Gay Marriage: A Mistake
Perhaps the hetero marriage institution was a mistake.
There is no reason for “Gay Marriage”.
The institution of Marriage as it exists today
causes more difficulty than it prevents.
As so many Gays have bought into Hetero institutions
they are unwilling to explore better options.
For example; forming a Company with assets held by
the partners equally allows the kind efficiency
marriage does not.
The company buys the car, hence the shareholders
own the car.
The husband buys the car, he is
the owner. To run around putting both names
on everything from the television to the carpet
is ridiculous.
One bought the fridge on One’s credit card; it is
One’s fridge. If One bought it on the Company’s
card, it belongs to the Company.
In case of a break up or dispute, ownership is clear;
one need not argue in Family Court or Divorce court,
one goes to civil court, and the ruling is far less
emotional.
The tax breaks companies gain could easily cut down
on bills, for one can deduct everything from gas to
water, for the house belongs to the Company which
files income tax.
Yet Gays, in their rush, did not explore the
possibilities that were open to them.
Gays could have created their own institutions,
their own ceremonies, but instead, opted to
amalgamate with straights, who themselves are
reassessing these institutions.
Pre nuptial agreements are necessary today, for
marriage often brings with it questions as the
divorce rate is, in some places, 50%.
Half of all marriages fail.
This is a statistic one can not dismiss.
The same pressures which cause the breakups
of hetero marriages will cause the breakups
of Gay marriages.
Yes, maybe the older relationships which are
solid would add the fillip of Marriage, but the
newer ones might add Divorce to the menu, and
then, find themselves in the discomforting
position of either going through the whole
dismal procedure or moving to a state where
such union is illegal, and getting the benefit
of voiding the marriage.
Although there is great joy in California today,
future generations might look back and condemn
those who did not think outside of the “ring”.
Liked it
User Comments
Andy-N
On May 19, 2008 at 4:19 am
You make some interesting points.
I observe that people in general including this more recent attempt to see homosexual partners as married partners, only prove to me that people do not understand the purpose and sanctity of the marriage vow.
a fool
On May 21, 2008 at 11:26 am
The concept of ‘marriage’ in the
Western world needs to be reassessed.
In other places, the alliance of families,
is the main purpose of marriage.
Persons enter marriages to insure the position
of their children in that society.
Once the family aspect of the alliance is
removed, the ability to enter and exit ‘common law’ relationships, and the ease of divorce introduced,
one must question the functionality of western marriage.
Property, upon divorce will have to be divided; hence
why bring the property into the marriage for later
division?
The paradigm of the Paul McCartney/Heather Mills
parasite, (typical older man/younger woman paradigm)
emblematises my basic tenent.
Timmy B
On May 22, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Definitely an interesting perspective on an important political issue. You’re actually correct that a business relationship affords people different benefits than marriage.
a fool
On May 23, 2008 at 3:20 pm
A friend of mine had two wives; to ensure that
property would devolve equally in case of any
disruption; death, ending of a relationship, etc,
he formed a corporation in which he, his wives
and children held shares; (the mothers holding
the shares in trust for the children).
In this way all the questions that would occur
in re divorce/property were solved.
If Gays had given some thought to the matter
they would have wisely opted for a more
‘commercial’ rather than ‘emotional’ paradigm
and spared themselves a great deal of grief
when a ‘Paula’ McCartney marries a Heather Mills.
william rodriguez ll
On May 31, 2008 at 4:31 am
Nice perspective!
Post Comment