• 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

Glinda said:
There IS no reasonable argument against gay marriage. Keep dancin'
Click to expand...
I'm sorry -- where did I argue against gay marriage?

Again - you aren't bothering to actually read what I post.
Why don't you do that and respond to it, rather than respond with igorant, infantile one-liners?
 
Glinda said:
So, you're pro gay marriage?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to my point here, whch is that not arguing to ban divorce does NOT equate to a contradiction of the 'sanctity of marriage' argument, as divorce, while regrettable, is a means by which the sanctity of marriage may be better preserved.

Please DO pay attention.
 
Banning divorce would be unconstitutional.
 
Goobieman said:
:confused:
How so?
Click to expand...

Marriage is a contract. Does the government have the authority to dictate the terms of a contract made between to two consenting individuals?
 
Goobieman said:
Given your posts, it's not a surprise that you do not reconize a reasonable argument, even when it whacks you upside the head.
Click to expand...

You do realize you are implicitly arguing that heterosexual sham/publicity marriages that last for mere days do less damage to the sanctity of marriage then gays getting married and staying married for years?

If people actually give a **** about the "sanctity of marriage" they'd ban divorce.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't understand my position if that is your take. My argument is that the people who push forth the anti same sex marriage agenda have distracted the public from what really has caused the decline of traditional marriage. By doing so, they continually ensure its decline in this country. There is no evidence to support the idea that same sex marriage contributes to the decline of traditional marriage, and in fact the contrary seems true since Massachusetts still holds the lowest rate of divorce. Millions of dollars that could have been used to push through covenant marriage legislation and family incentives which would have had a real impact on the factors which evidence shows actually cause the decline of traditional marriage, has been systematically wasted on the anti same sex marriage agenda which demographically is destined to fail anyways. As such, there is more evidence to indicate that being against same sex marriage is more harmful to traditional marriage than being a supporter of it.

I have know idea what the hell you are trying to imply with idiotic remarks about hippies. I'm talking about the here and now. But it doesn't matter if you refuse to believe, since the reality is that traditional marriage is on its way out regardless of whether or not you support same sex marriage because same sex marriage simply has nothing to do with traditional marriage or its decline. If you can't see that much, then I guess it's your problem. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
One of the reasons of the decline of marriage is the Great Society and other welfare programs replaced the need of women having either to depend on a spouse for income (and to some extent that of men also) or to have to look for employment quickly after a divorce.

Another is the relaxing or at least the increase of public acceptance of open sexual promiscuity encouraged couples to break up for greener pastures.

Anyway, all of this is just a ploy of some of the people who support GM to show up the opponents. I oppose a flat ban on divorce and believe that childless divorces should be treated differently than those with children.
 
Shadow Serious said:
One of the reasons of the decline of marriage is the Great Society and other welfare programs replaced the need of women having either to depend on a spouse for income (and to some extent that of men also) or to have to look for employment quickly after a divorce.

Another is the relaxing or at least the increase of public acceptance of open sexual promiscuity encouraged couples to break up for greener pastures.

Anyway, all of this is just a ploy of some of the people who support GM to show up the opponents. I oppose a flat ban on divorce and believe that childless divorces should be treated differently than those with children.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mentioned the liberalization of women.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/58515-nom-marriage-miscalculation.html

lThe Dutch academics that the Heritage Foundation cite make the argument that the gay movement's political campaign, which aimed to separate child procreation/rearing from the institution of marriage, was likely a main contributor to this trend that followed throughout Europe.

However, this ignored two vital liberalizations. The introduction of no fault divorce and the influx of women leaving home to work.

So this leaves two possibilities open...

1. The introduction of no fault divorce and the influx of women leaving work in the 60s and 70s has over time lead to the degradation of traditional marriage to the point that attitudes now no longer consider procreation as a fundamental element of marriage and that has lead to attitudes favorable to allowing gay marriage.
2. The political campaigns in the 80s for gay marriage have lead to attitudes that procreation is not a fundamental element to marriage, which in turn has lead to the degradation of traditional marriage.

The former seems more likely to me, but conservatives are leaning more towards blaming gay marriage for the decline of traditional marriage. In addition to that, rather than focus on how no fault divorce and women leaving home to work is affecting heterosexual marriages, groups like the National Organization for marriage have turned the national focus to how the "homosexual agenda" is out to undermine religious liberties and indoctrinate and recruit children in schools. By taking this rather prejudiced route, NOM may have effectively cemented the decline of traditional marriage by distracting people from the true factors that are leading to its decline.
Click to expand...

How exactly is this a "ploy"?

I'm sorry, but anti GM people make no sense. If protecting traditional marriage were truly the point of their position, then they are undermining it every step of the way. That is simply what the evidence indicates. I'm open to evidence that indicates otherwise.
 
Last edited:
GOOBIEMAN posted(
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackboot View Post
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.)

The State Government is involved in education and look at the mess they have made of that, the RESULING mess is indeed HUGE.
 
Ethereal said:
Marriage is a contract. Does the government have the authority to dictate the terms of a contract made between to two consenting individuals?
Click to expand...

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.
 
disneydude said:
This would certainly expose the hypocrisy of those who say they voted in favor of Prop 8 to "protect the sanctity of marriage".
Click to expand...

Divorce can support the sanctity of marriage also.

Ever prune a tree? Cut away the dead and dying twigs?

Abusive marriages, for example, should end in divorce before they end in murder.
 
Other people should never have married. They're simply not a match and made a mistake.

They should divorce before children enter the picture.
 
Ethereal said:
Marriage is a contract. Does the government have the authority to dictate the terms of a contract made between to two consenting individuals?
Click to expand...
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.
 
CriticalThought said:
Apparently you don't understand my position if that is your take. My argument is that the people who push forth the anti same sex marriage agenda have distracted the public from what really has caused the decline of traditional marriage. By doing so, they continually ensure its decline in this country
Click to expand...
Is THAT what all that was about?

I still disagree. These people are more than happy to keep people 'informed' as to what has really caused the decline of traditional arriage -- just ask them.
 
Jerry said:
Divorce can support the sanctity of marriage also.

Ever prune a tree? Cut away the dead and dying twigs?

Abusive marriages, for example, should end in divorce before they end in murder.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Goobieman said:
Is THAT what all that was about?

I still disagree. These people are more than happy to keep people 'informed' as to what has really caused the decline of traditional marriage -- just ask them.
Click to expand...

You are disagreeing but you aren't providing any rational for disagreeing. In psychology we call that denial. Please provide some evidence to disprove my charge that the anti gm crowd is doing considerably more to cause the decline of traditional marriage than the pro gm crowed ever could. I was kind enough to provide evidence that same sex marriage has caused no harm to marriage by citing that Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate and that the real factors which cause the decline of traditional marriage are no fault divorce and women leaving home to work. What evidence do you have to disprove these facts? What exactly has the anti gm crowd done to alleviate these factors? How exactly has the anti gm crowd's fear appeals that the pro gm agenda is an attack on religious liberties and a ploy to indoctrinate children been good for traditional marriage?

No offense, but your position is ****, and you know it. Otherwise you would do more than "disagree". You have no evidence to support your position and as far as I am concerned, I have trounced you.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
You are disagreeing but you aren't providing any rational for disagreeing. In psychology we call that denial.
Click to expand...
Speaking of denial, there's your claim that I didn't provide a reason. Sorry that you didn't pick up on it; I'll try to be moire specific this time.

You're arguing that the 'sanctity of marriage' people are taking their eye off the ball by losing focus on the real reasons why marriage is in decline in order to pursue their agenda against gay marriage, and in doing so, they are, in fact, assisting in the decline of marriage because of that shift in focus.

You have not shown this to be true. To show this to be true you, at the very least, have to show that these groups have, to a significant degree, pulled back their previously established efforts to reverse the decline of marriage and, in its stead, embarked on their campaign against gay marriage.

You also have to show that the 'public' has been distracted from what really has caused the decline of traditional marriage

Please provide some evidence to disprove my charge that the anti gm crowd is doing considerably more to cause the decline of traditional marriage than the pro gm crowed ever could.
Click to expand...
I dont need to disprove what hasnt yet been proven.

No offense, but your position is ****, and you know it
Click to expand...
On the contrary -- you havent yet addressed MY position - and you know it.
 
Goobieman said:
You're arguing that the 'sanctity of marriage' people are taking their eye off the ball by losing focus on the real reasons why marriage is in decline in order to pursue their agenda against gay marriage, and in doing so, they are, in fact, assisting in the decline of marriage because of that shift in focus.

You have not shown this to be true. To show this to be true you, at the very least, have to show that these groups have, to a significant degree, pulled back their previously established efforts to reverse the decline of marriage and, in its stead, embarked on their campaign against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

The evidence is in the money. Show me one penny of the millions upon millions of dollars that has poured into the anti gm crowd that has been put towards alleviating the effects of no fault divorce or women leaving home to work. If you can do so, I will concede defeat. If not, then it is my victory.

In fact, while you are at it, why not come up with the proportion of money that the so called "pro traditional marriage" crowd has put towards alleviating those factors as compared to the amount spend combating gay marriage, and explain how it is justified given the relatively low impact gay marriage has on traditional marriage.

You also have to show that the 'public' has been distracted from what really has caused the decline of traditional marriage
Click to expand...

The evidence is in the ads. Show me one ad in the last 5 years from the anti gm crowd which has challenged the issues of no fault divorce and women leaving home to work as factors in the decline of traditional marriage.

On the contrary -- you havent yet addressed MY position - and you know it.
Click to expand...

Consider it addressed. I await to see your evidence as you have yet to provide any to support your position.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
The evidence is in the money. Show me one penny of the millions upon millions of dollars that has poured into the anti gm crowd that has been put towards alleviating the effects of no fault divorce or women leaving home to work. If you can do so, I will concede defeat. If not, then it is my victory.
Click to expand...
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.

The evidence is in the ads. Show me one ad in the last 5 years...
Click to expand...
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.

Consider it addressed. I await to see your evidence as you have yet to provide any to support your position.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom