• 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!

Movement under way in California to ban divorce

Goobieman said:
No no no...
YOU have to show that the funds were significantly shifted AWAY from the 'decline of marriage' message and into the 'anti gay-marriage' agenda.


No no no...
YOU have to show that the ads were significantly shifted AWAY from the 'decline of marriage' message and toward the 'anti gay-marriage' agenda.


That you think you have addressed MY position is nothing but denial.
That you think I have not supported MY position is nothing but denial.
In fact, I'll bet you cannot tell me what my posiion IS, much less how you have addressed it.
Click to expand...

Why do I have to show anything? I have provided the evidence. I have also provided the charge that little to no money has been spent to alleviate the leading factors in the decline of traditional marriage by the anti gm crowd. Prove me wrong. Why can't you do it?
 
Goobie, let's get some things clear since you seem confused.

1. Are not the leading factors in the decline of traditional marriage no fault divorce and women leaving home to work?
2. Does the evidence, such as the divorce rate in MA, seem to indicate that same sex marriage have relatively no impact on traditional marriage?
3. If your position was to preserve traditional marriage, would it not be reasonable to put most, if not all your money towards combating the leading factors that contribute to its decline?
4. If the anti gm money is not being spent to combat the leading factors in the decline in traditional marriage, but on a factor that has relatively no impact on traditional marriage, then is it not reasonable to assume that it is not being used for the benefit of traditional marriage?
 
CriticalThought said:
Why do I have to show anything?
Click to expand...
Because it is your claim, and as such, you are charged with backing it up.

You claim "change of focus" is harming marriage.
You have to back that claim up. To do that, you have to show the original focus, the change of focus, and the effect on the observer.

YOU chose to define that focus in termns of money spent and advertisement, and so YOU have to show the shift. You THEN have to show the effect on othe observer is one that supports the idea that this change has had a negative effect on marriage.

If you cannot do these things, thern admit as much and move on.

And you STILL havent addressed my position - indeed, you have not shown that you inderstand what my position is.
 
Goobieman said:
Because it is your claim, and as such, you are charged with backing it up.

You claim "change of focus" is harming marriage.
You have to back that claim up. To do that, you have to show the original focus, the change of focus, and the effect on the observer.

YOU chose to define that focus in termns of money spent and advertisement, and so YOU have to show the shift. You THEN have to show the effect on othe observer is one that supports the idea that this change has had a negative effect on marriage.

If you cannot do these things, thern admit as much and move on.

And you STILL havent addressed my position - indeed, you have not shown that you inderstand what my position is.
Click to expand...

You keep trying to shift the burden of proof, but I have already stated my case. It should be extremely easy for you to prove me wrong simply by showing how the anti gm money has gone to alleviating the effects of no fault divorce and women leaving home to work on traditional marriage. I don't have to show that it has been shifted anywhere because the position of the anti gm people is that they are preserving traditional marriage, and if that is the case, then most of the money and ad time should be going towards those leading factors. Is that not reasonable? So prove me wrong.
 
Goobieman said:
Theres no confusion here - you simply havent backed up your positon.
See above.
Click to expand...

The confusion you seem to have is that I have to show that the money shifted from one position to another. That is not the case. As the position of the anti gm side is that they are preserving traditional marriage, all I have to show is that little to no money has gone towards alleviating the effects of the true leading factors to the decline of traditional marriage. That is my charge, now it is your job to prove me wrong.

How much money has the anti gm side put towards alleviating the factors of no fault divorce and women leaving home to work versus what they have put towards combating same sex marriage? I argue that they have put little to no money.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Uh, you're missing a party there. Marriage is a contract made between two consenting, unrelated adults of age with sufficient mental capacity and the state. So yes, the current form of marriage does allow the state to dictate the terms of the contract, at least going forward. Retroactive application to current marriage contracts is likely not constitutional without new laws dictating just that.
Click to expand...

What about the freedom of association? It seems a ban on divorce would infringe upon that right, since it would force an unwanted association on one, or both, of the contracting parties (excluding the state).

