My solution to the gay marriage issue: stricter divorce laws

[nehalem256]

(1) It may not simply be the woman's word.

And what other evidence would there be. It is pretty hard to make a serious rape charge for a woman who voluntarily slept in your bed and has previously had sex with you.

(2) In this case, one spouse would be ASKING the government into their bedroom.

So both spouses are not entitled to privacy?

(3) And what about vice versa? If the woman wants sex and the man can't get it up, is he not denying it? What if she likes it when he goes down town but he refuses? How about if she likes sex during menstruation?

So you are comparing a medical condition to denying your husband sex?

(4) Just because I like sex doesn't mean at any moment at any time I want to have sex.

So why don't you hear about marital rape of men if women like sex just as much as men?

I wonder if you would still agree with 'no rape in marriage' if you got surprise buttsex via strap on from your wife.

I think that whole point of "marital rape" is to give women power over men in divorce proceedings.

 

[Agent11]

The easy answer would be to end the recognition of marriage by the state. Have recognition of partners that confer the usual hospital visitation and legal rights that applies to all partners who register but end alimony, we are all equal now.

If you want more join a conservative religious community that will 'marry' you and have community accountability, many shun parties who offend their beliefs and discipline members, even expel them from their communities.

 

[zinfamous]

Funny that when I try to apply this to poor single mothers having kids they cannot feed everyone gets all butt hurt about it.

Why do you lack common sense?

why not let them get an abortion if they want one?

no hungry mouth, no problem, right?

 

[nehalem256]

why not let them get an abortion if they want one?

no hungry mouth, no problem, right?

Considering that abortion is legal in all states we should not have problem now right?

 

[JEDIYoda]

You see the "Christian Right" or shall we say the "highly opinionated right" or shall we say those who feel that God is on their side are blinded to the fact that we treat other people who are different as second class citizen by not allowing them the same rights that we have.......

Then we have the goofballs who try to derail threads by saying well what about this or that.......always believing that the exceptions to the rules are a basis for enforcing the rule.......

The bottom line is someone once said -- that we should Love everybody as we Love ourselves.........interesting concept that is not honestly practiced.....

 

[SheHateMe]

God must be a really nice guy...I mean, look at his followers!

 

[nehalem256]

You see the "Christian Right" or shall we say the "highly opinionated right" or shall we say those who feel that God is on their side are blinded to the fact that we treat other people who are different as second class citizen by not allowing them the same rights that we have.......

Gay people have the same right, to marry one person of the opposite sex, as anyone else.

 

[rudeguy]

You see the "Christian Right" or shall we say the "highly opinionated right" or shall we say those who feel that God is on their side are blinded to the fact that we treat other people who are different as second class citizen by not allowing them the same rights that we have.......

Then we have the goofballs who try to derail threads by saying well what about this or that.......always believing that the exceptions to the rules are a basis for enforcing the rule.......

The bottom line is someone once said -- that we should Love everybody as we Love ourselves.........interesting concept that is not honestly practiced.....

If I loved you the way I love myself...we would have to get married afterwards

 

[zinfamous]

Gay people have the same right, to marry one person of the opposite sex, as anyone else.

would you like to have a gay marriage?

 

[dawp]

Gay people have the same right, to marry one person of the opposite sex, as anyone else.

would you really want to marry some who does not love or care about you and is only marrying you out of convenience? who will screw another person because they do not find you sexually attractive or that you can not fill a need that they have? Someone who keeps deep dark secrets from you and that you only find out after the marriage fails?

would you marry a gay person if you know they were gay?

right now I think you're just trolling to keep the thread going.

 

[Emos]

Gay people have the same right, to marry one person of the opposite sex, as anyone else.

My gods, not this tired old discredited line of thought again? In the 50s, black people had the right to marry anyone, as long as they were black! Just let people be with and marry the consenting adult of their choice, no matter what their race, religion and gender!

 

[Emos]

God must be a really nice guy...I mean, look at his followers!

I like Christianity, I only wish more Christians actually practiced it! To paraphrase Gandi, I like your Jesus he seems to be a pretty nice guy, many of his followers, not so much.

 

[endlessmike]

Yea...another night without sleep. House is clean so I figured I'd solve the world's problems.


The main, if not only, objection to gay marriage is from Christian Conservatives like myself. We don't have a real, actual objection to it other than our deep rooted morals. So it seems pretty simple that if we can solve a major issue by relenting on a minor issue, us Christians would be more than happy to give in on gay marriage.

The major issue would be divorce. I don't think anyone out there would disagree that divorce is a huge problem. Why not allow gay marriage but put stricter divorce laws in place? Divorce would only be legal if one person was shown to have committed adultery or physical abuse. The offending partner would be liable for 100% spousal and child support. No exceptions. This would add consequences where right now there are none. It may not stop someone from cheating or beating but it may stop people from marrying the wrong person.

Please critique my attempt at saving the world.

I suppose on your next sleepless night, a better consideration for you to ponder would be why you feel that a public government has to conform to fit in with YOUR religious beliefs?

As a conservative (who as a group tout that the government is too large and in danger of becoming too restrictive of personal liberties), the last thing you ought to want is a government that dictates who is allowed to be married or divorced, right?

Total hypocrisy.

The moment any discussion of gun control comes up, conservatives state that the government is overstepping its bounds. However, in this case, you feel the need for government intervention?

Makes NO sense. You can't have it both ways.

 

[nehalem256]

My gods, not this tired old discredited line of thought again? In the 50s, black people had the right to marry anyone, as long as they were black! Just let people be with and marry the consenting adult of their choice, no matter what their race, religion and gender!

Funny. Liberals seem to think that men have the same right to get abortions as women

Gender is fundamental to the definition of marriage. Why not extend it to species?

 

[nehalem256]

I suppose on your next sleepless night, a better consideration for you to ponder would be why you feel that a public government has to conform to fit in with YOUR religious beliefs?

As a conservative (who as a group tout that the government is too large and in danger of becoming too restrictive of personal liberties), the last thing you ought to want is a government that dictates who is allowed to be married or divorced, right?

Total hypocrisy.

The moment any discussion of gun control comes up, conservatives state that the government is overstepping its bounds. However, in this case, you feel the need for government intervention?

Makes NO sense. You can't have it both ways.

If you want government to recognize marriages then there is no way to get around government deciding the definition of marriage.

 

[endlessmike]

If you want government to recognize marriages then there is no way to get around government deciding the definition of marriage.

A church can define a marriage however it wants, and can allow or deny as they see fit.

A civil union (I realize we were using the term "marriage" but this is what we're really talking about) recognized by the government (not God or whatever church you belong to) does not need to meet the same criteria.

I don't believe there needs to be a direct, 1 to 1 agreement between the two.

 

[nehalem256]

A church can define a marriage however it wants, and can allow or deny as they see fit.

A civil union (I realize we were using the term "marriage" but this is what we're really talking about) recognized by the government (not God or whatever church you belong to) does not need to meet the same criteria.

I don't believe there needs to be a direct, 1 to 1 agreement between the two.

You are just quibbling over words.

You want the government to recognize civil unions. So does the government not need to define what a civil union is?

 

[endlessmike]

You are just quibbling over words.

You want the government to recognize civil unions. So does the government not need to define what a civil union is?

Yes! And if you would have read the post fully (instead of just jumping to the conclusion that I am quibbling), I said that the government's definition of a civil union does not need to match the definition for marriage as given by your church.

You are obviously free to believe whatever you want. I'm not calling you names or saying you are wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, and I mine.

I would just like to know why you and the OP feel it necessary to have the government cater to your personal beliefs.

"Because my religion says so." is not a sufficient reason. I'm not supposed to eat meat on Fridays during lent. Does that need to be legislated to apply to everyone in the country, regardless?

 

[nehalem256]

Yes! And if you would have read the post fully (instead of just jumping to the conclusion that I am quibbling), I said that the government's definition of a civil union does not need to match the definition for marriage as given by your church.

You are obviously free to believe whatever you want. I'm not calling you names or saying you are wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, and I mine.

I would just like to know why you and the OP feel it necessary to have the government cater to your personal beliefs.

"Because my religion says so." is not a sufficient reason. I'm not supposed to eat meat on Fridays during lent. Does that need to be legislated to apply to everyone in the country, regardless?

(1) I didn't say that marriage and Civil unions had to have the same definition. I had said if you want the government to grant CUs they inherently have to define what a CU is. How else could it exist?

(2) Many non-Christian countries (such as Japan and China) define marriage to be between a man and woman. Are you suggesting they do this "because my religion says so"?

(3) Why is it okay for the government to cater to people whose "personal beliefs" are that marriage(civil unions) are nothing more than a way to extort benefits to government? But not okay for government to cater to anyone else's "personal beliefs" on marriage?

 

[endlessmike]

(1) I didn't say that marriage and Civil unions had to have the same definition. I had said if you want the government to grant CUs they inherently have to define what a CU is. How else could it exist?

(2) Many non-Christian countries (such as Japan and China) define marriage to be between a man and woman. Are you suggesting they do this "because my religion says so"?

(3) Why is it okay for the government to cater to people whose "personal beliefs" are that marriage(civil unions) are nothing more than a way to extort benefits to government? But not okay for government to cater to anyone else's "personal beliefs" on marriage?

Ok, we're going to do numbers now.

1) I'm not sure why you keep going around in circles here. Of course a "civil union" needs to be defined. Why do you keep implying that I have said otherwise?

2) I'm not asking about Japan and China, I'm asking about you. I also find it strange that China is your example. I doubt you'd want to use them as the model for much of our government, but it's okay here since it fits in with your argument.

3) a) Let's see some real evidence on the widespread extortion that would be brought on
because of this.
b) I'm sure heterosexual couples would never do such a thing though, right?
c) Using your same logic: Sometimes guns are used to kill innocent people, therefore all
guns should be banned.

Now, I'm done speaking on this topic. I know we're not getting anywhere, and would rather agree to disagree and move on before the discussion turns. Hope you have a good day, and stay safe from the crappy weather if you're in it.

 

[Throckmorton]

And do you get to continue receiving the benefits of said contract?

Liberals essentially want an "at-will" marriage, where after quitting you can continue getting paid.

I know know quite a few people who are divorced and none of them gets alimony

 

[actuarial]

And what other evidence would there be. It is pretty hard to make a serious rape charge for a woman who voluntarily slept in your bed and has previously had sex with you.

There could be physical signs of use of force.

So both spouses are not entitled to privacy?

Not when one commits a crime and the other wants to charge them.

So you are comparing a medical condition to denying your husband sex?

Who said anything about a medical condition? What if I'm just simply not attracted to my wife anymore?

So why don't you hear about marital rape of men if women like sex just as much as men?

All spousal abuse against men is woefully underreported. And you were the one that asserted that women like it as much as men, not me.

I think that whole point of "marital rape" is to give women power over men in divorce proceedings.

Colour me shocked that you believe something is a conspiracy against men.

It's nice that you completely glossed over the last part though. To help you out, I'll be more direct about it: If your wife tied you down and penetrated you anally with a strap-on, would you consider that rape?

 

[actuarial]

And do you get to continue receiving the benefits of said contract?

Liberals essentially want an "at-will" marriage, where after quitting you can continue getting paid.

I get whatever benefits are laid out in the contract.

 

[thraashman]

Gay people have the same right, to marry one person of the opposite sex of the same race as them, as anyone else.

I've now altered it to be the exact same argument as was given by racists prior to Loving v. Virginia which made it illegal to block interracial marriage. It's the same logic as you're using and the same logic as racists use. The difference here is instead of being racist you're homophobic (and a massive misogynist which I'll get into soon).

 

[thraashman]

Rape is sex without consent. Marriage is consent to sex (barring obvious situations such as a couple divorcing).

I would say the insanity is anyway implying having sex with your husband is the same as a stranger forcing you to have sex.

If a husbands says his wife can't drive his car, which is in his name, should she be able to be charge with grand theft auto?

EDIT: If you don't want to have sex with your husband then don't get married.

Besides it shouldn't be a problem because women like sex just as much as men

And here's why the entire board knows you're a misogynist. You clearly don't believe a woman deserves to be her own person or have her own rights. And you clearly believe that women are lesser beings than men. I'll tell you now that you're wrong. You're a monster. I wouldn't be shocked at all if you were a rapist yourself as you clearly like the feeling of power over women. I'd also find it hard to believe that with an attitude like this that you could ever get laid without force. I don't want you to mistake me suggesting you do that, I am in fact instead suggesting therapy or sensitivity training or frontal lobe lobotomy.