BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.

Subject: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 12:34 PM

Instead of worrying about marriage between same sex couples - wouldn't the best way to save traditional marriage be to just do away with divorce? "For better for worse - 'til death do us part"??

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 12:39 PM

… 'til death do us part

Execute adulterers?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Musket being serious for once
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 12:52 PM

Who is worrying about marriage?

If it happens to you, invite me to the stag night. If it happens to someone else, nothing to see here.

Marriage is traditional. Those getting married are all getting married to each other for the first time, although a couple I know divorced and years later got hitched again.

No, to your question. The first Mrs Musket would have had no choice but to shoot me. Til death might be the only way out. We have been far better friends since not having to put up with each other. Also I wouldn't have met my responsible adult. That would never do....

What about abusive dangerous marriages... Divorce is, to use a phrase, a godsend. Before it became respectable, many people were trapped in loveless and often violent marriages.

Banning divorce doesn't save marriage. It makes marriage a huge gamble.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 12:56 PM

Perhaps the vows should be modified to "so long as we feel like staying together", with a proviso that if you prefer you can opt to the traditional version, but that means no option for divorce.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:03 PM

I got a better idea. Eliminate the scourge of pre-marital and extra-marital sex...and the need for divorce...by bannin' marriage! Just eliminate the institution of marriage and all the other issues cease to BE issues. Divorce lawyers will also have to get real jobs or else starve if this is done.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: frogprince
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:07 PM

I'm quite certain that Wesley suggested this in all seriousness, without the least bit of sarcasm....

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:15 PM

the best way to save traditional marriage

- ? You must specify what exactly you want to save, and whether it exists at all. Catholic marriages cannot be divorced, so there you are.

What I would like to be publicly fostered is responsible parenthood. (I would not like to save it because there has never been enough of it - least of all in marriages that only exist on paper.) Any other forms of living together, including man and woman without offspring, should be at the partners' choice, with or without formal contract. Public appreciation will vary - as it does with conventional marriages.

BTW, did you know that the Catholic church actually endorses same sex partnership, with an arbitrary number of simultaneous partners, and some even wearing golden rings?

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:16 PM

What makes anyone think "traditional marriage" is in need of "saving"?

Some folks have way too much time on their hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:20 PM

Frogprince: I have the T-shirt that says "National Sarcasm Society - Like we need your help"

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:21 PM

Yeah, Greg...people like you and me. ;-D

Grishka - "Catholic marriages cannot be divorced"

Oh? Are you sure? I know of a number of Catholic marriages that ended in divorce, so it's certainly not impossible. The church may not like it, but it's been done.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:23 PM

Wesley - LOL! I bet their meetings are a lot of fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:29 PM

I'm with Greg on this. Who says marriage needs saving?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:43 PM

There are churches - I would suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is one of them - where a marriage cannot be officially broken by divorce, in the sense that *they* believe/assume that manmade dicta cannot alter a union that God hath made.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 02:00 PM

"Married" homosexuals cannot get divorced on grounds of adultery, as the law is unable to define "gay adultery"

MORE re-definition required I think.....madness.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 02:26 PM

Ake, since when?

"'Gay' adultery" can easily be defined—and, in fact, IS defined—as when one member of the married couple has sexual relations with someone other than the person to whom they are married.

Adultery is adultery. So what's the problem?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 02:27 PM

For those who think divorce is too easy, there is something called a "covenant marriage" in which the couple imposes *on themselves* significantly more obstacles to getting out than the law normally does. Yeah, well, and lotsa people also think pre-nups are a bad idea. (Wisht I'da had one...)

Personally, I think more married gay couples will be good for the lot of us, since there will likely be fewer unattached gays milling around and making general mayhem.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Musket sans body
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 02:42 PM

Don.

The problem is Akenaton.

He is all for marriage so long as those queer bastards don't have any rights. They are sub human you see.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 02:54 PM

About Catholic marriages, we best ask Joe Offer. I realise that the OP is not serious, but in order to qualify for good sarcasm, he should be more specific.

In fact the "gay marriage" discussion shows us once more that western societies, apparently "enlighted", have largely failed to work out their moral foundations. One of the most common fallacies is to confuse the distinct notions of sex, genetic parenthood, partnership, and responsibility.

Akenaton, indeed we may hear people saying "my fathers-in-law do not like my mothers at all, but my husband is glad to have a husband like me!" But we already got used to "on Tuesdays I am with my father, and on Wednesdays I am with my dad."

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 03:38 PM

Ban divorce and increase separation by murder and the incidence of adultery.

"More fun, more people killed," as the old children's rhyme states.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 03:50 PM

Ban divorce and participants will find other exit strategies:

Come live with me and be my love
And we will all the pleasures prove
Of a marriage conducted with economy
In the Twentieth Century Anno Donomy.
We'll live in a dear little walk-up flat
With practically room to swing a cat
And a potted cactus to give it hauteur
And a bathtub equipped with dark brown water.
We'll eat, without undue discouragement
Foods low in cost but high in nouragement
And quaff with pleasure, while chatting wittily,
The peculiar wine of Little Italy.
We'll remind each other it's smart to be thrifty
And buy our clothes for something-fifty.
We'll stand in line on holidays
For seats at unpopular matinees,
And every Sunday we'll have a lark
And take a walk in Central Park.
And one of these days not too remote
I'll probably up and cut your throat.

Ogden Nash

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 04:18 PM

"To expect a young couple to marry and live with each other til the end of their days is not realistic." (Margaret Meade,anthropologist, paraphrased).

I am not the same person I was when I married the first time at the age 0f 21. I was not the same 21 year old when I remarried at the age of 50, and I am not the same person I was when I married at the age of 70. My wives were not the same people either.

Is there no room for logic and reality? Hell, I don't even know that guy! I was a republican when I was 30, now I look back and wonder, "What the hell was I thinking"?

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 05:20 PM

The problem is the rigidity of marriage. And the disgusting nature of people. If everybody had a conscience it would be easy. I hear more and more stores about other people's ex-partners that make me think that there are too many people on this earth who do not deserve to exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 05:33 PM

In the UK Don, the ruling is that "married" homosexuals cannot commit adultery as they do not have proper sexual intercourse as defined in law.

Perhaps Richard could throw a little light on the issue?

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 05:56 PM

I suppose it would make more sense if people stopped talking about the stuff said in weddings as "vows", and called them "aspirations" or "hopes". Vows by definition are irrevocable.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 05:59 PM

Ebbie - "There are churches - I would suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is one of them - where a marriage cannot be officially broken by divorce, in the sense that *they* believe/assume that manmade dicta cannot alter a union that God hath made."

Uh-huh. But they are overlooking the possibility that God can alter that union...by working through the will and consciousness of individual human beings to do so. The Church is blithely assuming that they KNOW in advance what God's will is and what it continues to be...and they don't. ;-D

This is essentially the argument Joan of Arc had with the Church. She said, in effect, that a person's individual, personal connection with God (direct contact with God without any clerical intermediaries to do it for you) overrules what the Church might have to say about it, because the Church may represent God...but it isn't God! Her first loyalty was not to the Church Militant (the earthly institution and its officials) but the Church Triumphant (God and God's Angelic messengers). This is not to say she didn't love the Church. She did. But she did not regard it as the highest spiritual authority...rather one's own direct connection with God had to be the highest form of guidance.

The Church of the time, of course, was profoundly upset by what she was saying! It threatened their temporal power and control, so they convicted her of heresy on no real evidence of any such thing, thus allowing the English Army to conveniently get rid of a very dangerous enemy by executing her. However, she proved even more powerful in death than in life, as often happens with great martyrs, and the English got kicked out of France within five short years of her death...managing to hang on to nothing but the port of Calais.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 06:05 PM

The principle of freedom under the law requires that logic and reality, as appreciated by individual citizens, take precedence over authoritarian or moralistic dictates based on some hierarchical make-believe power structure.

Individual make-believe is JUST as powerful as organized make-believe.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 06:11 PM

Yes! It is. On an individual basis. What worries me, though, is how organized make-believe can mobilize vast temporal power and millions of people to do its unholy work FOR it...as is done by governments all the time when they wage war.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 06:17 PM

Aspirant Pharaoh, take me to your ruling.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 06:25 PM

Say what? Are you having those visions again, Richard?

