Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 93

Thread: Movement under way in California to ban divorce

  1. #61
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Movement under way in California to ban divorce

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    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.
    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 by CriticalThought; 12-02-09 at 03:21 PM.

  2. #62
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Movement under way in California to ban divorce

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    You don't seem to understand my position so I will state it very clearly for you:
    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.

  3. #63
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Movement under way in California to ban divorce

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    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.
    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.
    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 by CriticalThought; 12-02-09 at 03:32 PM.

  4. #64
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Movement under way in California to ban divorce

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    No I don't think you do...
    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...
    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?
    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 by Goobieman; 12-02-09 at 03:46 PM.

  5. #65
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Movement under way in California to ban divorce

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    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.
    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 by CriticalThought; 12-02-09 at 03:52 PM.

  6. #66
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Movement under way in California to ban divorce

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Sigh...after all the conservatives I have brought this position to, not a single one could bring a reasonable or intelligent rebuttal.
    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.
    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".
    This has been previously addressed. Please pay attention.

    I think that perfectly epitomizes the hypocrisy this thread was meant to bring out.
    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 by Goobieman; 12-02-09 at 04:05 PM.

  7. #67
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Movement under way in California to ban divorce

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    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).
    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?
    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.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Movement under way in California to ban divorce

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    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.
    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 "".

    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.

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Movement under way in California to ban divorce

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.
    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.

  10. #70
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Movement under way in California to ban divorce

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    By choice or because of a job?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •