps because they don’t think they can take it anymore. (RIP Stuart Matis). I hope that one day I can be a positive example to them, of someone who loves them and wants them to be happy as I am happy as a straight woman.

  4. Try This says:

    I would absolutely compare heterosexual couples to homosexual couples on almost all subjects of stress. In this time, I think the added issue of the homosexual couple being marginalized and at risk of loosing a home if a partner should die or loosing children in a custody battle over the gender of they’re partner (just a few examples) makes an entire comparison impossible. Lesbian couples have miscarriages and can experience that first hand indeed. I am aware of a male couple who’s surrogate miscarried twice before delivering two children for them. I personally am into the idea of adoption as a gay man. I feel to many homeless children need the home I could provide. I don’t think that high divorce rates should have any impact on the discussion due to the fact gays are just barely able to be out and it is way to early in the game to start focusing on those statistics only a few states have even made it legal. A national statistic on gay divorce isn’t even possible. At this point national statistics on heterosexual divorce are possible and it isn’t looking good. That has nothing to do with gays. Historically gays could only sneak around and have sex with each other because until the 50’s they could be jailed in the United States for being gay (not that long ago). As well as the fact that absolutely no recognition of a legitimate homosexual relationship was acceptable. The only relationships they could have were closeted and strictly of a sexual nature. I don’t know what logic you are looking for? Post this.

    • garrettmyler says:

      As far as I’m concerned, there isn’t any difference between gay behavior/trends in Sweden than that of gay behavior/trends in the US. 7 years of data in Sweden is enough proof for me. Plus, no matter what you might say, most familiar with the gay community just know that they are more promiscuous.

      Also, I find it really hard to believe that a gay couple could withstand those other extremely difficult challenges that many heteros due, yet crumble due to social bias. Seems like a poor excuse for extremely high “divorce” rates among gays.

      Oh, and heteros invented custody battles (literally…biological birth), so I don’t know what you’re point is there. And the losing the home thing is absurd, since in CA, gays have the EXACT SAME LEGAL RIGHTS as heteros through CA Family Code 297.5. But gay aren’t fighting for just the same legal rights, their demanding people redefine marriage against their will…lying by saying its about civil rights, trying to fool the ignorant to agree with you.

      • OK now :) says:

        I respect the right for Mormon’s to be homophobic and not recognize gays within temples and other private religious ceremonies. They have that right within PRIVATE institution. They do not have the right to affect the public beyond those walls. In America you have the freedom to do what you want on your side of the fence. If I want to marry the man I love on my side of the fence… Well, thats my business and it’s between me and California. As far as gays being more promiscuous. As I mentioned above. Historically, sex was all that was available because relationships beyond that were impossible. I have noticed personally that gays have gotten much more conservative in that area due to the fact they are now able to boldly create homes and relationships together. The idea that you have regarding heterosexuals as less promiscuous is hilarious! Hello! Girls gone wild! Out of control rape statistics with fraternity brothers and Paris Hilton and her HUGE following. I am thinking both sides could settle down. In the recent march on Washington. Matthew Shepard’s mother pointed out the affects of separating people. code 297.5 is not equal and even if it was to a homophobe having the government give one group a marriage and the other group CA 297.5 (thanks! thats sounds so romantic) justifies disregarding them or violence towards them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: