In so far as I know, gay marriage itself is benign.
That's what I mean by "perpetuation". An anti-gm person sites the promiscuity of gay men and is concerned that gay-marriage will increase the divorce rate. Then the pro-gm person argues that gays will have about the same divorce rate as hetero in an attempt to counter the anti-gm argument.
However, "Gays will also have a 50% divorce rate" is a reason to oppose, not support, gay-marriage, because "hetero will also have a 50% divorce rate" is a reason to oppose hetero-marriage as well.
One goal is to lower the divorce rate drastically, so any demographic which will carry that 50% divorce rate is an obstacle to achieving the goal.
Last edited by Jerry; 10-17-09 at 11:31 PM.
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
But, your arguments about why divorces are bad all rely on the notion that there are children involved. A childless marriage wouldn't trigger the consequences you're listing of divorce, so they're irrelevant. So, we're just talking about marriages with children, which you say you support for both same and opposite sex couples. So if you don't want divorces because they hurt the children, and you go from there to saying you don't want marriages because they can end in divorce, then what exactly are you looking for? No children? Or single parents only? Seems like your argument has kind of worked itself into a corner that doesn't make much sense.
the government needs to be out of marriage.
separation of church and state rings a bell ?
Yes! I look forward to the day this is not even an "issue".
~Following My Own Flow~
I think he just means that in his opinion it would be superior if government did not give any specific privileges to couples because marriage has traditionally been in religion for the vast majority of religions.