First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Protect the sanctity of marriage
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 12/1/09
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/john-marcotte-california_n_287796.html

John Marcotte, a California web designer, is collecting signatures to put the California Marriage Protection Act on the ballot. The Act is an amendment to California's state constitution that would make divorce illegal. It's main goal is to satirize the passing of Proposition 8, which made gay marriage illegal in California in order to "protect the sanctity of marriage." Marcotte and many others feel that Prop 8 did not do enough to keep marriage sacred, so they are starting this movement.

I think this is a great idea, and I hope this movement spreads across the entire nation. It would be awesome if it passed, but of course it won't since most of the people who supported Prop 8 won't give up their right to defy the sanctity of marriage, even though they have no problem with preventing people with different lifestyles from doing so. Gotta love that good 'ol fashioned American hypocrisy.
Posted 12/1/09
So you're saying if the prop is passed, than divorce will be illegal?
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 12/1/09 , edited 12/1/09
Yes. It is meant to be a criticism of all the people who approved Proposition 8 to protect traditional marriages. It's meant to expose what we already know: most of them don't care about marriage, they just don't like gay people. Putting this amendment on the ballot would highlight that discrimination and hopefully bring us one step closer to eliminating it. The guy and most people who support this movement are not super-conservatives who truly want to protect traditional marriages, they just want to point out the hypocrisy of outlawing gay marriage because it's sinful but supporting divorce because it's convenient.

It would also be interesting to see how all of the currently married people in California vote on it.
Posted 12/1/09 , edited 12/1/09
What a clever ploy. If it dose get passed I wonder what the end result will be?
Mass riots? Oh how I just love anarchy.
Posted 12/3/09
Sanctity has to do with emotions, not law. If you hold something dear enough, it becomes sacred. Sometimes marriages don't work out, so trying to keep two people together isn't right considering they will likely grow to hate each other with a passion. As for homosexuals, let them marry and leave them the fuck alone.
Posted 12/3/09

Gaia93 wrote:

What a clever ploy. If it dose get passed I wonder what the end result will be?
Mass riots? Oh how I just love anarchy.

I think it's possible that those in the business of marriage counseling In California can expect themselves to see blooming success in the near future. Perhaps in order for people to really consider making their marriages work is a justifiable incentive. Or:

Dajjal_AD wrote:

Sanctity has to do with emotions, not law. If you hold something dear enough, it becomes sacred. Sometimes marriages don't work out, so trying to keep two people together isn't right considering they will likely grow to hate each other with a passion. As for homosexuals, let them marry and leave them the fuck alone.
What he said.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 12/3/09

DomFortress wrote:


Sanctity has to do with emotions, not law. If you hold something dear enough, it becomes sacred. Sometimes marriages don't work out, so trying to keep two people together isn't right considering they will likely grow to hate each other with a passion. As for homosexuals, let them marry and leave them the fuck alone.
What he said.


If people claim that that's the reason why it won't pass, then they're blatantly admitting that Prop 8 wasn't meant to protect the sanctity of marriage, but to discriminate against homosexuals. So I doubt they'll use that as a cover-up for this case.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 12/4/09
Judaism and Islam both allow for divorce so this law means Christianity would be the only religion that can really be practiced in California. I don't really favor about this proposition because it hurts freedom of religion. If Christians don't want divorce, then just don't get divorced, but don't force other religions to follow this law.
I can see hypocrisy this law want to reveals.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 12/4/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:

Judaism and Islam both allow for divorce so this law means Christianity would be the only religion that can really be practiced in California. I don't really favor about this proposition because it hurts freedom of religion. If Christians don't want divorce, then just don't get divorced, but don't force other religions to follow this law.
I can see hypocrisy this law want to reveals.


Marriage in America isn't a religious institution, it's a legal one. So if people want to get married but not be bound by this law, they can have a religious marriage, which leaves the legal contract out of the situation. They just won't be recognized as a single unit by the government and won't receive all the legal benefits that legally married couples get.

