Curse

I pwnd U · Nov 12, 2008, 06:41 PM // 18:41

They do usually call it "holy matrimony" so that does seem to suggest it is a "holy" union.

Abedeus · Nov 12, 2008, 06:41 PM // 18:41

That's why there is a civil wedding for unbelievers/non-Christians/cultmembers (lul) in Poland. Want a marriage in a church? Sure, just don't expect divorce to be that easy.

Want a "normal" wedding without the religious jibberish? Sure thing, it's even faster.

I pwnd U · Nov 12, 2008, 06:43 PM // 18:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

Want a "normal" wedding without the religious jibberish? Sure thing, it's even faster.

It's called eloping. Amirite?

zwei2stein · Nov 12, 2008, 06:47 PM // 18:47

I was going to say i am happy i don't live in America, but in my country Christians are doing their best to pass law that would make divorces a lot harder (basically, divorces would be able only if there is cause of it that court would accept, and only person that was not cause of that problem can file for divorce. Example: Adulterous woman would not be able to fill for divorce, her 'innocent' husband would have to. reasoning for this is somewhat sketchy, but its basically to prevent people who want to keep their marriage from being divorced (!!!!!) )

I pwnd U · Nov 12, 2008, 06:55 PM // 18:55

/sigh... okay here go my thoughts on the whole divorce situation... again, my opinion

Myself, I am against divorce. I think that marriage should be for life, not for a couple of years until the money or sex runs dry. One should marry for love, not money or sex or any of the other countless reasons. Marriage should be for life. As for divorce, yes I am against it BUT there are cases where a divorce will actually be better then staying together. If 2 people who are married stay together even though their marriage has gone way sour, it could possibly hurt other people more then if they get a divorce, specifically kids.

Most of the time people think that divorce hurts the kids more then if the parents had stayed together. This is not always the case. Watching parents constantly fight can do more harm to a kid then if his parents got a divorce. Yes, the divorce will also affect the child(ren) BUT the parents fighting constantly while the child(ren) are around could easily affect the kid much more then a divorce. In these situations, where the children would be more affected by the parents staying together, I could see it. But those Hollywood divorces are bs, they marry on a whim and that is it is pathetic. They shouldn't get married in the first place.

Miss Puddles · Nov 12, 2008, 06:59 PM // 18:59

let's all just go back to the dark ages where women were property and divorce was illegal and you had to marry within your own race, religion, and class.

ahh the good ol' days.

Inde · Nov 12, 2008, 07:00 PM // 19:00

First off bhavv, it would help next time if you remembered that people from all countries see this forum and the majority of them aren't going to have a clue what you are talking about in regards to something that happens in the united states. Which is why your sarcasm fails somewhat.

Seond, we'll let the thread stay up but please note that any insults or bashing someone because of religion/race/gender/sexual orientation/etc./etc./etc./etc. will be deleted and the thread closed.

I pwnd U · Nov 12, 2008, 07:07 PM // 19:07

Ohai Inde. Why isn't your name purple anymore?!?!

**cosyfiep** · Nov 12, 2008, 07:49 PM // 19:49

as a married person I am, kinda, against divorce too.....

but as pwnd mentioned there are good reasons (besides the one he listed, I have been there--we used to call my parents yelling the cold war)....assault/battery is also a good reason to leave your partner.....

however, just staying together for the kids sake doesnt hold water with me. If you and your partner are miserable together it will make for a very unhappy home (yes kids do pick up on that stuff), and coming from an unhappy home is worse than coming from one with only one parent who is happy. (many kids of these unhappy homes suffer from depression and are unable to find a fulfilling relationship later in life)....

ah never mind I made this into a serious discussion on divorce....back to your regularly scheduled sarcasm

Yang Whirlwind · Nov 12, 2008, 07:53 PM // 19:53

Protect intelligence, protect sanity, prohibit No On Prop 8!

zwei2stein · Nov 12, 2008, 08:57 PM // 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosyfiep

as a married person I am, kinda, against divorce too.....

Well, Don't get divorced!

With all the seriousness, that is the point: People who believe that marriage is for life and whatnot are free to practice this by not getting divorced. Its commendable attitude (unless, of course, they actually suffer because of their choice, then is f. dumb thing to do)

But, they should make line behind which are other people and stop crossing it to force others to uphold to their ideas about how life is supposed to be lived.

That said, divorce rate is problem. But solution is not freaking law. It has more to do with consumerism based culture where dumb celebrities are allowed to set example, where everyone is childish without ever maturing (age does not count), etc etc ... where divorce is solution to pretty much any problem or even desirable outcome (see: gold digger girls.). But frankly, I see no reason to keep marriage where people literally divorce over sock-washing because at least one of pair is simply unsuited for marriage.

