That’s a really good idea IMHO. Making people more mature about their commitments can’t be a bad thing. You can’t protect part of something without protecting the whole thing. I am, as you say, a proponent of “traditional marriage” and even I in my knuckle dragging state of mind can see that there’s hypocrisy there.

I like the logic, but i don’t think it goes far enough. these people tend to be so hateful that they would accept this deal simply as a means to an end. they would pay this price for a guarantee i’m sure of it.

what i would like to put in place, is if you claim being gay is a choice, then you need to prove it by letting a gang of guys do you.

EDIT: actually, i would like to do away with divorce regardless of the gay rights thing. i think while you can back out of it, the oath is meaningless. its almost like crossing your fingers when making a promise. i don’t see how anyone can make any claims about the sanctity of marriage for any argument while there is the option to back pedal and back out of it at any time you like.

Force people to be in horrible relationships.. Try again.

Absolutely not. Even though there’s the math rule that two negatives make a positive, it doesn’t work like that.
These people are opinionated, stubborn and apparently influential as it is, forcing them to stay in a relationship they’re not happy and productive in could have disastrous consequences for others!
or what johnpowell just said

Well in a modest proposal sense it might work. Introduce some legislature, let the media mull over it as they would, get people talking. It probably shouldn’t pass, no, just as we probably shouldn’t eat babies. But it certainly is one way to raise awareness.

Why not abolish marriage completely? Then everyone will be happy. It’s a win win situation. The rate of marriage has been steadily declining over the past few decades anyway so it won’t be long before it is flushed out of our society, it’s just a matter of time.

And anyway just because something is “traditional” doesn’t mean it’s good.

@HTDC that would work too. if you are going to have an oath until death do you part then thats how it should be. and if you should happen to end up in a bad relationship, hard luck, don’t gamble at the casino if you are not sure you will win and are not willing to lose.

EDIT: or, mention divorce as a possibility in the original oath. ’‘until death or divorce do you part’’ and have it recognized as a temporary game from the start.

I think civil unions are the best bet. Two steps to get married:
#1 (before a judge) Anyone can and must do it. Now you have the same rights as everyone else. Gay people can stop here.
#2 (church ceremony) The gays didn’t trample on your precious word. Now you can destroy the word marriage all by yourself.

I agree with @johnpowell. Marriage is, in essence, a partnership, and should start out with a partnership agreement, and not a license. Licensing infers that the participants have met some sort of criteria and have state permission to be together.

Earliest marriages were contracts between tribes, unifying families by shared offspring. Generally, in addition to the bride, goats or some sort of goods were paid to the bride’s family to seal the bargain. Even in the early days of marriage in the US, the groom often had to post a bond of several hundred dollars in order to get married.

@HTDC. Abolishing marriage (or civil unions, if you prefer that term) wouldn’t solve the gay rights issue. There are to many negative effects for that suggestion to be the best solution. Not only would it bad for children, but many of society’s problems would increase, such as poverty, unwanted pregnancy etc.

Tradition is tradition for a reason. I’ll admit, much tradition doesn’t work well in the modern Western world. However, some did in the past and still do. Just because it’s tradition doesn’t mean it’s bad.

I think we should get away from marriage altogether. Make it a contract between two people that needs to be renewed every year or so.

This will never happen. traditional marriages have been in existence since Hector was a pup. you cannot punish one group of people, just because they do not believe as you do.

In an ideal world this would be a great idea, give the religious boffins a taste of their own hypocrisy. However, despite how much I like this idea, it probably isn’t the best way to solve the problem seeing as, I believe that, a lot of people who are against equal rights for gay people are just hiding their homophobia behind the Bible.

“Those who oppose equal rights for Gays to marry..” are just plain wrong.
But removing the right to dissolve a failed union would also be wrong, both for Straights and Gays.

@john65pennington, I don’t understand how civil marriage is punishment for traditional marriage advocates. The only change would be that details of the marriage would be worked out beforehand. This would include details about money, support of children, support during illness, what constitutes grounds for divorce, etc. In essence, everything that couples go through during premarital counseling is committed to paper, signed, and is an enforceable document.

There is nothing that says because you have civil ceremony that you cannot have a religious ceremony as well. Even in its current state, a religious wedding does not mean people are married unless they sign the license in the presence of witnesses. That’s the who purpose of the maid of honor and the best man—to witness the signing of the license.

Thats such a sick idea!

Hey folks, the suggestion was not original to me. Some guy in CA is trying to get it as a ballot proposition in CA as a tongue in cheek answer to the obscene passage of Prop 8 in 2008.

Those who would deny rights to others should feel what losing their rights would feel like.

Loves it!