• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Paleocon said:
Divorce should absolutely be illegal.
Click to expand...

Hell man, even Muslims make allowances for divorce in certain circumstances, and they are about 1400 years behind the other religions of the world. I'm glad I don't live in Paleoconia. :lol:
 
lizzie said:
Hell man, even Muslims make allowances for divorce in certain circumstances, and they are about 1400 years behind the other religions of the world. I'm glad I don't live in Paleoconia. :lol:
Click to expand...

The Islamic practice has always been contrary to the Christian practice. The Christian practice better secures the rights of women.
 
Paleocon said:
Divorce should absolutely be illegal.
Click to expand...

Holy crap.

Oh yeah, you yearn for the good old days, when a man was in charge of his home and he could beat wifey to a bloody pulp or emotionally abuse her.....and when she dared to go for divorce, she was referred to the slutty divorcee.
 
year2late said:
Holy crap.

Oh yeah, you yearn for the good old days, when a man was in charge of his home and he could beat wifey to a bloody pulp or emotionally abuse her.....and when she dared to go for divorce, she was referred to the slutty divorcee.
Click to expand...

A woman (or man) who is the victim of abuse could pursue legal separation.
 
year2late said:
Holy crap.

Oh yeah, you yearn for the good old days, when a man was in charge of his home and he could beat wifey to a bloody pulp or emotionally abuse her.....and when she dared to go for divorce, she was referred to the slutty divorcee.
Click to expand...

There have been many instances where a woman beat a man to a pulp........They are just not documented.
 
Paleocon said:
A woman (or man) who is the victim of abuse could pursue legal separation.
Click to expand...

Not in the good old days. She might be safer if she stayed and not rock the boat. No divorce. Get real.
 
year2late said:
Not in the good old days. She might be safer if she stayed and not rock the boat. No divorce. Get real.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're going on about, but canon law provides for the victim of spousal abuse to leave by decree of the diocesan bishop. This is not new.

Much better than the bad new days in which anyone can abandon their family for any or no reason.
 
Paleocon said:
Divorce should absolutely be illegal.
Click to expand...

Paleocon said:
I'm not sure what you're going on about, but canon law provides for the victim of spousal abuse to leave by decree of the diocesan bishop. This is not new.

Much better than the bad new days in which anyone can abandon their family for any or no reason.
Click to expand...

You seem to lack an understanding that this is not a theocracy, no matter how much you seem to advocate for it.
 
year2late said:
You seem to lack an understanding that this is not a theocracy, no matter how much you seem to advocate for it.
Click to expand...

I have never advocated theocracy.
 
Paleocon said:
I have never advocated theocracy.
Click to expand...

Well in one breath you are speaking of making divorce illegal in the next breath you are speaking to how the archbishop would handle it.

Wanting something prohibited in your religion is entirely different than making your religious beliefs law for everyone, no matter if they subscribe to your religion or not.
 
year2late said:
Well in one breath you are speaking of making divorce illegal in the next breath you are speaking to how the archbishop would handle it.

Wanting something prohibited in your religion is entirely different than making your religious beliefs law for everyone, no matter if they subscribe to your religion or not.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got "archbishop" out of that. Diocesan bishop =/= archbishop.

Of course, such cases should be handled by a civil court if one or both parties is unbaptized.
 
Paleocon said:
I don't know where you got "archbishop" out of that. Diocesan bishop =/= archbishop.

Of course, such cases should be handled by a civil court if one or both parties is unbaptized.
Click to expand...

Ok, that makes a big difference to the context.:lamo

In one breath you speak of wanting divorce illegal, in the next breath you speak of wanting a Diocesan bishop to handle it.

When you are speaking of laws for all citizens, why would you then speak about a bishop handling such things?
 
year2late said:
Ok, that makes a big difference to the context.:lamo

In one breath you speak of wanting divorce illegal, in the next breath you speak of wanting a Diocesan bishop to handle it.

When you are speaking of laws for all citizens, why would you then speak about a bishop handling such things?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. The bishop should only handle the matter in cases where both parties are baptized.

Otherwise civil courts should decide the matter.
 
Paleocon said:
Fair enough. The bishop should only handle the matter in cases where both parties are baptized.

Otherwise civil courts should decide the matter.
Click to expand...

So now in your mind divorces should be illegal...what are the civil courts going to decide?
 
Paleocon said:
Legal separation.
Click to expand...

Good gracious. A technicality. :roll:

They already can get legally separated.

If it still doesn't work, divorce.
 
year2late said:
Good gracious. A technicality. :roll:

They already can get legally separated.

If it still doesn't work, divorce.
Click to expand...

1. Divorce should not exist as it purports to do that which is ontologically not possible for the state to do.

2. Legal separation should only be an option in cases of adultery or abuse.
 
Paleocon said:
1. Divorce should not exist as it purports to do that which is ontologically not possible for the state to do.

2. Legal separation should only be an option in cases of adultery or abuse.
Click to expand...

In government terms, marriage is a type of contract between two people.

DIvorce ends the "contract".

Your overthink is amusing.
 
WCH said:
You mean like when a government puts an issue on the ballot then, no matter the outcome, sides with the minority kind of bigotry?

Yeah, that sucks!
Click to expand...

You do understand that it is the government's responsibility, based on the Constitution, to disallow the oppression of a minority by the majority.
 
matchlight said:
Asserting that in a post here is one thing--proving it in court is another.
Click to expand...

One does not have to prove that in court. The fact that gay parents raise children as well as straight parents is not really an issue. It has been shown in research over and over. The issue is why does the government sanction marriage in the first place? One of those reasons are what Lursa posted. And since there is no difference in regards to that issue between straights and gays, gays cannot be denied marriage based on that issue.

Also, I'm pretty sure that this research has been brought up in court... and since court cases have nearly universally sided with SSM, my guess is that the research has been accepted as fact by the courts. As is should be.
 
Paleocon said:
The Islamic practice has always been contrary to the Christian practice. The Christian practice better secures the rights of women.
Click to expand...

Christianity is irrelevant when deciding legal issues in this context.
 
WCH said:
Rainbows, marriage, dignity... to name a few
Click to expand...

you can no longer get married have something rainbow colored or act dignified?
 
Navy Pride said:
One for the good guys.............


South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses


Posted: 10/09/2014 12:29 pm EDT Updated: 10/09/2014 12:59 pm EDT





COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The South Carolina Supreme Court is ordering state probate courts not to issue same-sex marriage licenses until a federal judge decides whether the state constitution's ban on the unions is legal.

The Supreme Court's order disappointed dozens of gay couples in a whirlwind week of legal maneuvers.
Click to expand...
Gay or straight, I just do not understand all these people chomping at the bit to marry.
 
beefheart said:
No one has ever been able to answer the question: How does two people getting married, gay or straight affect you negatively?
Click to expand...
In my case it keeps my children 1200 miles away from me. I don't think you should be able to marry with that great a distance between the parents.

Also, the woman my dad married when I was a kid caused nothing but drama in the family and continues to keep a wedge between us and him. I think a professional should have to conduct comprehensive pre-marital counseling and aprove your marriage aplication before the state will issue a license. I also think cohabiting while caring for children should be illegal.

I'm not sure why you lie and say no one's ever answered that question, it's been directly answered many times. Your emotinal hysteria doesn't advance the discussion.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
You do understand that it is the government's responsibility, based on the Constitution, to disallow the oppression of a minority by the majority.
Click to expand...

When a minority is seen as a detriment to the overall wellbeing of the whole, then we must make exeptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom