• 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

There is no reason to discuss my argument? '
Given you have not shown the basis of your argument to be factual, no.
Why should I bother discussing something that you cannot show to be true?

Yup, you are running away sure as ****.
Says he who has gone well out of his way to avoid having to show that the basis for his argument is factual.

I provided evidence to support my argument.
You did not provide the -proper- evidence, as I have noted repeatedly.

Let me give you a lesson in critical thinking...
Its plain to everyoe that you do not possess the ability necessary to do so.

You may continue to tuck tail.
 
Last edited:
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.
Certainly, as I think you didnt get my meaning.

Marriage has certain tenets, as expressed in the vows taken when the marriage is created -- fidelty, for instance.

A marriage that wantonly defies these tenets -- one where one or both people are continually sleeping around -- does more to harm the insitution of marriage than divorce, as it makes a mockery of what is 'sacred' about marriage.
 
Obviously a move by the gay community to put pressure on the legal system. It won't work.
 
Given you have not shown the basis of your argument to be factual, no.
Why should I bother discussing something that you cannot show to be true?


Says he who has gone well out of his way to avoid having to show that the basis for his argument is factual.


You did not provide the -proper- evidence, as I have noted repeatedly.


Its plain to everyoe that you do not possess the ability necessary to do so.

You may continue to tuck tail.

It seems we are just going to have to agree to disagree for the time being. This will just end up turning into a flame war at this rate. I still feel my argument is sufficient, but if you feel that gay marriage is a great enough threat to traditional marriage to justify the money, time, and effort that the anti-gm movement is putting out while doing little to nothing for the effects of no fault divorce and women leaving home to work, then I guess that is your opinion. I can respectfully disagree.
 
FINALLY!!! a thread addressing the divorce rate as it pertains to the same-sex marriage debate!!!! My prayers have been answered and I hope that not only does this get on the ballot but by some massive joke it passes.

Someone call /b/, I smell a raid...
 
FINALLY!!! a thread addressing the divorce rate as it pertains to the same-sex marriage debate!!!! My prayers have been answered and I hope that not only does this get on the ballot but by some massive joke it passes.

Someone call /b/, I smell a raid...

Somehow I think 4chan actually would solve this whole issue better and faster than the general public.
 
Somehow I think 4chan actually would solve this whole issue better and faster than the general public.

hahahaha, yeah. The general public will have to get a dog...and curtains.


Though if the Scientology fiasco was any indicator, then I doubt they could do too much unless it really caught on with EVERY /b/tard.
 
Certainly, as I think you didnt get my meaning.

Marriage has certain tenets, as expressed in the vows taken when the marriage is created -- fidelty, for instance.

A marriage that wantonly defies these tenets -- one where one or both people are continually sleeping around -- does more to harm the insitution of marriage than divorce, as it makes a mockery of what is 'sacred' about marriage.

So hetero married swingers do more damage then divorce?
 
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.

They are legally and financially associated with one another.

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.

What's the consideration for the state?
 
They are legally and financially associated with one another.

Only if they wish to do so by choice. One can file separately despite being married. Furthermore, one can legally separate financial rights and obligations. It's not that hard, but may be expensive depending on how many and how complicated. What marriage allows you to do is take advantage of financial and legal benefits. No one says you have to.

What's the consideration for the state?

Depends who you ask. Some consider the promotion of stable family structures as a foundation for society consideration as the state in theory requires it.
 
Marriage in terms of licensing is a legal contract. If both parties agree to break the contract then the State would have no justification in stopping them.
 
Marriage in terms of licensing is a legal contract. If both parties agree to break the contract then the State would have no justification in stopping them.

The state is the issuing authority of and a signing party in that contract.

The state therefore has just as much right as you or your spouse.
 
I wonder what banning divorce would do to the murder rate?.....:twisted: :mrgreen:
 
yes this won't cause trouble in california










Click Me Please
 
Marriage in terms of licensing is a legal contract. If both parties agree to break the contract then the State would have no justification in stopping them.
If there is no law that describes the method for achieving divorce, then there can be no divorce.
 
Back
Top Bottom