TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- "Family Values"/Anti-Gay Crowd's Next Target: Outlawing Divorce
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

"Family Values"/Anti-Gay Crowd's Next Target: Outlawing Divorce

At least they're being logically consistent:

quote:

After its victory in last year's fight over a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Virginia, the Family Foundation of Virginia announced Thursday that it will push to change the state's divorce laws to make it more difficult for parents to end their marriage. The Family Foundation, which opposes abortion and promotes socially conservative values, said it will lobby the General Assembly this year to amend the state's long-standing no-fault divorce law, which essentially allows a husband or wife to terminate a marriage without cause. The foundation is advocating "mutual consent divorce" for couples with children, which would require a husband and wife to agree to divorce before a marriage can be legally terminated, except in certain instances, such as abuse or cruelty. The proposed legislation would not affect childless couples. "Right now, one spouse can unilaterally end [the marriage], and not only is their spouse unable to stop the divorce, their abandonment does not preclude them from having custody of their child," said Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation. "When we send a message that one can up and leave their family and have no consequence, the Old Dominion is encouraging divorce."............... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0401910_pf.html

I'm actually not being as snarky as you might think - I have criticized the anti-gay uber-religious folks for not being consistent with their arguments of protecting the sanctity of marriage by simply only targeting gay marriage. I can't say I follow their logic in terms of HOW they're going about this, but at least they are targeting what is clearly THE biggest and downright-most obvious threat to marriage - divorce.

The best way to stop people from getting divorced is to stop them from getting married in the first place. Ban marriage.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The best way to stop people from getting divorced is to stop them from getting married in the first place. Ban marriage.

Why ban marriage? So a lot of stupid people get married, who are not in love. Some people do love each other and marriage is a serious thing for them. Don't let stupid people like your parents ruin the idea of marriage.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Why ban marriage? So a lot of stupid people get married, who are not in love. Some people do love each other and marriage is a serious thing for them. Don't let stupid people like your parents ruin the idea of marriage.

whoosh

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter whoosh

And don't let 60% of adults ruin the idea of marriage.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The best way to stop people from getting divorced is to stop them from getting married in the first place. Ban marriage.

Or have them take a pre-marital course thats mandatory before they can get married.
My wife is Roman Catholic (I'm not of any denomination but if you asked I'd say Christian) and before we could get married in a Roman Catholic church they won't marry you without taking it.

I was very skeptical at first but after taking it, I'm glad I did and would highly recommend people would (Roman Catholic or not).
I really wasn't sure what to expect but the only 'religious' part about it was what annulment was and that was covered in the first 5min. of a two day course.
The rest is common sense stuff, getting us to talk about sex, money (and fiscal responsibility, ie. budgeting ), dealing with the in-laws, children (do you want them), etc. etc.
We flew through it all because we've talked about all that stuff before but you'd be surprised how many people think how the other is going to magically change after they get married.
Some even break up after the course or fight or even cry but better then than afterwards...

Side Note:
The only 'religious' or 'normal' thing about the whole wedding was the ceremony.
Other than that, all the guys wore kilts and after that, we arranged for the taking over of a Scottish/Irish pub that Sat. afternoon with finger-foods on either end of the bar, and oh look, a bar!

We went out to a club afterwards with the kilts; everyone loved it

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid And don't let 60% of adults ruin the idea of marriage.

Marriage is for fags.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Marriage is for fags.

If that were the case. Than how come you are still single?

Arby, don't act like that. you don't like humans and that has nothing to do with people wanting to get married.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Arby, don't act like that. you don't like humans and that has nothing to do with people wanting to get married.

Your capacity for completely missing the point is impressive.

Do we really need to see your koofie-smacking, love bugs' posts?

Get a room

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter whoosh

Lol

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter whoosh

Sarcasm is a lost art in this day and age
But anyway, get these idiots out of the government influence or youre just going to be rolling backwards into something you really dont want to end up in as a society.
Even on the state level it'll create friction and division with neighbouring states and its really something that should be decided on a federal level where, with any luck I'd hope there would be some more objective opinions put forth.

Great, more social engineering.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Great, more social engineering.

Thats the thing, it doesnt even add anything constructive to society, all it is, is a moral opinion which is subject to change on just about any group of people over time and generations.
100 years ago it was considered morally reprehensible to let someone of the female gender vote, 50 years ago it was morally repulsive to let blacks share toilets, bus seats with whites and 30 years ago it was still in most areas of the world a moral outrage to have a child out of wedlock.
Some things from the past shouldnt be discarded in terms of social values but winding back the clock and forcing people to 'put up' with each other when they really dont want anything to do with one another is completely moronic. All thats going to achieve is unhappy marriges.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Some things from the past shouldnt be discarded in terms of social values but winding back the clock and forcing people to 'put up' with each other when they really dont want anything to do with one another is completely moronic. All thats going to achieve is unhappy marriges.

Yet another problem with modern society. No one had the balls to commit, they're too confortable with their promiscuous/hedonistic (relatively speaking) lifestyles. Change is hard. Most people aren't willing to put up with anyone or make any compromises. And that's why they're loosers in the end.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Yet another problem with modern society. No one had the balls to commit, they're too confortable with their promiscuous/hedonistic (relatively speaking) lifestyles. Change is hard. Most people aren't willing to put up with anyone or make any compromises. And that's why they're loosers in the end.

How's it go?

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything...

See...

you give these psychos an inch, and they take a mile.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Thats the thing, it doesnt even add anything constructive to society, all it is, is a moral opinion which is subject to change on just about any group of people over time and generations. 100 years ago it was considered morally reprehensible to let someone of the female gender vote, 50 years ago it was morally repulsive to let blacks share toilets, bus seats with whites and 30 years ago it was still in most areas of the world a moral outrage to have a child out of wedlock. Some things from the past shouldnt be discarded in terms of social values but winding back the clock and forcing people to 'put up' with each other when they really dont want anything to do with one another is completely moronic. All thats going to achieve is unhappy marriges.

Some scientists theorize that this is why our genetic code limits our lifetimes so severely (it used to be we'd be dead at 20-30, now we've extended it to 50-80, which is way too long and we are seeing the negative ramifications).

Basically, nature thought of the best method to prevent those old people who get "set in their ways" from leaving behind unending legacies that alter future progress.

It's true; the people who are meanest, loudest, and most unfaltering in their ways are the ones who live FOREVER and spread their crappy psychological memes of outdated morality throughout current cultures.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z No one had the balls to commit

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Change is hard.

These two don't fit. If people find change to be so hard, why are they swapping significant others so often?

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy These two don't fit. If people find change to be so hard, why are they swapping significant others so often?

It does. That's exactly my point. Read my statement again:

quote:

No one had the balls to commit, they're too confortable with their promiscuous/hedonistic (relatively speaking) lifestyles. Change is hard

People are used to having (relatively speaking) promiscuous/hednoistic lifestyles before marriage. And then they expect to be commited to one partner from then onwards. Hence, "change is hard." Especially for men. That is, change in subconcious/concious attitudes towards relationships etc. and actually following thourgh on them. That's exactly why they're swaping sifnificant others so often.

Blame our hippy, liberal parents I guess
Personally I dont see any real point in sticking with something thats not working out between people, causing undue misery, stress and tension. Admittedly lifes hard, people can be difficult and you shouldnt throw in the towel as easily as some seem to do but if theres a genuine reason to get away from it all then trapping people in relationships isnt the solution either.
And really, who wants the government butting their noses into home affairs and personal relationships, stick to what theyre good at like wasting money, starting fights and taxing the every loving crap out of us...

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy These two ... people ... are ... swapping significant others so often

ah... taking things out of context is fun.

@ Lilith: I'm not condoning this insanity .

I know that.

See this is something I don't get:

In real life, I've talked with many people about the fact that America is often Puritan, religious, and uptight. In many cases, these people had a very angry reaction when I expressed my view. They told me that religious lunatics are such a marginal element of American society that (quote) "you could fit all of them into one stadium".

So who is right? me, or them?

On this forum, there's a guy named RJT who likes to argue with me. He constantly accuses me of considering the US to be a socially conservative theocracy. He argues that America is nothing like that and that I'm "too impressionable".

But I tell him, whenever I open a newspaper or a newssite, EVERY DAY without exception, I see an article or a story dealing with some cultural/religious controversy, most often to do with sex, values, etc., such as breastfeeding in public, showing a nipple on TV, or - just the other day - the cheerleaders in Texas or the Miss America scandal, or the Intelligent Design debate.

In every story, there's a fundie/prohibitionist side which advocates religious values and conservatism. So is it really true that the number of Puritan-minded Americans is so small "you could fit all of them into a single stadium"? With this thread being just another case in point, who is right: me or them?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.