Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Til Death Do Us Part . . . But You're Not Dead Yet  
User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4278 posts, RR: 52
Posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2372 times:

The logical extension of Prop 8 in California: ban divorce! Protect marriage! Love it! John + Four and Kate + Four = Sin

Texan


"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8572 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2347 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

absolutely priceless - it will be interesting to see how many of the right wing loonies are crazy enough to vote for this ( or what their excuses would be for not voting for it )


Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19806 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2270 times:

I'll vote for it!

Seriously, if that's what it takes to demonstrate how crazy the "Marriage is sacred" people, then I'll totally vote for it!

Let's show them how you REALLY legislate morality!


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8847 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2242 times:



Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 1):
absolutely priceless - it will be interesting to see how many of the right wing loonies are crazy enough to vote for this



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Seriously, if that's what it takes to demonstrate how crazy the "Marriage is sacred" people, then I'll totally vote for it!

Go for it if you like - I don't live there.

The fact is that divorce IS too easy in our society. Some people get bored once all the fireworks of a new relationship go out. Personally, I don't believe in divorce, but I wouldn't try to make that the law - it's a mental problem, the inability to stick with your commitments, a sort of narcissism.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19806 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2240 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):

The fact is that divorce IS too easy in our society. Some people get bored once all the fireworks of a new relationship go out. Personally, I don't believe in divorce, but I wouldn't try to make that the law - it's a mental problem, the inability to stick with your commitments, a sort of narcissism.

I agree with you, BUT... if you're going to beat your chest about how sacred marriage is, then this is the logical conclusion.

And I would love to see it pass.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8847 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2227 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
I agree with you, BUT... if you're going to beat your chest about how sacred marriage is, then this is the logical conclusion.

No it is not, because even if I think marriage is sacred, there are a few legitimate reasons for it - physical abuse, for example, which even the Catholic Church would agree to. This proposal does not make any such distinction.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineFCA767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2212 times:

Death doesn't part us anyway so they should change that...  Smile

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19806 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2205 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):

No it is not, because even if I think marriage is sacred, there are a few legitimate reasons for it - physical abuse, for example, which even the Catholic Church would agree to. This proposal does not make any such distinction.

In the LDS Church, you are married for all eternity, even if there's abuse or if a spouse dies, you are still married for all eternity, even though you can re-marry.

But I think that undermines the sacred state of marriage. If you, as a consenting adult, marry an abusive spouse, then you made that decision of your own free will and should live with it. After all, it is GOD'S law, not man's, right? We only should be legislating it!

(Yes, I'm being cheeky and a devil's advocate).


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8847 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2195 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
In the LDS Church, you are married for all eternity, even if there's abuse or if a spouse dies, you are still married for all eternity, even though you can re-marry.

And in Islam, you can have multiple wives. Why bring in the LDS?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
But I think that undermines the sacred state of marriage. If you, as a consenting adult, marry an abusive spouse, then you made that decision of your own free will and should live with it.

I know a couple of people like that - people who were on their best behaviour during courtship, and who change completely after the wedding. Let's face it, you can't really know somebody completely, even if you've known them for years. Things happen. And if it's bad enough, it should be a legitimate cause of "I'm outta here".

What I despise is the "I'm bored with him/her" kind of argument. Do people expect to be entertained their entire lives? Some do.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offline757GB From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 676 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2123 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
What I despise is the "I'm bored with him/her" kind of argument. Do people expect to be entertained their entire lives? Some do.


 checkmark 
I very much agree with what you're saying. There are many situations in which a marriage becomes destructive, and divorce unfortunately is the only healthy route to follow. Yet we can't take it to the other extreme and treat marriage almost like a business partnership.

There are situations when one will have to care for the other even when all romance & fun are gone, maybe because of illness or what not. It really takes love & commitment to hold on. You've got to do the best you can. Then again, some situations will only destroy both parts and it's better to go separate ways. I just don't approve of taking marriage lightly and just letting go after getting bored or without a really meaningful reason.



God is The Alpha and The Omega. We come from God. We go towards God. What an Amazing Journey...
User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2046 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2102 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
Why bring in the LDS?

Because that's where the major (financial) support for Prop 8 came from.

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 1):
or what their excuses would be for not voting for it

You didn't have to wait long:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
Personally, I don't believe in divorce, but I wouldn't try to make that the law - it's a mental problem, the inability to stick with your commitments, a sort of narcissism.




I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5296 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2077 times:

Oh good god! How funny would it be if this actually passed? The marriage rate in California will fall off a steep cliff.


Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3370 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2031 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
No it is not, because even if I think marriage is sacred, there are a few legitimate reasons for it - physical abuse, for example, which even the Catholic Church would agree to. This proposal does not make any such distinction.

Then get some kind of "morality police" to judge those cases. Seems to work in theocracies.  Wink



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2023 times:

Am I the only one who feels reminded of the song "Every Sperm Is Sacred" from the film Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life?

User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12593 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1943 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
Personally, I don't believe in divorce, but I wouldn't try to make that the law - it's a mental problem, the inability to stick with your commitments, a sort of narcissism.

Forget the arguments being made here about physical abuse. Suppose your partner deliberately conceals facts and/or lies about themselves before the marriage, in fact is at heart a liar, wouldn't someone be mentally ill to stay in that kind of a relationship?

Of course a more subtle version of this is that indeed it's impossible to truly know another person, so it's impossible to enter the commitment in good faith.

So maybe we should ban marriage for everyone?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
No it is not, because even if I think marriage is sacred, there are a few legitimate reasons for it - physical abuse, for example, which even the Catholic Church would agree to. This proposal does not make any such distinction.

Of course it does not, since it's all a big joke, but you knew that already....



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8847 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1937 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
Forget the arguments being made here about physical abuse. Suppose your partner deliberately conceals facts and/or lies about themselves before the marriage, in fact is at heart a liar, wouldn't someone be mentally ill to stay in that kind of a relationship?

Depends on what he/she is hiding. Some people hide things because of shame or remorse, like having been sexually abused. I found out stuffo f that sort about my wife years after we were married, and it didn't make me want to leave.

Now if you find out that your spouse has a secret life as a porn actor/actress while you are at work, that might be different (or rather cool, depending on your point of view  Wink)

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
Of course a more subtle version of this is that indeed it's impossible to truly know another person, so it's impossible to enter the commitment in good faith.

You can always go in in good faith.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
So maybe we should ban marriage for everyone?

Considering that we know for a fact that family life is a dramatic influence on the outcome of children, HELL NO.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19806 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1878 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):

Of course it does not, since it's all a big joke, but you knew that already....

Not to me. I'll be supporting this legislation. After all, it can't affect me, anyway. I *can't* get married!


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5629 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1869 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15):
Considering that we know for a fact that family life is a dramatic influence on the outcome of children, HELL NO.

Agreed! A committed, married couple are the best situation within which to raise a child. There are plenty of "less than ideal" situations that turn out fine as well but we should always encourage people to commit to each other, to support each other "for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health; to love and to cherish, till death us do part". That is what everyone has been supporting, the key thing is the commitment to support and work with each other.

Marriage is not easy but is well worth it. I support marriage - for everyone brave enough and strong enough to enter into it. But they need to understand it is a commitment not to happiness and love, but to the union you create, to the person with whom you took vows, and to that special space within which you can build a strong family if you so choose.

Yes there are reasons to leave a marriage and these should always be allowed, and many people do so for good reason but nowadays too many just leave because of convenience or because they did not take the true meaning of marriage to heart when they entered into the union.

And THAT is what demeans and undermines marriage.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineSignol From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2007, 3007 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1866 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
I *can't* get married!

Sure you can! Get on a plane to somewhere else with your other half and go home with the certificate  Wink

signol



Flights booked: none :(
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19806 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1823 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15):

Considering that we know for a fact that family life is a dramatic influence on the outcome of children, HELL NO.

I have an idea: since the legal definition of marriage seems to do nothing to keep couples together but it does make a lot of money for a lot of lawyers, HELL YES.

Get rid of it! Allow domestic partnerships for legal arrangements only, and make those require a lot of pre-nups and well-thought-out planning.

And if you want to get married, nobody is going to ban priests from performing weddings, but they'll have no legal significance.

You don't need to be married to have a joint bank account and a bit of simple legislation can allow you to designate anyone on your health insurance.

I don't know about your relationship with your S.O., but mine exists of its own free will and irrespective of laws.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8847 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1819 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Get rid of it! Allow domestic partnerships for legal arrangements only, and make those require a lot of pre-nups and well-thought-out planning.

And if you want to get married, nobody is going to ban priests from performing weddings, but they'll have no legal significance.

Actually I am in complete agreement with you.

You can pick youself off the floor now  Smile

Seriously, in many countries this is exactly how it is handled. I got married in Switzerland, and we had a civil wedding (civil union, if you will), performed at the town hall by the mayor. 2 days later we had the religious wedding at a church. A church will not marry you if you haven't done the civil ceremony first. Legally, all that is required is the civil union - the religious one is optional, though traditionally that is the one where you have all your guests and so forth.

I like it because it clarifies the seperation between church and state. I have always found the idea disturbing of granting state authority to a priest (or Elvis impersonator in Vegas) in the US. That lack of clarity is the cause, I think, of 99% of all the acrimony around gay marriage. I have no problem with gay civil unions. But the state shouldn't require priests to perform such weddings, as a condition of their state authority.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8302 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1797 times:

As an old fart who has been married 40 years (as of last April) I know I am one of the very lucky ones on this earth. Guess right the first time around and never looked back.

But then I understand that people change over the years. Your thinking in your 30's is different than in your 20s, and on and on. My blessing is that my wife and I pretty well stayed in sync over the years.

The one thin I can say is that it takes a lot of luck to find someone who you can comfortably grow old with. Comfort in addressing all the changes and challenges you go through in a marriage.

So I count my blessings and wish everyone could be as lucky. For those who are not, I try to understand.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19806 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1743 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):

The one thin I can say is that it takes a lot of luck to find someone who you can comfortably grow old with. Comfort in addressing all the changes and challenges you go through in a marriage.

Good on ya. I'm barely 7 months into my (hopefully) life-long relationship. So far, we're weathering an achilles tendon rupture well...

But banning divorce will make people think long and hard before getting hitched. I see it happening way too quickly and impulsively of late. And I'm not talking about Hollywood. I don't even pay attention to that stuff.

BTW, how long have the tabloids been predicting that Brad and Angelina are on the rocks? Since two days after their wedding?


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12593 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1725 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
Of course a more subtle version of this is that indeed it's impossible to truly know another person, so it's impossible to enter the commitment in good faith.

You can always go in in good faith.

Yes, but the penalty for getting it wrong is steep, emotionally and financially.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
I have an idea: since the legal definition of marriage seems to do nothing to keep couples together but it does make a lot of money for a lot of lawyers, HELL YES.

Get rid of it! Allow domestic partnerships for legal arrangements only, and make those require a lot of pre-nups and well-thought-out planning.

 checkmark 

We're on the same wavelength.

Seems many here who have positive thoughts of marriage have had the good luck of finding a good partner (and yes, done the hard work it takes to be a good partner themselves). But it doesn't always turn out the way it does in the story books.

Interestingly enough, I am divorced and my divorce went as well as such things can go: we did our own paperwork, split up our stuff and went our separate ways. No kids involved, no house to fight over, no alimony. But that "near miss" gave me a glimpse of what could have happened and it scared the bejeezus out of me.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Things To Do In Denver When You're Alive posted Tue Feb 10 2009 16:49:34 by Texan
Liking Someone You're Not Fully Attracted To? posted Sun Aug 26 2007 09:33:35 by Lehpron
Things To Do In Denver When You're Alive ...STEVIE posted Fri May 25 2007 05:51:48 by STLGph
This Is A Rant -- But You're Here For You posted Sun Jul 9 2006 23:01:32 by Lehpron
PC Help Needed! - Klaus You're Not Welcome! :D posted Mon Jun 12 2006 16:25:50 by AirPacific747
Over 45, You're Not Welcome At The Super Bowl posted Wed Jan 4 2006 20:12:48 by PROSA
Mike Piazza - You're Not Fooling Anyone posted Thu Jan 20 2005 18:08:43 by WellHung
"You're Not My Type" posted Sun Jan 16 2005 00:49:12 by Lehpron
Rolling Roadblocks; Hope You're Not In A Hurry... posted Wed Jan 15 2003 08:56:17 by 737doctor
NFL Week Of Dec 3rd: How'd You're Team Do? posted Sun Dec 3 2006 23:26:15 by Falcon84