Also, is marriage really a contract between the state and those getting married? What is the consideration between the state the married couple? Isn't it simply the issuance of a liscence, and not necessarily a contract?
 
CriticalThought said:
You keep trying to shift the burden of proof, but I have already stated my case.
Click to expand...
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That's YOU.

You have stated your position, that a shift of focus has harmed marriage.
You have fallen -far- short of -proving- that position.

Show the shift of focus, in your chosen terms of money spent and ads produced, and that said shift has had the efefct you claim --- or, admit you can not.

It should be extremely easy for you to prove me wrong...
Click to expand...
Its YOUR claim. Its YOUR responsibility to back it up.

And you STILL havent addressed my position - indeed, you have not shown that you understand what my position is.
 
Goobieman said:
Divorce doesnt dictate terms, divorce ends the contract, at the request of one or both parties.
The state's role in divorce is to make sure the rights of those in the marriage are protected.
Click to expand...

I understand. The ability to nullify a contract is a term inherent to the contract. Can the state really dictate that certain contracts may never contain such a precondition? On what basis would they do so?
 
Ethereal said:
I understand. The ability to nullify a contract is a term inherent to the contract. Can the state really dictate that certain contracts may never contain such a precondition? On what basis would they do so?
Click to expand...
I'd say thet depends entirely on the powers granted to the state by its constitution. There's certainly no federal prohibition of such a thing.
 
Goobieman said:
You have stated your position, that a shift of focus has harmed marriage.
You have fallen -far- short of -proving- that position.

Show the shift of focus, in your chosen terms of money spent and ads produced, and that said shift has had the efefct you claim --- or, admit you can not.

Its YOUR claim. Its YOUR responsibility to back it up.

And you STILL havent addressed my position - indeed, you have not shown that you understand what my position is.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand my position so I will state it very clearly for you...

The anti gm side has contributed to the decline of traditional marriage by channeling money meant to preserve traditional marriage towards combating same sex marriage instead of towards alleviating the leading factors that contribute to the decline of traditional marriage, namely no fault divorce and women leaving home to work.

It is a reasonable argument to make, because if the anti gm's motive was truly to preserve traditional marriage then most if not all the money would be going toward alleviating the effects of no fault divorce and women leaving home to work on the decline of traditional marriage.

I have no idea how you have gotten on this "focus" tangent, please try to stay on topic Goobs. It seems you want me to prove that back then they had money that was meant to alleviate those factors, but as I stated awhile back, I am talking about the here and now. I don't think the traditional marriage argument was brought up until the gm debate.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
You don't seem to understand my position so I will state it very clearly for you:
Click to expand...
Nope. I understand your completely.
Your point remains unproven for the reasons stated.

And you STILL have not addressed MY position; as such, all of this is nothing more than a red herring.
 
Goobieman said:
Nope. I understand your completely.
Your point remains unproven for the reasons stated.

And you STILL have not addressed MY position; as such, all of this is nothing more than a red herring.
Click to expand...

No I don't think you do...

This is my position....

The anti gm side has contributed to the decline of traditional marriage by channeling money meant to preserve traditional marriage towards combating same sex marriage instead of towards alleviating the leading factors that contribute to the decline of traditional marriage, namely no fault divorce and women leaving home to work.

It is a reasonable argument to make, because if the anti gm's motive was truly to preserve traditional marriage then most if not all the money would be going toward alleviating the effects of no fault divorce and women leaving home to work on the decline of traditional marriage.
Click to expand...

I don't care how you choose to interpret my position; this is my position, so address this position. To simplify it, I removed the "public focus" portion which seemed to be confusing you and brought it down to the money. It a reasonable and consistent argument and if you want to run away because you know you can't prove me wrong, then feel free, but anyone who reads this thread can see clear as day that you have been trounced.

What position do you have that I have missed? It seems your entire position is a misinterpretation of my position. How is it a red herring if I don't address your position? Do you even know what a red herring is?
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
No I don't think you do...
Click to expand...
Thats just evidence of denial on your part.

THIS is a "change of focus"
...by channeling money meant to preserve traditional marriage towards combating same sex marriage instead of towards alleviating...
Click to expand...

