• 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

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that's the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce.


Pretty funny stunt, it will be even more funny if it actually makes the ballot.

Baylor University || The Lariat Online || News
 
The government should not be involved in marriage, period. Now if you want to enter in to a legal contract, then so be it, but I am of the mind that two adults can handle their own affairs, and should.
 
The government should not be involved in marriage, period. Now if you want to enter in to a legal contract, then so be it, but I am of the mind that two adults can handle their own affairs, and should.
Its really not that easy. If the state did not define the interaction between the law and the rights of the spouses -- and make sure those rights are protected -- the resuling mess would be, well, huge.

Imagine, the state playing no role in divorce.
 
Then thousands of men will be able to keep their paychecks. The horror!
Indeed!

Of course, under the same argument as that presented here, CA could/should also ban adultry.

WBJC would -never- go there again...
 
Like I said, marriage should be a private matter, between the two adults involved. They should then sign a legal contract if they believe they cannot trust the other to come to a reasonable conclusion, should this situation become untenable. As far as for the children, I think we all know by now that the woman always owns her child, unless it is discovered that she cannot care for that child properly. I am for true equality, not this hypocritical nonsense we have today, just a transparent inequality.
 
Like I said, marriage should be a private matter, between the two adults involved. They should then sign a legal contract if they believe they cannot trust the other to come to a reasonable conclusion, should this situation become untenable. As far as for the children, I think we all know by now that the woman always owns her child, unless it is discovered that she cannot care for that child properly. I am for true equality, not this hypocritical nonsense we have today, just a transparent inequality.
Yeaaaah....
Look, it may very well be that you fully believe this is 'better'.
Given that, I would guess that you have not been thru the processes you describe and the other related processes you do not. Believe me when I say that there are numerous times when you very definitely want the state involved in marriage.
 
This would certainly expose the hypocrisy of those who say they voted in favor of Prop 8 to "protect the sanctity of marriage".
 
Pretty funny stunt, it will be even more funny if it actually makes the ballot.

I've always wondered about this myself. If the religious right is so bloody fired up about "protecting the sanctity of marriage," why didn't they ban divorce eons ago?

:screwy

Here's the answer: They're ****ing hypocrites.
 
I've always wondered about this myself. If the religious right is so bloody fired up about "protecting the sanctity of marriage," why didn't they ban divorce eons ago?
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.

Here's the answer: They're ****ing hypocrites.
You think this only because you'd rater attack those that oppose same-sex marriage than actually think something through.
 
Last edited:
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.

Main Entry: sanc·ti·ty
Pronunciation: \ˈsaŋ(k)-tə-tē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural sanc·ti·ties
Etymology: Middle English saunctite, from Anglo-French sainteté, from Latin sanctitat-, sanctitas, from sanctus sacred
Date: 14th century

1 : holiness of life and character : godliness
2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : inviolability b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights

Main Entry: in·vi·o·la·ble
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)in-ˈvī-ə-lə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin inviolabilis, from in- + violare to violate
Date: 15th century

1 : secure from violation or profanation <an inviolable law>
2 : secure from assault or trespass : unassailable <inviolable borders>

Sanctity = holy
Inviolable = of such value that it must not be violated

If marriage is holy and so inviolable, it should never be torn asunder for ANY reason, correct?

:roll:

You think this only because you'd rater attack those that oppose same-sex marriage than actually think something through.

No, I say it because it's a fact. Those who insist that we must "protect the sanctity of marriage" are hypocrites if they do not also insist that divorce must be outlawed. Anything less is religious hypocritical bull****.
 
If marriage is holy and so inviolable, it should never be torn asunder for ANY reason, correct?
You apparently did not bother to actually read my response.

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.

No, I say it because it's a fact.
Obviously not, in several regards.
 
You apparently did not bother to actually read my response.

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.

And you are obviously so homophobic you're willing to be a duplicitous and unashamed hypocrite.

Good on you, pal! :thumbs:
 
And you are obviously so homophobic you're willing to be a duplicitous and unashamed hypocrite.
Thank you for proving my point better than I ever could hope to.
:clap:
 
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.


You think this only because you'd rater attack those that oppose same-sex marriage than actually think something through.
if you want to use the word "sanctity", then there certainly is a relationship.
 
This would certainly expose the hypocrisy of those who say they voted in favor of Prop 8 to "protect the sanctity of marriage".

This is just a copout, though.

They're against gay marriage - and they feel they can use the sanctity of marriage as a good guise for it. :shrug:

It's not their *real* reason, though - they just don't want gays to marry, it's that simple. Except they know that's not a good enough of a reason - and so they must find other reasons that they feel are 'more legitimate'
 
You think this only because you'd rater attack those that oppose same-sex marriage than actually think something through.

If you really thought this through, then you would realize that those who have pushed through an anti same sex marriage agenda have done considerably more harm to traditional marriage than simply allowing same sex marriage ever could have done.

My justification for this argument...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/58515-nom-marriage-miscalculation.html
 
This is just a copout, though.

They're against gay marriage - and they feel they can use the sanctity of marriage as a good guise for it. :shrug:

It's not their *real* reason, though - they just don't want gays to marry, it's that simple. Except they know that's not a good enough of a reason - and so they must find other reasons that they feel are 'more legitimate'

Reposted for truth.
 
If you want to use the word "sanctity", then there certainly is a relationship.
There -might- be -some- relationship, but there isn't a -necessary- relationship. Not -every- marriage need last into perpituity for the sanctity of marriage to be preserved.

Obviously, the preferred condition is for all marriages to adhere to the tenets of marriage and last in perpituity, but its foolish to expect this will happen. Given that, if the sanctity of marriage is the goal, and that goal will never be fully realized, then the rational thing to do is to protect the sanctity as much as possible.

As I said, married couples making a mockery of marriage by not acting under the its usual auspices do more to harm the 'sanctity' of marriage than allowing a marriage to end. By ending these marriages rather than forcing them to contiuue, the mockery ends, and the sanctity is better defended than if those marrigaes been forced to continue.
 
Last edited:
There -might- be -some- relationship, but there isn't a -necessary- relationship. Not -every- marriage need last into perpituity for the sanctity of marriage to be preserved.

Obviously, the preferred condition is for all marriages to adhere to the tenets of marriage and last in perpituity, but its foolish to expect this will happen. Given that, if the sanctity of marriage is the goal, and that goal will never be fully realized, then the rational thing to do is to protect the sanctity as much as possible by.

As I said, married couples making a mockery of marriage by not acting under the its usual auspices do more to harm the 'snctity' of marriage than allowing a marriage to end. By ending these marriages rather than forcing them to contiuue, the mockery ends, and the sanctity is better defended than if those marrigaes been forced to continue.

:rofl Lookit the boy DANCE!
 
If you really thought this through, then you would realize that those who have pushed through an anti same sex marriage agenda have done considerably more harm to traditional marriage than simply allowing same sex marriage ever could have done.
My justification for this argument...
I woud have relaized it if I supposed the argument againast gay marriage and the half-centruy decline of tradtitional marriage were significantly related, and assumed that your "this leaves two choices' position was not a false dichotomy.

I doubt many, if any, opponents of same-sex marriage base their position on the -current and past- decline of marriage, as this decline had been going on for some time prior to the pop-culture advent of the same-sex marriage topic. It is very likely that this decline -is- related to changes in societal conceptulaization of reproductive rights, but to significantly attach the same-sex marriage argument in this regard is unsupportable.

That is, the hippies didnt decide it was OK to screw everyone they could because they were swayed by the 'you dont have to be able to have kids to get married' argument.

So, I disagree with your position.
 
Last edited:
:rofl Lookit the boy DANCE!
Given your posts, it's not a surprise that you do not reconize a reasonable argument, even when it whacks you upside the head.
 
Given your posts, it's not a surprise that you do not reconize a reasonable argument, even when it whacks you upside the head.

There IS no reasonable argument against gay marriage. Keep dancin'. :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom