Slippery Slope of Same Sex Marriage

[Delta4Embassy]

I think it's more about how we don't stigmatize divorce's in society any more. It's like the line from "Seven" at the end when the murderer's in the back of car monologueing, "Only in a world this shitty could
you even try to say these were innocent
people and keep a straight face.
(getting worked up)
That's the point. You see a deadly sin on
almost every street corner, and in every
home, literally. And we tolerate it.
Because it's common, it seems trivial, and
we tolerate, all day long, morning, noon
and night."

I think a lot of things are like that now. As with the increase I'm noticing with profanity. Even Headline News has a new cooking show titled, "Cook Your Ass Off." Used to be you couldn't say that sort of thing. Think the first occurence I noticed was on an episode of M.A.S.H. where some visiting General exclaimed "you son of a bitch" and that was a news item the next day. But nowadays. profanity's everywhere and it's become so common it's accepted speech. Still makes me cringe though. Divorce is the same way. Maybe the high occurence rate is just making it impractical to stigmatize people who're divorced.

 

[Iceman]

The biggest threat to marriage today in the United States is heterosexuals marrying then divorcing 60% of the time.

This is why no-fault divorce needs to be eliminated and alimony/child support payments need to be more tightly regulated and curbed. This will remove incentives for easy divorce.

Marriage should be hard and children should be protected.

Thankfully, so-called "no-fault" divorce is here to stay.

You are contradicting yourself. If marriage should be hard to leave, why should no fault divorce stay?

Everyone is saying divorce among heterosexuals is the problem with marriage. Well how about we remove incentives that make it easy?

If you think no-fault divorces should remain, than what is your solution to the problem of high divorce rates?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This is why no-fault divorce needs to be eliminated and alimony/child support payments need to be more tightly regulated and curbed. This will remove incentives for easy divorce.

Marriage should be hard and children should be protected.

Thankfully, so-called "no-fault" divorce is here to stay.

That may change in certain states in the next five years.

How so?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I also get a kick, like when lefties go frothing over the idea of losing no fault divorce, at reactionaries going all beast sex when homosexuality is mentioned.

 

[The Rabbi]

And I've bolded your lie.

I wrote:

You wrote:

See the huge difference in those two statements?

No, you probably don't.

The state does not legitimize relationships EXCEPT legally.

The state does legitimize a religious ceremony.

It is not the relationship that is meaningless. It is the religious ceremony that is meaningless -

Because, as I stated above, marriage is a civil contract that some people choose to also celebrate with a religious ceremony.

Well that was a particularly tedious backpedaling. But the truth is you think relationships like marriage get their legitimacy from the state. Because the religious ceremony is really independent of the state. And people can get married with one or without one. The state's recognition doesnt make a marriage legitimate or not.

Just because you don't understand facts, does not mean its "tedious". You could not be more wrong.

The religious part of the ceremony means nothing legally.

Do you understand that the preacher says the words, '... by the power vested in me ...' and that after the religious ceremony, the couple must register their marriage with the state.

Do you understand that a couple can marry in a judge's chambers with absolutely not religious aspect to the "civil" ceremony?

Again, just because you are ignorant of facts, does not mean you're right.

Look up the law in your own state.

You continue to press obvious points and obscure the truth. Is a religious ceremony meaningless? I wouldn't think so. Mine wasn't. Our rabbi never used the words "by the power invested in me."
You continue to believe that state sanction makes a marriage. It does not.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This is why no-fault divorce needs to be eliminated and alimony/child support payments need to be more tightly regulated and curbed. This will remove incentives for easy divorce.

Marriage should be hard and children should be protected.

Thankfully, so-called "no-fault" divorce is here to stay.

You are contradicting yourself. If marriage should be hard to leave, why should no fault divorce stay? I should have written, "Getting married should be hard".

Everyone is saying divorce among heterosexuals is the problem with marriage. Well how about we remove incentives to make it easy.

If you think no-fault divorces should remain, than what is your solution to the problem of high divorce rates?

Do you really think that making it difficult to divorce will somehow save marriages?

It won't.

Forcing a bad marriage to continue accomplishes nothing good. All it does is make the stats look better while telling a lie.

 

[Iceman]

Marriage should be hard and children should be protected.

Thankfully, so-called "no-fault" divorce is here to stay.

You are contradicting yourself. If marriage should be hard to leave, why should no fault divorce stay? I should have written, "Getting married should be hard".

Everyone is saying divorce among heterosexuals is the problem with marriage. Well how about we remove incentives to make it easy.

If you think no-fault divorces should remain, than what is your solution to the problem of high divorce rates?

Do you really think that making it difficult to divorce will somehow save marriages?

It won't.

Forcing a bad marriage to continue accomplishes nothing good. All it does is make the stats look better while telling a lie.

"Save" is a relative term. I thought the issue here was to prevent divorce to preserve families and create a stable environment for children.

If a marriage is "bad", then they should have a reason other than a no fault divorce. If they can't give another reason, then one of the partners is just not taking their vows to their partner and their obligation to their children seriously enough. They are being selfish.

As you said, marriage is hard, it shouldn't be as easy as a no fault divorce to get out of .

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Well that was a particularly tedious backpedaling. But the truth is you think relationships like marriage get their legitimacy from the state. Because the religious ceremony is really independent of the state. And people can get married with one or without one. The state's recognition doesnt make a marriage legitimate or not.

Just because you don't understand facts, does not mean its "tedious". You could not be more wrong.

The religious part of the ceremony means nothing legally.

Do you understand that the preacher says the words, '... by the power vested in me ...' and that after the religious ceremony, the couple must register their marriage with the state.

Do you understand that a couple can marry in a judge's chambers with absolutely not religious aspect to the "civil" ceremony?

Again, just because you are ignorant of facts, does not mean you're right.

Look up the law in your own state.

You continue to press obvious points and obscure the truth. Is a religious ceremony meaningless? I wouldn't think so. Mine wasn't. Our rabbi never used the words "by the power invested in me."
You continue to believe that state sanction makes a marriage. It does not.

I did not write that a religious ceremony is meaningless.
I wrote "The religious part of the ceremony means nothing legally".

If you had not had a religious ceremony, your marriage would still be LEGALLY binding.

If you had had ONLY a religious ceremony, your marriage would NOT be LEGALLY binding.

Look up the law in your own state.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You are contradicting yourself. If marriage should be hard to leave, why should no fault divorce stay? I should have written, "Getting married should be hard".

Everyone is saying divorce among heterosexuals is the problem with marriage. Well how about we remove incentives to make it easy.

If you think no-fault divorces should remain, than what is your solution to the problem of high divorce rates?

Do you really think that making it difficult to divorce will somehow save marriages?

It won't.

Forcing a bad marriage to continue accomplishes nothing good. All it does is make the stats look better while telling a lie.

"Save" is a relative term. I thought the issue here was to prevent divorce to preserve families and create a stable environment for children.

If a marriage is "bad", then they should have a reason other than a no fault divorce. If they can't give another reason, then one of the partners is just not taking their vows to their partner and their obligation to their children seriously enough. They are being selfish.If one does not want to be married, one should have the very easy right to not be married. Staying in a bad marriage does not help society or children.

As you said, marriage is hard, NO, I did not say that. it shouldn't be as easy as a no fault divorce to get out of .

IMO:

Getting married should be hard.

Getting divorced should be easy.

 

[Iceman]

Do you really think that making it difficult to divorce will somehow save marriages?

It won't.

Forcing a bad marriage to continue accomplishes nothing good. All it does is make the stats look better while telling a lie.

"Save" is a relative term. I thought the issue here was to prevent divorce to preserve families and create a stable environment for children.

If a marriage is "bad", then they should have a reason other than a no fault divorce. If they can't give another reason, then one of the partners is just not taking their vows to their partner and their obligation to their children seriously enough. They are being selfish.If one does not want to be married, one should have the very easy right to not be married. Staying in a bad marriage does not help society or children.

As you said, marriage is hard, NO, I did not say that. it shouldn't be as easy as a no fault divorce to get out of .

IMO:

Getting married should be hard.

Getting divorced should be easy.

If you support making divorce easy, then you don't care about family or children, you care about convenience. This is cool, just be honest.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"Save" is a relative term. I thought the issue here was to prevent divorce to preserve families and create a stable environment for children.

If a marriage is "bad", then they should have a reason other than a no fault divorce. If they can't give another reason, then one of the partners is just not taking their vows to their partner and their obligation to their children seriously enough. They are being selfish.If one does not want to be married, one should have the very easy right to not be married. Staying in a bad marriage does not help society or children.

As you said, marriage is hard, NO, I did not say that. it shouldn't be as easy as a no fault divorce to get out of .

IMO:

Getting married should be hard.

Getting divorced should be easy.

If you support making divorce easy, then you don't care about family or children, you care about convenience. This is cool, just be honest.

Why be purposely dense?
Or are you actually this stupid?

I care about life, about living life. I believe that children and men and women are supposed to be happy. I don't believe in the idiotic notion that a bad marriage is sacred. If a family is not happy, maybe divorce is the better answer.

Staying married is not always an answer to anything at all.

If you want to stay in an unhappy marriage, making your children and spouse unhappy, have at it. I would not. Nor would I force a child to be unhappy just so I could say I stayed in a bad marriage.

 

[Iceman]

IMO:

Getting married should be hard.

Getting divorced should be easy.

If you support making divorce easy, then you don't care about family or children, you care about convenience. This is cool, just be honest.

Why be purposely dense?
Or are you actually this stupid?

I care about life, about living life. I believe that children and men and women are supposed to be happy. I don't believe in the idiotic notion that a bad marriage is sacred. If a family is not happy, maybe divorce is the better answer.

Staying married is not always an answer to anything at all.

If you want to stay in an unhappy marriage, making your children and spouse unhappy, have at it. I would not. Nor would I force a child to be unhappy just so I could say I stayed in a bad marriage.

You haven't even defined what a bad marriage is, so then claiming I support something you haven't even begun to define is what is stupid.

All I am saying is have a good reason to divorce, abuse, adultery are some acceptable ones.

You say laws should be based on happiness. More stupidity, this is a subjective term, basing laws on feelings is liberal bullshit. Also, what makes you all divorces make the family happy? Why do you assume everyone wants the divorce?

You are just affirming what I said before, marriage laws should be about convenience, not children or family.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If you support making divorce easy, then you don't care about family or children, you care about convenience. This is cool, just be honest.

Why be purposely dense?
Or are you actually this stupid?

I care about life, about living life. I believe that children and men and women are supposed to be happy. I don't believe in the idiotic notion that a bad marriage is sacred. If a family is not happy, maybe divorce is the better answer.

Staying married is not always an answer to anything at all.

If you want to stay in an unhappy marriage, making your children and spouse unhappy, have at it. I would not. Nor would I force a child to be unhappy just so I could say I stayed in a bad marriage.

You haven't even defined what a bad marriage is, so then claiming I support something you haven't even begun to define is what is stupid.

All I am saying is have a good reason to divorce, abuse, adultery are some acceptable ones. So is, "I don't want to be married".

You say laws should be based on happiness. More stupidity, this is a subjective term, basing laws on feelings is liberal bullshit. Also, what makes you all Stop lying. I did not say "all".divorces make the family happy? Why do you assume everyone Stop lying. I did not say "everyone".wants the divorce?

You are just affirming what I said before, marriage laws should be about convenience, not children or family.I don't believe either of us said that " marriage laws should be about convenience, not children or family".

So you believe that I should be able to tell you whether or not you're happy. And, you even want laws that define "happy marriage" and "unhappy marriage".

Do you have any clue what that was like? I don't think you do.

What is rw bullshit is this constant effort to control other people's lives.

MYOB

 

[Iceman]

Why be purposely dense?
Or are you actually this stupid?

I care about life, about living life. I believe that children and men and women are supposed to be happy. I don't believe in the idiotic notion that a bad marriage is sacred. If a family is not happy, maybe divorce is the better answer.

Staying married is not always an answer to anything at all.

If you want to stay in an unhappy marriage, making your children and spouse unhappy, have at it. I would not. Nor would I force a child to be unhappy just so I could say I stayed in a bad marriage.

You haven't even defined what a bad marriage is, so then claiming I support something you haven't even begun to define is what is stupid.

All I am saying is have a good reason to divorce, abuse, adultery are some acceptable ones. So is, "I don't want to be married".

You say laws should be based on happiness. More stupidity, this is a subjective term, basing laws on feelings is liberal bullshit. Also, what makes you all Stop lying. I did not say "all".divorces make the family happy? Why do you assume everyone Stop lying. I did not say "everyone".wants the divorce?

You are just affirming what I said before, marriage laws should be about convenience, not children or family.I don't believe either of us said that " marriage laws should be about convenience, not children or family".

So you believe that I should be able to tell you whether or not you're happy. And, you even want laws that define "happy marriage" and "unhappy marriage".

Do you have any clue what that was like? I don't think you do.

What is rw bullshit is this constant effort to control other people's lives.

MYOB

You are accusing me of lying, I never did such a thing.

You are the only one lying, I never said the government should define a happy or unhappy marriages.

I specifically said marriage laws shouldn't be based on "feelings", which is what you want. Laws should not be based on some vague notion of happiness you have yet to define. Nor have you shown that most divorces result in increased "happiness", because you have yet to define the term and even if you could define it it wouldn't be a measurable statistic.

You just believe in free love anything goes, and convenience above all else.

What I support is preserving the family unit and social stability for children because I see these things have social value for the society at large. One of the ways this should be preserved is through law, and not allowing a family to be broken up on the less than satisfactory whims of one partner.

If you have a problem with that, than attack me on that. Stop making up bullshit to prop up your leftist degenerate conceptions and worldview.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Sorry, cant be bothered with rw liars.

Get lost.

 

[Iceman]

Sorry, cant be bothered with rw liars.

Get lost.

I am not lying. These are my views, if you don't like them, or don't want to discuss the merits and drawbacks of stricter divorce laws because you are either lazy/tired or don't understand the subject, than ok, but don't call me a liar because I challenge your world view.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Sorry, cant be bothered with rw liars.

Get lost.

I am not lying. These are my views, if you don't like them, or don't want to discuss the merits and drawbacks of stricter divorce laws because you are either lazy/tired or don't understand the subject, than ok, but don't call me a liar because I challenge your world view.

One of your several lies.

You just believe in free love anything goes, and convenience above all else.

You lie. rw's lie.

And now, you will respond to this with more lies.

Pffft.

 

[Katzndogz]

Sorry, cant be bothered with rw liars.

Get lost.

I am not lying. These are my views, if you don't like them, or don't want to discuss the merits and drawbacks of stricter divorce laws because you are either lazy/tired or don't understand the subject, than ok, but don't call me a liar because I challenge your world view.

It was libspeak for "You have me backed into a corner and I have nothing intelligent to say".

 

[Iceman]

Sorry, cant be bothered with rw liars.

Get lost.

I am not lying. These are my views, if you don't like them, or don't want to discuss the merits and drawbacks of stricter divorce laws because you are either lazy/tired or don't understand the subject, than ok, but don't call me a liar because I challenge your world view.

One of your several lies.

You just believe in free love anything goes, and convenience above all else.

You lie. rw's lie.

And now, you will respond to this with more lies.

Pffft.

You said divorce laws should be based on happiness(which you have yet to define or how divorce makes people happier), this is just an outgrowth of free love anything goes ideology and based on convenience, not hard work in a marriage.

If I am wrong, tell me your position on divorce law and what the problems with my position are.


What I support is preserving the family unit and social stability for children because I see these things have social value for the society at large. One of the ways this should be preserved is through law, and not allowing a family to be broken up on the less than satisfactory whims of one partner.

 

[freedombecki]

If homosexual marriages are legal so is polygamy a Federal Judge rules. Read decision @ http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/brown-summary-judgment-decision.pdf

Who didn't see this coming?

Followed by this:

Polygamy advocates hail judge's ruling in Utah
December 14, 2013 - 7:04 PM
By MARTIN GRIFFITH, Associated Press

Advocacy groups for polygamy and individual liberties on Saturday hailed a federal judge's ruling that key parts of Utah's polygamy laws are unconstitutional, saying it will remove the threat of arrest for those families.
- See more at: Sister Wives: Judge Rules Key Parts of Utah Anti-Polygamy Law Unconstitutional | CNS News

Pa: "We should just shoot 'em."
Ma: "The law perteks 'em."