Heterophobia

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Sava, please..... I wish not everyone would always come up with nazi comparisons...

When it comes to Bodds, it is fair game

[Ecthy]

Boris, doesn't it scare you he's merely exaggerating tendencies that are most clearly deep inside of most people?

[Boris Godunov]

No, because I disagree that it is inside most people. Most people I know aren't filled with hate. Hate is carefully taught, as Rogers & Hammerstein so elegantly told us!

[Ecthy]

bah. most people (in Europe) are filled with anti-semitism, too. I see it every day. shameful.

[Whaleboy]

You would have to hate your ancestors to be a heterophobe.

Just the same as how white racists would have to hate their black ancestors.

The idea that a group of people, be them hereosexual, white, or any other subjective ethnicity you wish to name, would treat another differently based on that subjective division, is something I find rather abhorrent.

We are, when one averages out all of our different capacities, all equal.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why the need for rules and regulations over it? Why the need for shackles...if the relationship is worth it there is no need for this legal straightjacket.

That's all very well, but what about a faithful partner? Rules and regulations ensure that the faithful partner remains protected in the event that the marriage breaks down. Removing the legal structure ensures that there will be no legal protection, because there will be no way to declare the relationship.

And very few relationships will be stable over a lifetime...

Relationships, yes, but marriages? More than half do remain stable for life.

it is about time we accepted this fact...we should realise that divorce/separation is a fact of life.

Life sucks, but that does not mean we should get rid of the parts that are good. Marriage benefits many people, and should still be kept.

As for Bodds:

Read him carefully, do not dismiss what he has to say. He shows me time and time again why it would be a mistake to ignore him entirely.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by obiwan18


That's all very well, but what about a faithful partner? Rules and regulations ensure that the faithful partner remains protected in the event that the marriage breaks down. Removing the legal structure ensures that there will be no legal protection, because there will be no way to declare the relationship.



Relationships, yes, but marriages? More than half do remain stable for life.



Life sucks, but that does not mean we should get rid of the parts that are good. Marriage benefits many people, and should still be kept.

Well if you have shared property it has to be divided up anyway in the event of a division...and should depend on children too...why is this an issue...too often in the past has the 'till death us do part' been a way of keeping females down and faithful with no hope of escape from an abusive husband...or a ball and chain used to keep the other partner at bay. Now I admit, I am not one of the biggest romantics but marriage seems completely and utterly outmoded from my perspective...

And even if 50% of marriages 'last', it still means that a significant proportion do not. And besides, if the marriage lasted why wouldn't the relationship if the bonds formed between the couple are so strong?

And with regards to Bodd's...I've had many years of him, and I know him personally...it is best just to ignore him, trust me

[MrFun]

Again, Bod seems to be fear mongering by exaggerating the prevelance of the extremists -- the extremists are in the minority within the minority group of non-heterosexuals.

Heterophobia is just as wrong as homophobia -- DUH.


Let me count the ways that homosexuals can establish their own families:

adoption

surrogate mother

sperm bank

post-divorce custody of biological child in favor of gay father or lesbian mother

[Ben Kenobi]

Provost Harrison:

too often in the past has the 'till death us do part' been a way of keeping females down and faithful with no hope of escape from an abusive husband.

No. Legal marriage protects woman from being dumped by a husband who has found someone younger and more desireable.

Look at common-law relationships. Many times it is the woman who suffers because she has less legal recourse in the event that the relationship dissolves.

I agree, divorce should be available for a woman with an abusive husband, but nowadays has been used far to often for frivolous reasons.

And besides, if the marriage lasted why wouldn't the relationship if the bonds formed between the couple are so strong?

Marriage improves the relationship in many cases because it represents a legal commitment to love your wife to the exclusion of all others, until death do you part. Many times the woman will push for the marriage because she is much more secure inside a marriage than out.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mr. Fun:

adoption

surrogate mother

sperm bank

post-divorce custody of biological child in favor of gay father or lesbian mother.

All require the intervention of a third party.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

Now I admit, I am not one of the biggest romantics but marriage seems completely and utterly outmoded from my perspective...

I would agree that legal marriage is outdated. I think marriage should be about a union of souls, not a contract. The ceremonies should be purely symbolic, and a public demonstration of commitment to a relationship.

[Gibsie]

I'd like to see any pregnancy and child-birth where no-one else gets involved at any stage.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
All require the intervention of a third party.

So?

Many heterosexual families are made by the same means. Are they less valuable in your opinion?

My boss flies off to Columbia this summer to adopt her second kid, since she is incapable of conceiving. Would you like to tell her that since it's through a third party, it's somehow lesser than a two-person conception?

[Ben Kenobi]

where no-one else gets involved at any stage.

I agree, it takes a village to raise one. It should not take a village to make one.

Since she is incapable of conceiving. Would you like to tell her that since it's through a third party, it's somehow lesser than a two-person conception?

At least she tried to conceive. Are all homosexuals biologically infertile, in the same sense as your boss' wife?

[Alinestra Covelia]

It's funny that you called this thread heterophobia.

The root meaning of the word is fear of anything that differs. And judging from the increasing trend towards conservatism in America, it's a social phenomenon that could be said to be reaching endemic proportions.

Just thought I'd point out this grammatical issue.