Master Fuhon · Nov 12, 2008, 11:41 PM // 23:41

The argument in it's previous form was more detrimental to the cause of denying gay marriage than it was helpful. In this case, the argument in it's present form is more damaging to its cause, because it chooses to offend anyone who understands true causes for divorce (damage to children, abuse, etc). As long as these arguments are passed back and forth like this, people will never become aware of the argument that prevents these issues from being decided at the national level.

The strongest argument in favor of gay marriage is that separate but equal in theory turns into segregation in practice. The original use of this idea came from the fact that skin color could never be a personal choice. From looking at identical twins, it's pretty clear that sexual orientation is not purely decided from birth in the same manner as race; in cases of a gay twin, the other can still turn out heterosexual (about 48% chance last study I saw). I don't think the issue is casual enough for voters to be deciding without any background info. Sancity of marriage has always been more closely related to child-birthing rights than sexual orientation.

I dislike distorting the argument that protects people from being forced to try to change a biologically based trait (race, gender, age), but I do not approve of discrimination even more so. I'm still torn between what types of relationships are being discriminated against more; it appears sexual relations are taking a priority over family rights. I wouldn't care who people were attracted to if it wasn't being used to influence people who may not have finalized their own orientations. This is all people care about in legal talk; do your rights infringe on someone else's. I personally think all people need to know is who they can breed with and after that they can decide to be homo, bi, or hetero.

Also, it's bad use of sarcasm when the taunts hit an unintended target. It would be good use of sarcasm if they intended to offend children of divorced parents who found out they were better off without the two parents openly fighting. In this case, it is not the reader's failure to detect, but the writer's failure to use against a targeted audience.

Mercury Angel · Nov 13, 2008, 01:19 AM // 01:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

Also, it's bad use of sarcasm when the taunts hit an unintended target. It would be good use of sarcasm if they intended to offend children of divorced parents who found out they were better off without the two parents openly fighting. In this case, it is not the reader's failure to detect, but the writer's failure to use against a targeted audience.

Well, I believe it depends on the direction you're trying to take an argument.

A purely rational argument is futile. Rationalization is post-facto. You attack it, and the emotional, traditional, and spiritual background that formed it remains.

The divorce angle has the benefit of allowing you to setup a widely relevant distorted mirror that forces people to evaluate both arguments and background, if done well.
The problem is that if you connect it to anti prop-8, you're setting yourself up as the enemy, and prejudicing people against you.

Ideally, for this attack to work, you'd need a distinctly different ("divorced") group with no known ties to press the case with seeming realism and conviction. Then you can create an atmosphere of shared victimhood against a seemingly-real boogieman. Also, you may cause factional dissent, as a plus.

(Please note that all that I have posted in this thread comes from a rhetoric-only angle, and not on the basis of the values of the arguments.)

The Red Messenger · Nov 13, 2008, 03:19 AM // 03:19

marriage itself should be reworked to better fit the needs of todays society.

instead of "till death do you part"...have couple sign a contract that expires after like 4 or 8 years. when the time comes up, they can either part ways or renew the contract. this would serve a few things:

couples can either strengthen their relationship by renewing, or when the contract ends, it doesnt end in a battle because basically every marriage would have a prenuptal agreement.

might as well since like half of marriages end in divorce

ZenRgy · Nov 13, 2008, 04:51 AM // 04:51

I'm failing to see how binding two parents together that fight all the time can be good for a child.

Divinitys Creature · Nov 13, 2008, 09:02 PM // 21:02

Live fast and die young before you have a chance to get divorced.

Halmyr · Nov 13, 2008, 11:09 PM // 23:09

My life, my choice, If I want to marry a man, you have no word what ever in my choice.

If I want to divorce, you have no word to put into it.

If you don't want to get divorce, or get marry to a some one of the same sex, Fine, just don't push it onto me.

This is not the dark ages anymore, welcome to the 21th century.

sindex · Nov 13, 2008, 11:25 PM // 23:25

I voted “No on 8,” though most of the community voted "Yes" because the high Christian authority over here in the valley. Yes, I am Catholic though. However, the separation of church and state must be upheld and those faiths who pillaged into these political affairs must be taxed. Using fear tactic to win over the voters was just plain wrong, including using the children of all things.

pamelf · Nov 14, 2008, 03:42 PM // 15:42

Thank god I don't believe in marriage...or god for that matter...

Aera Lure · Nov 15, 2008, 04:16 AM // 04:16

Banning of divorce? Holy hell. No. People change. Relationships change.

Last I checked the Constitution, we live in a country (I am speaking about the US) where religion is an option, where religion is private, where religion is not a part of government, where different religions are acceptable. Admittedly, last I looked that is less and less the case. Sad. Truly sad.

Be more careful when you marry. Dont rush into it. Dont marry young. Talk more about what you want from the future. Talk more when married. Dont make things so black and white as this petition. That alone would reduce divorce rates, but ban it? You cant be serious, but I fear you are.