Plus by that reasoning, Proposition 8, the law that banned gay marriage, also limits freedom of religion, since it prevents religious homosexuals from marrying who they want to. So if they can limit it for some people then why not for everyone?

Also, this law isn't being backed mainly by religious people, rather by people who are against the banning of gay marriage, and most of them tend to be non-religious.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 12/4/09
Divorce is legal in the Bible under the premise of adultery. So divorce isn't undermining the sanctity of marriage, it's the reason for divorce. Gay marriage should be illegal. Just because the US is not Christian it is still democratic, if the majority have Christian values, then those values should be appearing in the laws. In California the gays and supporters of gay marriage are angry because it was a democratic decision to uphold the morals of a Judeo-Christian ethic. Same thing happened in other states where the court wants to over-rule the majority's democratic election. The state had a vote, gay marriage was not allowed, it would be totalitarian to agree to a democratic vote and then overturn it because it's "not right." Homosexuality is wrong, homosexual co-habbitation is not marriage, and thus it should not be labeled as such. It's not just about the sanctity of marriage, but also about the sanctity of morals and sexual purity.
55941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 12/4/09
If laws like this one actually passed, I think many couples would by pass any legal stamped & sealed procedure, & just 'live together'.

How would laws like this affect or change the definitions of common law marriages? Would it be illegal for court decisions in these cases for alimony / support claims for them, too. Or by a birth of a child, would a union by definition here make child support legally questionable?

I like the idea of pointing out hypocrisies to any overly righteous attitudes, but I don't exactly like the idea of playing around with what could become law.

Be Careful What You Wish For!
Posted 12/4/09

digs wrote:

Divorce is legal in the Bible under the premise of adultery. So divorce isn't undermining the sanctity of marriage, it's the reason for divorce. Gay marriage should be illegal. Just because the US is not Christian it is still democratic, if the majority have Christian values, then those values should be appearing in the laws. In California the gays and supporters of gay marriage are angry because it was a democratic decision to uphold the morals of a Judeo-Christian ethic. Same thing happened in other states where the court wants to over-rule the majority's democratic election. The state had a vote, gay marriage was not allowed, it would be totalitarian to agree to a democratic vote and then overturn it because it's "not right." Homosexuality is wrong, homosexual co-habbitation is not marriage, and thus it should not be labeled as such. It's not just about the sanctity of marriage, but also about the sanctity of morals and sexual purity.


i understand what you're saying digs but most religious people tend to scew and misinterpret that message about. 'once your married that it is suppose to be an ever lasting bond" Unless the wife or husband walks out on their spouse or the spouse dies. That just happened to one of my friends recently that her husband that she had 4 kids with just up and left her for a new younger gf and guess what he got her pregnant as well, so go figure. I maybe not for Gay marriage 100% but i do think that people do fall in love with one another regardless of gender and it doesn't always have to be about sex but about companionship with one another. They still deserve civil unions to have the same rights as most Americans in this country do because it is suppose to be equality and justice for all. sorry if my liberal color's are showing lol xP Also on the last line most people in this day and age don't care if people even have pre-matieal sex anymore just as long as it's with a malexfemale or vice verusa and well even Dick Cheny as ultra conservative as he is supports some gay rights since one of his children are in fact gay.
838 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 12/5/09
Okay, firstly, this is a terrible idea.

Statistically, divorce rates have gone up in the last 50 years. Yes. You know why? Because it's become easier and easier to GET a divorce, legally. They made laws so that people could leave their spouse if they wanted to.

However, this is not meaningful at ALL. Before divorce was legalized, the same number of people left their spouses. Yes. That is correct. THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE. They just didn't do it "legally". Spouses would just walk out and leave if things got too bad.

So, really, there's no fucking difference.

If you're worried about "the sanctity of marriage", then FIX THE FUCKING PROBLEMS THAT CAUSE COUPLES TO SEPARATE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Marriage isn't rainbows and butterflies. It's a lot of fucking hard work that requires good problem solving skills, communication, and negotiation skills. TEACH PEOPLE THOSE SKILLS.

And lasty, if some charming nice guy turns into a fucking jerk wife-beater after he gets married (this happens all the damn time) the wife should NOT be obliged to stay with him. SAYING PEOPLE, MAN OR WOMAN, CAN'T LEAVE AN ABUSIVE MARRIAGE IS A PIECE OF CRAP!! What kind of IDIOT would say it's illegal to leave a bad relationship??

That is all. "Sanctitiy" my ass. I hate organized religion.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 12/6/09 , edited 12/6/09

digs wrote:

Divorce is legal in the Bible under the premise of adultery. So divorce isn't undermining the sanctity of marriage, it's the reason for divorce. Gay marriage should be illegal. Just because the US is not Christian it is still democratic, if the majority have Christian values, then those values should be appearing in the laws.


So why not make the law that divorce is only legal in the case of adultery? Many, many couples get divorced for reasons other than that, and by doing that they are going against the teachings of the Bible. Also, go see how many of those anti-gay rights people actually read the Bible, go to church, live a Christian lifestyle, etc, and compare that to the amount who just plain hate gay people.


In California the gays and supporters of gay marriage are angry because it was a democratic decision to uphold the morals of a Judeo-Christian ethic. Same thing happened in other states where the court wants to over-rule the majority's democratic election. The state had a vote, gay marriage was not allowed, it would be totalitarian to agree to a democratic vote and then overturn it because it's "not right."


So if there had been a vote on whether Civil Rights laws should be passed back when that was a huge issue, and if most people had voted against it (which they surely would have) it would be "totalitarian" to ignore the majority vote and end that discrimination against minority groups? That's basically what's happening today. Just replace "race" and "gender" with "sexual orientation."


Homosexuality is wrong, homosexual co-habbitation is not marriage, and thus it should not be labeled as such. It's not just about the sanctity of marriage, but also about the sanctity of morals and sexual purity.


Sexual purity? I'm pretty sure that homosexuality isn't the only "sexually impure" act as defined by your morals and those of other anti-gay rights people. So how come homosexuality is the only one that people are fighting against? Why isn't it illegal for heterosexual couples who have anal or oral sex, two sexually impure acts according to the Bible (if I remember correctly), to get married? I'm pretty sure tons of anti-gay rights people do sexually impure things, but no one's infringing on their right to marry.

Sanctity of morals? What about the people who feel like it is immoral to treat people as if they are less than human and deny them the same right as everyone else (to marry who they want to) simply because of their sexual preferences, when those preferences don't harm anyone? Why not prevent all people who do immoral things from getting married? We're all sinners according to the Bible, right? So why only punish some sinners? Why are gamblers and felons and people who have sex and bear children out of wedlock allowed to get married when the choices they've made in life are wrong as well?

This isn't about the sanctity of anything, it's just pure hatred and discrimination against people who live a lifestyle that you and many other people don't like. If that kind of discrimination is legal, then everyone's rights should be stripped because everyone lives a lifestyle that someone else doesn't like.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 12/10/09
Sorry for the late reply, I have finals going on this week.

I have been thinking about the issue of gay marriage and how to treat it as a Christian. It is a sin to live the gay life style, just as much so to be promiscuous and be straight. All sex outside of marriage is wrong, and sexual purity within marriage is to be kept. Because I believe in the Bible as the Word of God I believe the morals and sins in it are just, so I can't support these acts. At the same time though I am not called to judge others or impose my beliefs on them. The Bible doesn't say to force others to conform, but to live a life mirroring that of Christ. God gives us freedom to make choices, and as an American living in a democratic society it is my civil duty to vote on issues. If someone is gay or has premarital sex that's not for me to judge them. What I am to do is stand up for my beliefs but not imposing them on others. I will vote against gay marriage because I think it's wrong, however I will not judge gays or anyone else and put myself in a position to force my beliefs on them. I will stand up for what I believe is right and voice my opinion through my vote. But if it passes or if someone is gay I am not going to force my beliefs on them. I am supporting my belief that what they are doing is wrong, and I will not respect sinful behavior. Hate the sin love the sinner of sorts. I am still thinking and praying on this issue though, I don't know all the answers. Thanks for making me think.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.