Thus, your point remains unproven for the reasons stated.

Only YOU can fix that; if you want to run away because you know you can't prove your position, then feel free, but anyone who reads this thread can see clear as day that you have been trounced.

What position do you have that I have missed?
Click to expand...
Looking back at the post of mine that you originally responded to...

Never mind the fact that there's no necessary relationship between 'the sanctity of the instiution of marriage' and 'the perpituity of a given marriage' -- indeed, the continuance of a marriage that breaks all of the normalities of marriage does more to defile the insitution than ending that marriage.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Thats just evidence of denial on your part.
Your point remains unproven for the reasons stated. Only YOU can fix that.


Looking back at the post of mine that you originally responded to...

Never mind the fact that there's no necessary relationship between 'the sanctity of the instiution of marriage' and 'the perpetuity of a given marriage' -- indeed, the continuance of a marriage that breaks all of the normalities of marriage does more to defile the insitution than ending that marriage.
Click to expand...

Sigh...after all the conservatives I have brought this position to, not a single one could bring a reasonable or intelligent rebuttal. The best you could do was try to shift the burden of proof rather than address the actual argument. But I like your new position. Apparently marriages don't have to last to be have "sanctity". It is more important to dictate the norms of marriage than preserve their perpetuity. That whole "until death do us part" must be a load of bull, as was Jesus Christ's consistent charge against serial monogamy (he didn't say anything about homosexuality by the way). I think that perfectly epitomizes the hypocrisy this thread was meant to bring out. It's more important that a small minority be disallowed their own type of marriage which would have relatively low impact on anyone else than it is to recognize the damage that has been done to the family by no fault divorce and women leaving home to work.

In other words, your new position says exactly what I wanted you to say. You are anti gay marriage, not pro traditional marriage.

Good Day!
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Sigh...after all the conservatives I have brought this position to, not a single one could bring a reasonable or intelligent rebuttal.
Click to expand...
More denial on your part.
The intelligent rebuttal is that you have not shown the conditions upon which you base your argument to be true. Until you do that, there's no reason to discuss your argument.

But I like your new position.
Click to expand...
New?
It was here brefore you first responded, and as such its not new - but as you haven't been paying attention, its no surprise you didnt notice.

Apparently marriages don't have to last to be have "sanctity".
Click to expand...
This has been previously addressed. Please pay attention.

I think that perfectly epitomizes the hypocrisy this thread was meant to bring out.
Click to expand...
Of course you do - because you really have no interest in doing anythng other than attacking those that oppose gay marriage. You havent SHOWN any hypocrisy, you simply claim it and then attack.

So much for critical thinking.

You may now run away, tail properly tucked.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
What about the freedom of association? It seems a ban on divorce would infringe upon that right, since it would force an unwanted association on one, or both, of the contracting parties (excluding the state).
Click to expand...

Freedom of association generally applies to non-state agreements. Furthermore, just because divorce is illegal does not mean that the married parties must associate with each other. There are plenty of couples now that are married but separated. They are associated on paper and little more than that. This also bypasses involuntary servitude of sorts.

Also, is marriage really a contract between the state and those getting married? What is the consideration between the state the married couple? Isn't it simply the issuance of a liscence, and not necessarily a contract?
Click to expand...

Well, you have to remember that a marriage contract gives you rights that singles do not have, many of them financially related and many legal. That in itself is consideration to the two non-state parties. You and your partner enter into a contract marriage with the state and the state then provides you additional rights and benefits it does not grant to singles. Something like 1,000 more rights that singles don't have. This is a particular reason why those who decry the sanctity of marriage on gay marriage should be appalled at heterosexual marriage. More then a few have gotten married purely for benefits. While it's somewhat of a joke, sham marriages for green cards aren't that uncommon.
 
disneydude said:
I agree....however, I expect that those who voted in favor of prop 8 will be up in arms about taking away their "right" to divorce.
Click to expand...

I think they'll look at this as pro-gm having a hissyfit over prop8 taking away absolutely nothing from gays and think to themselves ":confused:".

