DOMA has started to fall.

[pinkocommie]

What FS fails to understand is that a marriage that cannot be broken, especially when two people are no longer in love, can be more damaging for a child than nearly anything else.

Oh I totally agree, I'm just not able to keep myself level headed while dealing with FS.  I grew up in one of those households where the marriage was horrible but held together for the fear of the church.  Watched my father abuse my mother and hold a gun to her head.  Was abused myself by that sick man in more ways than I care to remember because the church said it was ok because I was an insolent child.  Watched him nearly kill my brother.  Watched him actually throw an iron pan so hard it broke.

The divorce was a relief.  Though I didn't feel that relief until the 2 year divorce battle was over.  But it was a relief.

Emotional anger and me don't get along  :verysad:

No no no...It's not that everyone is disagreeing with YOU, don't try to make this some kind of personal persecution.  It's your POSITION people disagree with.

[Davin]

Making divorce have a reason for the divorce is in no way a means to lock together people who NEED to get separated.

The problem I see with this is that it very easily traps two people together until they need to get separated, I think it would be far better for everyone involved if people got divorced before things get really nasty instead of making sure that by law; things have to get nasty before you can get divorced.

[Whitney]

I guess I need to caulk this up to wanting to somehow object to anything I say...

Or perhaps it was because you went on so many tangents that people were forced to make assumptions about what you were talking about.

How about you stay on topic and start a new thread if you want to complain about no fault divorce?  Oh, and this is not a request, it is a direction.

[freeservant]

Making divorce have a reason for the divorce is in no way a means to lock together people who NEED to get separated.

The problem I see with this is that it very easily traps two people together until they need to get separated, I think it would be far better for everyone involved if people got divorced before things get really nasty instead of making sure that by law; things have to get nasty before you can get divorced.

I respect that you have what you feel is a good reason for quick and easy no problems divorce.

I happen to feel that people should not bond with the understanding that it is not for life.  I think it is one of the most powerful choices you can make in your life.  Every personal effort to stay together should be made but that does not mean that divorce will not be a necessary option.

Bonded together in love.

Bonded together for life.

and if you think this is a choice that should be entered into lightly then perhaps it should be put off until you understand the gravity of the lifetime commitment.

No no no...It's not that everyone is disagreeing with YOU, don't try to make this some kind of personal persecution. It's your POSITION people disagree with.

This would make me feel better if only there was a better realization that I am not against same sex unions and that I am against some of the methods being used like judicial fiat.

Gay unions are happening NOW.  Gay unions will continue to happen.  Gay unions need to find a legal means to be recognized on at least a state by state level.  But DOMA does not stop states from exercising their tenth amendment rights and this court verdict is trying to impose something that was not needed.  I have confidence that this will be overturned in the First Circuit and still not stop any states from securing the ability for same sex unions.

Yet I still get the idea that some are not actually reading my posts fully and thus just want to attack anything I say like I am the average fundy.  I would have less reason to feel persecuted if there was a more thoughtful and more directed response with out resort to 'you are just a bigot no matter what' kind of mentality I have seen expressed.  Not to mention the conflation of my objection to no-fault divorce being a blanket indictment that I am against all divorce.

edit:

I guess I need to caulk this up to wanting to somehow object to anything I say...

[GAYtheist]

Making divorce have a reason for the divorce is in no way a means to lock together people who NEED to get separated.

The problem I see with this is that it very easily traps two people together until they need to get separated, I think it would be far better for everyone involved if people got divorced before things get really nasty instead of making sure that by law; things have to get nasty before you can get divorced.

I respect that you have what you feel is a good reason for quick and easy no problems divorce.

I happen to feel that people should not bond with the understanding that it is not for life.  I think it is one of the most powerful choices you can make in your life.  Every personal effort to stay together should be made but that does not mean that divorce will not be a necessary option.

Bonded together in love.

Bonded together for life.

and if you think this is a choice that should be entered into lightly then perhaps it should be put off until you understand the gravity of the lifetime commitment.

No no no...It's not that everyone is disagreeing with YOU, don't try to make this some kind of personal persecution. It's your POSITION people disagree with.

This would make me feel better if only there was a better realization that I am not against same sex unions and that I am against some of the methods being used like judicial fiat.

Gay unions are happening NOW.  Gay unions will continue to happen.  Gay unions need to find a legal means to be recognized on at least a state by state level.  But DOMA does not stop states from exercising their tenth amendment rights and this court verdict is trying to impose something that was not needed.  I have confidence that this will be overturned in the First Circuit and still not stop any states from securing the ability for same sex unions.

Yet I still get the idea that some are not actually reading my posts fully and thus just want to attack anything I say like I am the average fundy.  I would have less reason to feel persecuted if there was a more thoughtful and more directed response with out resort to 'you are just a bigot no matter what' kind of mentality I have seen expressed.  Not to mention the conflation of my objection to no-fault divorce being a blanket indictment that I am against all divorce.

If two people are in love when they marry, and years down the road, through no action, or inaction, fall out of love with each other, regardless of whether or not they have children, they should be able to divorce. Hence no fault divorce.

This is what I have been talking about since you brought it up, a marriage that is forced to remain together when the two do not love each other would be more damaging to the child than a divorce, in my opinion.

[Sophus]

freeservant you support civil unions but not gay marriage? Why is that? Civil unions are not the same as marriagel. It is still discrimination. Why shouldn't gays be permitted the rights that come with a regular marriage?

[freeservant]

freeservant you support civil unions but not gay marriage? Why is that? Civil unions are not the same as marriagel. It is still discrimination. Why shouldn't gays be permitted the rights that come with a regular marriage?

Not being a lawyer I never the less think there is existing contract law that could button up a same sex union in ways that get around all the so called rights issues.  You would need to prove to me that a state like California could not craft a civil union so that it has all that comes with regular marriage.

I grant that my objection to calling it marriage is purely semantic. (I did make this point earlier)

Give the Christians a small little thing and just don't call it marriage when you craft a civil union so that it has all the full rights and privileges of what we fudy duddy Christians call marriage.  

Call it an underhanded psychological ploy to make Christians feel that they are not under attack or that this is a method that will lead to further attack.

...Or we could be open about things and just say that the gay marriage thing is truly about attacking Christians and keep up that attack until we have the end times reality of the open attack that will happen to Christians that means that Jesus will soon return.

[pinkocommie]

...Or we could be open about things and just say that the gay marriage thing is truly about attacking Christians and keep up that attack until we have the end times reality of the open attack that will happen to Christians that means that Jesus will soon return.

 

[Davin]

...Or we could be open about things and just say that the gay marriage thing is truly about attacking Christians[...]

[GAYtheist]

freeservant you support civil unions but not gay marriage? Why is that? Civil unions are not the same as marriagel. It is still discrimination. Why shouldn't gays be permitted the rights that come with a regular marriage?

Not being a lawyer I never the less think there is existing contract law that could button up a same sex union in ways that get around all the so called rights issues.  You would need to prove to me that a state like California could not craft a civil union so that it has all that comes with regular marriage.

I grant that my objection to calling it marriage is purely semantic. (I did make this point earlier)

Give the Christians a small little thing and just don't call it marriage when you craft a civil union so that it has all the full rights and privileges of what we fudy duddy Christians call marriage.  

Call it an underhanded psychological ploy to make Christians feel that they are not under attack or that this is a method that will lead to further attack.

...Or we could be open about things and just say that the gay marriage thing is truly about attacking Christians and keep up that attack until we have the end times reality of the open attack that will happen to Christians that means that Jesus will soon return.

There needs to be a facedesk icon...

Gay marriage is an attack on Christians? Really? How often do you hear of gay people attacking Christians? Sure, we protest at churches. We protest at churches that helped to remove rights that even you agree are necessary. More Christians attack gay people, much like you're doing, because of what the bible tells them to do. Do you know how many gay people, for some reason that is beyond me, seeing as how we've been treated in the past and present, Christian? Quite a few. Why would they want to attack the religion they follow? Gay marriage is about equality.

Do you know how the separate but equal thing got started? Black children were going to schools, provided by the government, and given the same text books, supplied by the government. The condition of the schools were such that they were using crates as chairs and desks, and the books were in horrible repair. White people said that they were separate from them, but things were equal. Now, lets look at civil unions. We are allowed to be together in a legally binding contract. We are given many of the same rights at heterosexual people, but not all the rights of heterosexual people. We are not allowed to legally call each other husband, or for the ladies, wife, because we are not married, we are joined in a civil union. The federal government, as yet, does not recognize gay marriage. At this point, we can't even say separate but equal.

Oh, and I love this argument. You have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite gender as anyone else... :brick:  :brick:  
Makes me want to puke. Here is the difference. You, as a straight person, are able to marry the person that you choose, or love. I as a gay man may choose to marry a woman, but that marriage would lack all forms of love, yours would not. I cannot, currently, marry the man I live with, love, cherish, help around the house, see off to college on a daily basis, welcome home on a daily basis or sleep in same same bed on a nightly basis. This is not equal.

You say Christians are under attack? I say Christians are running the government, and it needs to stop.

[KDbeads]

Give the Christians a small little thing and just don't call it marriage when you craft a civil union so that it has all the full rights and privileges of what we fudy duddy Christians call marriage.  

Yep, that reeks of "separate but equal" to me. The US has already done this once, didn't work out so well

[Whitney]

I personally think the state should only recognize civil unions and leave "marriage" to the churches...they can have that word I'm not that attached to it.  However, per the State of Oklahoma I am married (says Certificate of Marriage on the paperwork) even though neither of us is the least bit religious and we did not hold the ceremony in a church.  We would have opted for a civil union had it been made available to us and we are a male/female couple.

[KDbeads]

We weren't given an option either, were 'married' by a judge at a courthouse.  Certificate said marriage.

[Davin]

I don't have an attachment to the term used to define it either, just ensure the same rights, call it something else and done.

[Sophus]

Not being a lawyer I never the less think there is existing contract law that could button up a same sex union in ways that get around all the so called rights issues.  You would need to prove to me that a state like California could not craft a civil union so that it has all that comes with regular marriage.

From a quick this is what I found.
http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

They're not equal, and are not malleable enough to be made entirely equal. Even if they were it still wouldn't be because it would demand more work and money on the part of the couple in the civil union.

Furthermore, I have many gay friends. Some lesbians as well. But the only one who participates in the parades and is the most politically active and open about pushing for equal rights is a die-hard Christian. There are gay Christians who disagree with the way the laws currently stand so I don't know how you can frame this as an attack on Christianity.