Marriage for All... or Marriage for None - New Protest Movement

Hi guys...

I'm looking for people willing to join a new protest movement. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pit gave me the idea when they told the media that they would abstain from marriage until gay and lesbian couples could legally get married.

Over the past year I have been forming an idea in my head for a protest movement based on their decision. That is... people who join the "marriage for all... or marriage for none" movement would be deciding to refuse to get into a heterosexual marriage, until homosexual marriage would become legal in their state/ province or [if they were feeling more extreme] their entire country.

As the person who wishes to start this movement I have obviously already made the necessary committment. Now...

I would like to hear your guys opinions and feedback... and ESPECIALLY if you want to join. [If you wish to join the movement... definitely say so in your comment posts. ^_^]

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Becca on January 16, 2011 at 1:17pm

This might be an effective protest for people who are famous and well known but who on earth is going to care if I get married or not? And how would me not getting married change people's minds on same sex marriage? I'll stick to calling people out and educating them when I can. I have a class full of 4 year olds who give me hope for the future. They regularly say things like: "When I get older I can change to a boy if I want to." "May family has a mommy and a daddy but some families have two mommies and some families have two daddies." "A family is the people who love you." "I could marry a girl if I want to when I'm a adult (said by a 4 year old girl)." Same sex couples sooner rather than later will be able to marry and me not getting married until same sex couples can isn't going to speed up the process.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Espi on January 16, 2011 at 1:51pm

I support your movement, but I'd be satisfied if the end result was the abolition of the absurd tradition of marriage for all, or it being allowed for all.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Espi on January 16, 2011 at 2:04pm

and I agree with that, because it's well and good, but the roots of marriage are bad ones. It just seems that marriage is an outdated tradition that responsible adults no longer need.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on January 16, 2011 at 2:10pm

The 'institution of marriage' is meaningless in our modern society. It was created in an age where women went from being the property of their fathers to being the property of their husbands. The property exchange was 'declared before god', meaning in public for all to see, so that the new husband could not be accused of raping the woman who was being handed over.

Over time, as women were viewed less as property although still as the weaker sex, the tradition of marriage continued largely to protect women and children. It became a legal document to prove that a man was responsible for the wellbeing of his wife and offspring - since a single mother would have had a hell of a time making it in the world.

Single mothers may still have a hell of a time in our society, but we have birth certificates and dna testing to ensure that men can be held to account for the children they father. Women are no longer forced to marry, and really don't need the 'protections' offered by marriage. Marriage itself is no longer a permanent arrangement, and so they very idea of 'until death' vows is just ridiculous. The very idea of marriage is completely anachronistic, kept alive from a time when women had no rights, and no longer has any relevant meaning in a modern society.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Espi on January 16, 2011 at 2:11pm

Heather puts into words what I wanted to say.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Espi on January 16, 2011 at 2:21pm

"Marriage for None": A good idea for one who does not approve of marriage.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on January 16, 2011 at 2:27pm

Thanks, Doug - now you have put it into the words I wanted to say.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on January 16, 2011 at 2:36pm

Interesting - although no revelation, obviously. So what does this have to do with marriage?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on January 16, 2011 at 3:00pm

Wow, so now I don't care about children? Now that's an emotional digression if I've ever seen one. Are you claiming that allowing gay marriage will save all those children from the poverty of single parent households? You've completely lost me here.

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on January 16, 2011 at 3:21pm

You are making a great argument for birth control - but I'm still not seeing the connection with marriage.

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on January 16, 2011 at 3:32pm

Well marriage certainly seems to be doing a terrible job of protecting all those kids from single parent households. Either both parents commit to raising the children or they don't - what does marriage have to do with it?

Permalink Reply by T A A on January 18, 2011 at 5:49am

I totally agree. Modern mates do not need protective contracts or tax benefits. However IMO children do. Which is why I feel we should have parenting contracts, and eliminate old fashion marriages.