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 06:40 PM

What worries me, though, is how organized make-believe can mobilize vast temporal power and millions of people to do its unholy work

Now there's overwhelming bullshit in spades.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 06:51 PM

Could you elaborate on that for a few pages, Greg? ;-) It's a slow day here, and I hang on your every word. I was thinking, for instance, of how Hitler mobilized millions of Germans around his various forms of organized make-believe...just to give a single example of what I'm alluding to. History is loaded with other examples of it, but that one is one of the most spectacular cases in more recent times.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 07:44 PM

Marriage is a civil contract to make provision for inheritance of property and provision for children.

If a couple then decides to have a religious ceremony, they should probably follow the precepts of that religion.

Not all Christian denominations find homosexuality to be sinful and a number ordain non-celibate homosexuals...and also have no objection to gay marriage. And some denominations are split (and, since in some of those denominations, the congregation rules, congregations will have differing beliefs from each other).

I really wish that the leaders of gay inclusive Christian denominations would be as vocal as some of the hate-spewing denominations. Some of those hate-spewing denominations would find Curmudgeon's and my marriage to be suspect because we, by choice, never had children and had no intention of having children at the time we married. There are those who would say we are not truly married since they believe the only purpose of marriage is procreation (and that sex for any other purpose is sinful).

Sometimes, too, it's just a matter of someone looking at what has been a tradition in one's culture and actually thinking about it. Change isn't necessarily bad...and sometimes that change is going back to an earlier tradition. Marriage in both concept and ritual has evolved in the early years of the Christian church. http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

Linn

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 08:33 PM

Ake, "proper sexual intercourse?"

I was always under the impression that adultery was improper sexual intercourse.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 04:53 AM

Not just me then.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 05:16 AM

I got married in 1971, and I got married for life in a Catholic wedding. I think my bride expected a lifelong marriage, too; but within a year it was clear that she was profoundly unhappy. We had three kids and did our best to raise them and to preserve our marriage and our family, but I started expecting my wife to kick me out of the house in 1978. We lasted until 1992.

My ex filed a petition for a Catholic Church annulment of our marriage on the grounds of "psychological unpreparedness," and the annulment was granted. She was married and divorced twice after that, and she's now single. I got married about ten years after my divorce, and I'm still happily married - and my ex and my current wife get along very well. I also have a nice relationship with my ex-wife. We had three children together, so it's important that we maintain some sort of relationship.

I think the reason for my divorce, was that my wife suffered from depression and anxiety - and I suppose I was the most obvious person to blame for that, whether I was responsible or not. I still believe in lifelong marriage, even though mine didn't work. I'm glad I was able to get an annulment and marry again in the Catholic Church, but I think the Catholic annulment process is duplicitous. I think that churches must preserve the ideal of lifelong marriage, but they should recognize that some marriages fail despite the best efforts of the people involved. I think it would be best if churches would recognize divorce, but require a long period - at least a couple years - before remarriage.

Pope Francis, are you listening?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 05:48 AM

He may very well be listening, Joe. Just strikes me as that kinda guy.

Some very good points of discussion. Interesting reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 06:08 AM

OTOH my first wife Valerie & I were both atheists, she of Anglican & I of Jewish extraction, married in a Register Office, did a bit of CofE churchgoing in middle age as a sort of keep-up-traditions thing to see if it had anything to offer us, but, as she put it, it never took.

And we were married for nearly ½C ~~ over 48 years ~~ until death us did part. Lots of friends & relations divorced around us, as people do these days. But we had agreed when we got engaged that we didn't believe in divorce and never would. And never did.

Not sure what this proves, if anything. I simply state it anecdotally, with no suggestion of any conclusion to be drawn.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: kendall
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 06:25 AM

Is marriage itself on the way out?

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 07:01 AM

Wary as I am about getting involved in cultural poitics, I believe in both marriage and divorce. The score's 2-1 and I sincerely hope it will stay that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 07:03 AM

Of course a sure-fire way to eliminate the awful stain of divorce plaguing our society, would be to ban marriage..

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Musket being rude so look away now
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 07:20 AM

Whilst we are at it, lets ban virginity to dissuade people from fucking. Sorry, just following the logic of this thread.

I have a similar story to Joe's. like Joe, i am lucky to have a friend still at the end of it and our reasons for divorce were our own but mutual. Pressure to drag out unhappy or in many cases violent or abusive marriages exists and ones from religious objections in the main.

19th century. Being pious was a virtue.
20th century. Being pious was a personal attribute.
21st century. Being pious can exacerbate society's issues.

My wife's family are active Christians. Her brother reckons we are not married because a) I have been married before and b) we didn't marry in a church but a hotel. I wonder, just wonder how much his sister hurts because of his despicable putting his faith before the feelings of his family? I know the answer of course. Many people are so blind to their faith they are blind to what their faith reckons to promote...

We see it in the bigotry around gay marriage. Akenaton states above that anal sex isn't sex so gay people can't commit adultery. Just read what he put before putting me down for attacking his views will you all?

I suppose anal sex with the woman next door isn't grounds for divorce then? (An aside, when I was an apprentice, the men I worked with referred to anal sex as Greek contraception. It was a different world back then......)

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 07:26 AM

No marriages = No divorces.

Problem solved.

Marriage is an outdated concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 11:57 AM

Background checks before marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 11:59 AM

Sorry, I'd meant that to be a blue clicky...must have gotten distracted.

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University's history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)."

Early Christian History

BTW, I posted that on Curmudgeon's and my 31st wedding anniversary. He and I both had 10 year "apprenticeships" before we met and married. He's on excellent terms with his ex as am I. I haven't heard from my ex for about 30 years and that's a good thing -- he was an alcoholic who tried to kill me to keep me from leaving him. I last saw him when they carried me out of the house on a stretcher. I knew first hand about how many rights a woman gives up to marry, so Tom knew how much I trusted him in order to marry him. (Yes, before meeting him, I had sworn I'd never be so stupid as to marry again.)

Linn

Linn

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 12:08 PM

According to Glen Beck - now that gay marriage is "legal" - the next step is polygamy. "It's the next logical step - just you watch and see".

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 12:25 PM

'now that gay marriage is "legal" - the next step is polygamy. "It's the next logical step'
.,,.,.

I fear the 'logic' eludes me.

Pray expound.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 12:32 PM

Polygamy? And why not? It's been a well-respected custom in a number of cultures.

People only object to things which they find unusual (or which are quite painful/physically harmful), generally speaking. If they're accustomed to something, then they find no reason to object to it.

Along this general line of thought...suppose we had had a custom in all human societies for the last thousand years to remove a child's left little finger just after birth? (And who cares why? People make up reasons for all kinds of arbitrary things, and then they obey them.) If we did have such a custom...I bet none of us here would have a left little finger, we wouldn't find that remarkable at all, but we'd be a bit shocked if we encountered someone who still HAD their left little finger! It would play merry hell with guitar technique to be missing the left little finger, of course, but I'm sure people would find ways to adapt to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 12:35 PM

Anyway, I take a different view of it than Glenn Beck does. I think the next logical step is to acquire a Dachshund. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 12:45 PM

You want ME to explain Glen Beck's logic??? Not even Glen Beck can do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 02:22 PM

Don't particularly 'want' anything, Wes; but I presume if you quote him you have some reason for doing so. Otherwise why do it? Now it appears you despise his opinions as being random & illogical. But yet you cite them as if some sort of authority to be taken into consideration.

Are you feeling OK, my dear fellow?

Didn't even know, btw, who this Mr Beck was till I googled him on wikipedia. Seems big on radio over there, but not any sort of name to conjure with around these parts.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 02:27 PM

He's the delight of political junkies in the USA. If they're on the Right, they may agree with him...or they may think he's an embarassing wacko who goes way too far. If they're on the Left, they are secretly very happy he's there so they can ridicule him and hold him up as symbolic of all they despise. Either way, he gets a lot of attention in the USA...and very little elsewhere.

Now look up Don Cherry, the hockey commentator. He's a media sensation in Canada, but not much known elsewhere. He needs to be seen for his suits alone!

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 02:52 PM

As usual, M, Hawk ls letting his relativism run rampant at the expense of the facts.

Beck is an uneducated radio bloviator with oatmeal for brains that no-one, right wing or left wing politically - with any pretensions to intelligence would credit in any way, shape or form.

He does not get "a lot of attentionn" in the US; tTose that pay any attention to him are on the same intellectual level as he is.

He is deservedly obscure in most of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 03:24 PM

It's so true that people change a great deal over the years and a couple may grow apart to the point where they haven't a thought in common. There are abusive marriages, violent and cruel ones, unfaithfulness, coldness, vicious rows etc etc. IMO, no-one should be condemned to a life in shackles in these situations. I know that where children are concerned a stable marriage is the best environment, but not when that marriage is dysfunctional. That is worse for the children than a divorce. But small tiffs, even the odd nasty row, shouldn't mean the end. I sometimes want to smack my husband with the rolling pin when he's being a real piggie, (and no doubt he too could murder me sometimes) but these moments pass. Divorce shouldn't be too easy, but it should be available for people trapped in a marital hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 03:50 PM

Good lord. My whole point in starting this thread was to show some of the bizarre reactions to something as innocuous as gay marriage. I'm sorry some of you have been unable to figure that out.

And yes I listen to Glen Beck in the car. His show is one of the funniest shows on radio.

And since I guess I have to spell everything out - I disagree with Glen Beck on every topic imaginable.

Clear enough for you? If not let me know. Maybe I can rephrase my message with words containing less than three syllables.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 04:03 PM

How very unintelligent of us, Wesley. What a good thing we have such a sharp and on-the-ball chap such as yourself to set us right on the intention of your thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: olddude
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 04:04 PM

Arm both husband and wife .. darn tootin ... then they are defended they are .. Colt peace makers at 10 yards ... arguments settled

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: olddude
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 04:07 PM

What ever happened to the lady that cut her husband's balls off and threw them out the window of her car while he was sleeping or something like that .. I bet that settled the arguments Boitch or something like that

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 04:11 PM

olddude, I remember Mrs Bobbit who cut off her husband's willy. He had it sewn on again, but it was never the same afterwards. I think she went to prison for a long time. It gave us a new word, 'doing a Bobbit'. Nasty husbands beware!

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 04:36 PM

Some statistics to stimulate discussion on marriage, divorce, social values and possibly regigion (for those of youz who like to throw religion into every discussion) - That should be a good start:)

Stats

More stats

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Musket sans body
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 04:55 PM

Do a bobit?

You'd have to find the things first. ....

He says, speaking in the abstract.

Hopefully.

Good Adnams down here by the way. If beers don't travel, this one has to travel 200yds.

Question is, is it too good?....

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 05:15 PM

Sorta wonder why they got married in the first place. Not exactly a "Romeo and Juliet" relationship.

WHACK-O!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 05:25 PM

Instead of worrying about marriage between same sex couples - wouldn't the best way to save traditional marriage be to just do away with divorce? "For better for worse - 'til death do us part"??"
       is this quote advocating compulsory euthanasia for two people instead of divorce, I am sorry but i cannot agree with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 06:10 PM

No matter what you wish to believe about the rules, values and obligations of 'marriage', some people in all cultures & religions will continue to make mistakes in how they form bonds....formal or informal.
Society needs a way to monitor and control these situations because of the legal complications of children, inheritance, financial obligations, and various other considerations.
Despite the wish of some to want definitions of marriage to suit their own notion of history and religious obligation, THERE IS NO SET OF ULTIMATE MORAL PARAMETERS which can be agreed on by all sides!

Someone asked the question in a TV analysis: "Why can't polygamy be okay if gay marriage is ruled okay?"

Well...currently, it is because the majority of 'Christian' groups don't like it...and partially because there was some serious abuse of the system by men who used religious peer pressure to acquire harems... often involving girls way below the legal and rational age of consent.
However, IF the system require informed consent by ALL adult, rational parties, there is no overriding conceptual reason why polygamy could not be legal under certain circumstances.... and the same goes for polyandry!

It would require contracts in which the parties defined the rules and obligations they intended to live by, and defining the place of children and finances...etc. Then... this contract would have to analyzed and approved by a legal system as non-abusive and allowing individuals to opt OUT for various reasons. There is no particular reason why various forms of 'marriage' could not be legal if society were able to monitor the variations to preserve 'human rights' and protect individuals.
Yes.. it would be complicated, but no more complex than thousands of pages of tax law. I, of course, don't expect to see it... but history is full of cultural varieties of both civil and religious unions which 'worked' after a fashion. Many are still operative in certain cultures.

This vague assertion that this court decision in "changing the definition of marriage" just shows ignorance of the dozens of 'definitions' already in use.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 06:49 PM

Lorena Bobbitt was found not guilty by reason of insanity. No jail time, but a lot of talk show time.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 07:06 PM

And that name:   Bobbitt.

As in "bob it."

O-o-o-o-okay. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 09:05 PM

Odd how some folks make light of the Bobbitt case. If a similar attack against a woman occured, I suspect it would be seen as politically incorect to make light of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 09:22 PM

The point about the Bobbit case is that it was not the norm. It was 2 people whose relationship was odd from the beginning. The media can't deal with such a case without hyping it WAY beyond its actual relevance. If she had simply stabbed him rather than 'shortening' him, the assault would have been just as egregious, but far less titillating.
I personally wonder why a mention of the Bobbits gets more response than attempts to reply to the basic issue of marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 10:19 PM

As usual, Greg F is interpreting my reasonable and basically friendly attitude as the imaginary horror of "relativism", imagining thereby that I take no sides on anything (Ha! Funny, that!), thus satisfying his general need for showing rancorous hostility towards me. Greg needs to cheer up a bit and take an anger management course or get his gall bladder checked for overproduction of bile.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 06:17 AM

Ian...you are mistaken.
From the Guardian, the article from which I quoted.


Gay marriage
Gay marriage: some legal inequalities will remainGay couples will not be able to divorce on grounds of non-consummation or adultery with someone of same sex
Share 502
inShare.2Email Owen Bowcott
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 5 February 2013 17.58 GMT
Gay marriage campaigners in York. Photograph: John Giles/PA Wire
The aim of the marriage (same-sex couples) bill is to ensure that all couples enjoy equal marriage rights. Some elements of legal asymmetry remain, however, under the legislation.

Those who draft the parliamentary bills have been unable to define what constitutes consummation of a same-sex union. Consequently there is no provision for divorce on the grounds of non-consummation of a gay marriage.

That problem also means that same-sex couples who wish to divorce will not be able to cite adultery with someone of the same sex – the civil servants similarly struggled to find a definition of adultery between two men or two women.

Adultery will, nonetheless, be a permitted grounds for divorce if it follows sexual intercourse between one of the couple and someone of the opposite sex. That, at least, is consistent with existing marriage laws: if a man decides he is gay and leaves his wife for a man, she can divorce him for unreasonable behaviour but not adultery, which is defined as sexual intercourse.

The whole issue is a series of slapstick jokes, how can male/male sex be "equal" to female/male sex?.....the world turned upside down! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 06:52 AM

Polygamy is perfectly normal among other primates, and it also makes sense.
The only problem I see is, I can barely afford ONE wife.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 09:08 AM

Polygamy can work very well under some circumstances, but keeping the populace under govt control and ensuring they are excisable is the prime objective of most governments. :0)

Hippy paradises do not keep civil servants in a job, or make tax revenues to wage phoney wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,jim knowledge
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 11:07 AM

I `ad that `arry Wallis in my cab the other day. I`ve known `im since a kid. `e was all dressed up like a pox doctor`s clerk with a bundle of legal briefs under `is arm.
`e said, " Morning Jim. Could you take me up to the `ammersmith Court. We`re getting divorced, me and Violet."
I said, " Getting divorced? You aint even married!".
`e said, "No , I know. We`re getting married next month. This way it saves time!!".


Whaddam I Like??

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 01:18 PM

The inherent punishment for polygamy is having more than one mother-in-law.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 01:20 PM

Ouch.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 04:25 PM

Polygamy doesn't work as well as one might think. From what I hear (African muslims) there's a lot of jealousy, the older wife is consigned to the cooking when a nice new young wife arrives, and all the women strive to make themselves as gorgeous as possible for the husband, like a beauty pageant gone wrong. The husbands often get sick and tired of all the stress and have a mistress outside the home. And there are of course literally dozens of children to feed and clothe on one chap's income. Apparently, many of the younger generation of lassies refuse totally to even consider entering a polygamous marriage. My husband's half-siblings regard eachother as rivals and there's a lot of backbiting.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Musket sans getting dual grief
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 04:38 PM

One at a time if you don't mind.

Polygamy sounds great but apparently it isn't based on two' s company three' s fun.

So.. who gets the spare room?

Me, knowing my luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 04:48 PM

When I studied Anthropology at Uni as an 'extra' subject, I was fascinated to learn that polyandry was rare but did exist in some parts of the world. Now that could be favourite. A man to do the garden and handy jobs around the house, another more cerebral chap to help with the crossword and take one to the theatre. And a third ...!

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: frogprince
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 08:58 PM

"adultery, which is defined as sexual intercourse."

Which sounds absurd to me. If adultery is accepted as grounds for divorce, isn't that because, in this context at least, adultery is by definition infidelity? Did parliament come up with that definition because the members wanted to be free to enjoy oral or anal sex wherever they pleased without being defined as adulterers?

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 07:26 AM

Now that is an excellent post Eliza :0)

But men wouldn't wear it, the laws of nature are just under the skin.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 08:46 AM

Economically though, akenaton, it would make sense, as there'd be three men to fund the offspring, and not too many babies. Also, chaps often like hanging around together and they could all go off to the pub, the football match, the gym etc and be company for eachother. I seem to remember that polyandry is/was practised among a remote tribe in Northern India, and it was usually a group of brothers who shared one wife. (Keep it in the family so to speak!)

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 08:59 AM

In most countries people are allowed to live together as they choose. Same-sex couples and larger groups sharing a household are everyday experience. For example, Eliza's model would not be illegal (just labeled "lovers" instead of "husbands") - whether it would work is the other question.

What is currently discussed as (civil) "marriage" is basically about some privileges regarding taxation, heritage etc., i.o.w. money. The fundamental questions about life in a society must be discussed long before lawyers and tax consultants take over.

It seems to me that a truly universal feature of human nature (shared with many animals) that children want some special relationship to their genetic father and mother, and vice versa. Society should encourage that, and of course good social behaviour by everybody. Money is much less important (though not completely irrelevant).

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Musket pointing out a small fact
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 03:35 PM

The truly universal feature of human nature, and many other animals for that matter is that they cannot distinguish between their genetic parents and surrogates.

Society is grateful for that.

End of sermon.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 04:20 PM

Musket, not true (and not a matter of "sermon"). Most people have the deeply rooted desire to know and relate to their genetic ancestors and descendents and other relatives. (As one of many proofs, note that many adopted children go to court to force knowledge about their genetic parents, even if they are happy in their adopting family.) Society cannot and should not ignore this fact.

Of course adoption and other forms of responsibility are facts of life as well. Even if the parents are at hand, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and good friends often take their share in the education of children. What children might not need and want is a married couple who pretend to be the genetic parents.

You may point out that if the child does not find out otherwise, s/he cannot complain. True, but s/he is withheld an information which is now seen as a part of human dignity. In other words, the children are lied to. "Society" may be grateful for persons who don't complain, but would be better served by members with a truthful sense of identity.

I am aware that not all readers understand what I am talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 05:04 PM

Old Dude suggested Colt peace makers at 10 yards ... arguments settled

This only illustrates the vast disparity between the benefits of marrieage for males vs. females, since according to traditional "mountain justice lore" at least, a female seeking justice in this manner is obliged to permit him to "set 'em swingin'" before beginning to shoot.

No similar obligation is (well) known when the male is the shootist.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: olddude
Date: 30 Jun 13 - 12:24 PM

naw most mountain womenz would just use a fry pan over the noggin