IMO this makes pro-gm appear far more reliant on ideology then anti-gm, and while the average person might not care very much either way on gay 'marriage, maybe next time this is thrust in their faces in the voting booth they'll be more inclined to vote against than in favor.
 
obvious Child said:
Freedom of association generally applies to non-state agreements. Furthermore, just because divorce is illegal does not mean that the married parties must associate with each other. There are plenty of couples now that are married but separated. They are associated on paper and little more than that. This also bypasses involuntary servitude of sorts.
Click to expand...

Just as there is no law requiring people living together to marry, neither is there a law requiring married people to live together. I'm an example of this: still fully legally married, haven't lived with my wife in nearly 3 years.

I agree completely.
 
Jerry said:
Just as there is no law requiring people living together to marry, neither is there a law requiring married people to live together. I'm an example of this: still fully legally married, haven't lived with my wife in nearly 3 years.

I agree completely.
Click to expand...

By choice or because of a job?
 
obvious Child said:
By choice or because of a job?
Click to expand...

By her choice.

Someone at work asked me why we were separated. After thinking of a way to say it succinctly in a work environment (I didn't want to go into details) I came up with this:

Both of us are guilty, it's not me but it's not all her either. This is only my side so take it with a grain of salt, but whereas I got help with my issues and and am willing to do much more, she refuses to put in any effort towards reconciliation. I ignored a big red flag before we got married when she refused to attend pre-marital counseling.
 
Goobieman said:
More denial on your part.
The intelligent rebuttal is that you have not shown the conditions upon which you base your argument to be true. Until you do that, there's no reason to discuss your argument.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to discuss my argument? Yup, you are running away sure as ****. I provided evidence to support my argument. Only you have provided no evidence, and only you have failed to dismiss my charge. And it was an incredibly simple charge.

Of course you do - because you really have no interest in doing anythng other than attacking those that oppose gay marriage. You havent SHOWN any hypocrisy, you simply claim it and then attack.

So much for critical thinking.

You may now run away, tail properly tucked.
Click to expand...

Let me give you a lesson in critical thinking. Critical thinkers don't say **** like, "there is no reason to discuss" when a reasonable charge has been made. You can choose to ignore it because you got confused and thought for some reason that I had to prove that money came from alleviating the effects of no fault divorce and women leaving home to work to fighting gay marriage, but I never had to meet that criteria. That was an arbitrary and irrational criteria that you established. For the position that I was arguing I only had to state that most of the money was being distributed toward combating gay marriage and not towards the leading factors that cause gay marriage to decline. You failed to utilize critical thinking. Now lets see if you even reply to this thread, or if it is in fact, you who ran with his tail properly tucked.
 
Allow me to repeat myself:
...indeed, the continuance of a marriage that breaks all of the normalities of marriage does more to defile the institution than ending that marriage.



Please explain. At first blush this makes little sense. It seems to me divorce (the ease at which one can end a marriage) is a much bigger threat to the institution of marriage than marriages amongst a fringe element of our culture.
 
upsideguy said:
Allow me to repeat myself:
...indeed, the continuance of a marriage that breaks all of the normalities of marriage does more to defile the institution than ending that marriage.



Please explain. At first blush this makes little sense. It seems to me divorce (the ease at which one can end a marriage) is a much bigger threat to the institution of marriage than marriages amongst a fringe element of our culture.
Click to expand...

Divorce is usually what happens when people who didn't respect marriage to begin with enter a marriage they should not have.
 
Goobieman said:
Because they aren't stupid.

Never mind the fact that there's no necessary relationship between 'the sanctity of the intisution of marriage' and 'the perpituity of a given marriage' -- indeed, the continuance of a marriage that breaks all of the normalities of marriage does more to defile the insitution than ending that marriage.
Click to expand...
The legal institution was defiled from day one when it was invented by the ancient Egyptians to officalize male property rights over underage girls and concubines. The legal contract has never been about "love" or "dedication" (if that's not obvious). The legal institution should be done away with and "marriage" can remain a ceremony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom