Gays are divorcing already

[pretender]

In what way are men predictable? It seems like you've had some bad times with them. Shouldn't you have learned to expect that predictable behavior?

It was mostly tongue in cheek dilloduck, my experiences withstanding.

 

[dilloduck]

It was mostly tongue in cheek dilloduck, my experiences withstanding.

Sorry--guess it just zipped right over my head :duh3:

 

[5stringJeff]

Avatar's post was right on. Divorce laws in all 50 states are much too lenient. I would be fully in favor of abolishing no-fault divorce, and requiring that divorce only be granted in cases of adultery, abuse, or abandonment. That would not only drop the heterosexual divorce rate, it would drop the gay marriage rate substantially - not to mention the stability of households that our children will grow up in.

 

[Merlin1047]

Avatar's post was right on. Divorce laws in all 50 states are much too lenient. I would be fully in favor of abolishing no-fault divorce, and requiring that divorce only be granted in cases of adultery, abuse, or abandonment. That would not only drop the heterosexual divorce rate, it would drop the gay marriage rate substantially - not to mention the stability of households that our children will grow up in.

So I take it that would be a "No" vote on my cohabitation license idea?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Avatar's post was right on. Divorce laws in all 50 states are much too lenient. I would be fully in favor of abolishing no-fault divorce, and requiring that divorce only be granted in cases of adultery, abuse, or abandonment. That would not only drop the heterosexual divorce rate, it would drop the gay marriage rate substantially - not to mention the stability of households that our children will grow up in.

It's gotten too late for that. Marriage is now considered easy come, easy go. It lacks the impact it used to have, especially since they are now letting anybody get them...heaven forbid that you should now start putting on any harsh requirements. After all who are WE to impose our "morality"? Marriage is now considered to be only a "civil" thing and the opinions of church folk are no longer required.

 

[5stringJeff]

So I take it that would be a "No" vote on my cohabitation license idea?

If people want to cohabitate, that's their business. Have fun. No contract or license needed.

It's gotten too late for that. Marriage is now considered easy come, easy go. It lacks the impact it used to have, especially since they are now letting anybody get them...heaven forbid that you should now start putting on any harsh requirements. After all who are WE to impose our "morality"? Marriage is now considered to be only a "civil" thing and the opinions of church folk are no longer required.

That's great... but if we are going to look at that part of it, marriage is a contract between two people to be legally recognized as one entity. As it stands now, it's easier to break the marriage "contract" then it is to get out of a two-year cell phone commitment! Something is wrong with that. That's why I support tightening divorce laws.

 

[OCA]

It makes you wonder where gay rights ends and gay privilege starts.

Of course, this is how it always goes, isn't it? A movement starts to address some wrongs committed against a group of people (blacks, women, gays etc). Eventually, they acheive most, if not all, their original objectives. Then what? Do they disband, pat themselves on the shoulder and say "We done good"? No... they come up with more demands! They become more extreme and eventually they become irrelevant!

Give an inch and they want a foot. I say take the inch back and then some.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

That's great... but if we are going to look at that part of it, marriage is a contract between two people to be legally recognized as one entity. As it stands now, it's easier to break the marriage "contract" then it is to get out of a two-year cell phone commitment! Something is wrong with that. That's why I support tightening divorce laws.

Our society was built upon mainly Christian beliefs. They provided the framework for decent living. Marriage was once not only a civil union but a contract/covenant with God. These beliefs are being trashed and torn down by the secularists of our society today because they are crying "separation of church and state". If you think something is "wrong" about marriage/divorce you are making a moral evaluation. Tsk. Tsk. You're not supposed to do that anymore. Marriage is supposed to be nothing but a civil contract today. But it this very "separation of church and state" approach that is creating the chaos and the breakdown of decent living. God is no longer involved. Morals are out the window.

Each person now has the right to make his own moral "choice" with regard to marriage and divorce. My question is, if morals should be taken out of marriage/divorce, logically shouldn't morals be taken out of every other aspect of society too? Where would that leave us?

I agree with OCA. It is time to stop giving any inches and take back some feet.

 

[nakedemperor]

Our society was built upon mainly Christian beliefs. They provided the framework for decent living. Marriage was once not only a civil union but a contract/covenant with God. These beliefs are being trashed and torn down by the secularists of our society today because they are crying "separation of church and state". If you think something is "wrong" about marriage/divorce you are making a moral evaluation. Tsk. Tsk. You're not supposed to do that anymore. Marriage is supposed to be nothing but a civil contract today. But it this very "separation of church and state" approach that is creating the chaos and the breakdown of decent living. God is no longer involved. Morals are out the window.

Each person now has the right to make his own moral "choice" with regard to marriage and divorce. My question is, if morals should be taken out of marriage/divorce, logically shouldn't morals be taken out of every other aspect of society too? Where would that leave us?

I agree with OCA. It is time to stop giving any inches and take back some feet.

Marriage as it is today is a secular, governement recognized and regulated institution. The only thing Christian about 'marriage' is the word itself (which is semantics and not worth arguing) and when Christians get married in a church; that's the contract with God, but they also have to get a marriage license. You can also get a marriage license without being married in a church, or any religious institution for that matter. If you're asking for a reversion back to Christian values, have the churches stop marrying people (in the eyes of God) when they can just turn around and get divorced whenever they choose. If, in the Christian community, you get married in a church with the understanding and the church and God will not recognize your divorce unless there is abuse etc, etc.

However, because there is a seperation of church and state, as there should be, marriage is not a religious institution for all. It is for some. For the majority it is a Christian institution. But because one cannot infuse Christianity into a government institution (the legal marriage), one cannot argue for Christian morality to be infused into the process.

 

[OCA]

Anyway my view on seperation of church and state which ol' Nakey thinks is just is that that seperation is probably the main reason we are so screwed up socially like we are. Take other nations such as Greece where government and the church are inextricably intertwined....very little violent crime and social standards that one is expected to live up to, and you know what? Everyone is happy and content, none of this victim and i'm offended bullshit like what is rampant here. I think that we ought to give church and state working together a try here since the other way has failed miserably.

 

[Gem]

NakedEmperor Wrote:

Marriage as it is today is a secular, governement recognized and regulated institution.

NakedE, I agree with you. But here's a question: once you change the current definition of marriage....how do you stop changing it?

Its easy enough to say, "Marriage is what it has always been, a contract between a man and a woman." But once you change that to "two individuals," how will you argue against changing it again, and again, and again...

 

[Bonnie]

Guess it really was all about the illict sex and the thrill is gone now that it's "approved."

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: Probably true too!

 

[Bonnie]

NakedEmperor Wrote:


NakedE, I agree with you. But here's a question: once you change the current definition of marriage....how do you stop changing it?

Its easy enough to say, "Marriage is what it has always been, a contract between a man and a woman." But once you change that to "two individuals," how will you argue against changing it again, and again, and again...

Or for that matter brother and sister marriages..etc. Marriage is secular if you only marry civily, when you marry in the church it is a covenant you make with God.

There are reasons for the secular laws of marriage as they stand now, meaning a man and woman, not related, and only one of each. These are for social stability for the family, for children, and the financial security of women who don't work outside the home but opt for taking care of children soley. Even those thes laws are secular in their origin they are still good laws.

 

[Trigg]

(BTW - First marriages don't end in divorce 50% of the time, it is all marriages inclusive that count in that particular statistic those people that have 15 or 16 marriages and still haven't got the clue that it is hard to stay married, thus the percentage is skewed toward those that get divorced.)

I've always thought this was the case with the statistics. I have friends who are planning to get married, it will be the third marriage for both of them.

I don't think the divorce rate is that bad when you consider it's the same people getting divorced over and over and over and over again.

 

[Bonnie]

I've always thought this was the case with the statistics. I have friends who are planning to get married, it will be the third marriage for both of them.

I don't think the divorce rate is that bad when you consider it's the same people getting divorced over and over and over and over again.

Or if you add to the equation there are many more people on the planet so more are getting married ergo more are divorcing, so all things considered it's relative.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Marriage as it is today is a secular, governement recognized and regulated institution. The only thing Christian about 'marriage' is the word itself (which is semantics and not worth arguing) and when Christians get married in a church; that's the contract with God, but they also have to get a marriage license. You can also get a marriage license without being married in a church, or any religious institution for that matter. If you're asking for a reversion back to Christian values, have the churches stop marrying people (in the eyes of God) when they can just turn around and get divorced whenever they choose. If, in the Christian community, you get married in a church with the understanding and the church and God will not recognize your divorce unless there is abuse etc, etc.

However, because there is a seperation of church and state, as there should be, marriage is not a religious institution for all. It is for some. For the majority it is a Christian institution. But because one cannot infuse Christianity into a government institution (the legal marriage), one cannot argue for Christian morality to be infused into the process.

Yes, I get your argument. Very nicely stated.

However, since you argue that people with religious morals should not influence government law with regard to gay marriage, then I also assume you think people should stay out of the matter when a man wants to marry two sisters?

Or a bisexual man marries both a brother and sister?

Or when a homosexual man wants to marry several boys ages 6 to 16?

Or when two lesbians want to marry the father of "their" child for financial/familial considerations so all three are married to each other. How about a foursome? Or five?

Or a father and son marry so both can obtain health coverage from the job that only one of them is working?

These examples are where your line of reasoning is taking us. You say you cannot allow for any "morality" in the law as that would be mixing church and state!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Nakedemperor, no reply? I'd like to get your opinion. Do you think all of those other situations regarding marriage are OK too?

 

[nakedemperor]

Yes, I get your argument. Very nicely stated.

However, since you argue that people with religious morals should not influence government law with regard to gay marriage, then I also assume you think people should stay out of the matter when a man wants to marry two sisters?

Or a bisexual man marries both a brother and sister?

Or when a homosexual man wants to marry several boys ages 6 to 16?

Or when two lesbians want to marry the father of "their" child for financial/familial considerations so all three are married to each other. How about a foursome? Or five?

Or a father and son marry so both can obtain health coverage from the job that only one of them is working?

These examples are where your line of reasoning is taking us. You say you cannot allow for any "morality" in the law as that would be mixing church and state!

This argument doesn't make much sense to me. There is "morality" implicit in all laws, but you can't attach specific religious denominations moral values (that might not be shared by all religions, or all believers and non-believers).

At any rate, the marriage law as is forbids having multiple marriage partners. This seems to make sense to me. How can you build a loving, caring, romantic relationship while dividing your time between partners? No problem with forbidding polygamy.

Marriage law forbids brothers and sisters from marrying. This is because procreation becomes dangerous for the baby.

Marriage law forbids minors from marrying. This is because they are not psychologically developed enough yet to make a good decision regarding something of the magnitude of marriage. Same with alcohol, same with voting. No problems here.

All of these restrictions make sense to me.

However, to prevent gays from marrying is to prevent two people from entering into a loving, caring, romantic relationship in which they can adopt a child, focus their love and respect on their one (1) partner, raise a normal child, (unless anti-gay marriage people make this child's life a living hell, which happened re: myscigenation, but it had to happen because it was right and just).

Essentially, there is a difference between "religion morals" influencing legislation and "allowing siblings to create genetic weirdo kids, or dooming a marriage but giving a man two wives, or allowing a minor to make a major decision". Its common sense that prevents these things from happening, not solely "immorality".

 

[dmp]

T

However, to prevent gays from marrying is to prevent two people from entering into a loving, caring, romantic relationship in which they can adopt a child, focus their love and respect on their one (1) partner, raise a normal child, (unless anti-gay marriage people make this child's life a living hell, which happened re: myscigenation, but it had to happen because it was right and just).
.

ugh...I hate the thought of gays raising a poor child. wow. I'd rather a child have to die than grow up so confused about normal, and reality, and 'right and wrong' - it would be easier on the kid to simply have never been born. Geesh.

I contend it's impossible for homosexuals to be in a loving relationship, because homosexuality is about selfishness. It's about giving into your physical feelings of desire with no regard to how fucked up anyone else (or yourself) gets because of it.

Want a child to have a x% greater risk of suicide? Place said child in 'family' with homosexual adults. Want a child no have no concept of restraint? Ditto. I hate how little regard you show for kids, NE. Talk about making a kids life hell? The only way to SAVE a kid from a living hell is to remove them from homo-parents. (note the period)

 

[nakedemperor]

ugh...I hate the thought of gays raising a poor child. wow. I'd rather a child have to die than grow up so confused about normal, and reality, and 'right and wrong' - it would be easier on the kid to simply have never been born. Geesh.

I contend it's impossible for homosexuals to be in a loving relationship, because homosexuality is about selfishness. It's about giving into your physical feelings of desire with no regard to how fucked up anyone else (or yourself) gets because of it.

Want a child to have a x% greater risk of suicide? Place said child in 'family' with homosexual adults. Want a child no have no concept of restraint? Ditto. I hate how little regard you show for kids, NE. Talk about making a kids life hell? The only way to SAVE a kid from a living hell is to remove them from homo-parents. (note the period)

Selfishness? What on earth are you talking about? "Giving into physical desire" as opposed to what? Going through life without ever having a sexual experience? Resigning yourself to never being able to have a family of your own unless you lie to your spouse, yourself, and your children? What-ever.

I have a friend here at Brown who grew up in a same-sex household; he is one of the happiest and most well-adjusted kids I've ever met. When people ask him about or give him shit about his home life, he responds proudly that he loves his parents and his parents love him. "No concept of restraint"? There is no NEED to restrain your homosexuality.

"Easier to simply have never been born"; right. Listen, it was (and is) EXTREMELY hard to be a child in a mixed-race househould. There was a time when doing so would probably have been as hard as being a child from a same-sex household. But would you argue to "restrain your physical urges" towards a black person in order to "save the child from hell". HELL no.