spike
New Member
No divorce except in cases of abuse or infidelity.
Sure the government nanny state should interfere in people's private lives more.
Knew this was coming...
- Thread starter Gato_Solo
- Start date
Sure the government nanny state should interfere in people's private lives more.
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
Update. Looks like they're stuck with each other until they move.
Before anyone gets their shrts in a wad, IMO this should be happening to heterosexuals as well. No divorce except in cases of abuse or infidelity.
Good. Let 'em be miserable together.
As a divorced person, oddly enough I agree with your stance and always have. I'm not divorced because I wanted to be, despite the fact that I initiated the proceedings. I'll not give further detail as it's none of anybody's business, but I sleep well at night. I would go so far as to deny divorce except in cases of abuse. But nobody asked me.
Sure the government nanny state should interfere in people's private lives more.
So, "the government nanny state" should force us to accept homosexual marriage as a right but "the government nanny state" should not force us to live with our choices?
I believe Dr Laura has a great idea.
The three A's.
Abuse. Addiction. Adultery.
All three actions break the covenant. Addiction could be a questionable one because so many go into a relationship with an addict.
2minkey
bootlicker
lettings gays marry isn't forcing anything on you. get over it.
yeah, they should force us to live with our choices. all of them. government should take a more active part in business, and force choices there. in fact, there should be government ministers that regulate the purchase of each and every mattress sold in the lower 48 states. alaska and hawaii can go fuck themselves. oh yes, and of course, divorce will be strictly outlawed so whiney and complacent americans will learn the value of making a "committment." women will be required to cover their faces, except for the eyes, at all times. wifebeating will be encouraged, and slavery will be re-legalized. Bible study will form the entire lesson plan k-12, except that it will be read aloud, so as to control acccess to its holy words. dancing, of course, will be forbidden. sorry, kevin bacon.
2minkey
bootlicker
i have no idea. what's yer point?
BAD IDEA! Most people, no matter how stupid they seem, can usually manage to get what they want...if you implemented those rules then the person who wanted out would just go out and have an affair and be sure to get caught...or worse they'd rough up their spouse...it's not like those things are that hard to accomplish, a person can do them at will if they so choose.
I've never been married but I've been in a BAD relationship..there was no abuse, there was no adultery and as far as his doctors were concerned there was so addiction (although I still maintain he's an alcoholic)...if we had been married and the only way to get out of the relationship was to go out and cheat and get caught then I would have (which would have likely lead to abuse as well...his abusing me that is...so it would have been a double whammy)...there's always a way around it.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Yep. Here is the key portion of the article:
Once that happens they drop the "for the sole purpose of granting a divorce petition" and say that the state recognized the marriage for one purpose then it must recognize the marriage for all purposes.
I wonder if this is being done in the smallest state in the union for no other reason than to get the camel's nose under the tent. This could be a group of people trying to start a legal trend and the marriage was never about anything other than advancing the gay agenda.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
In many ststes a marriage is not valid unless it is consumated. An inconsumate marriage can be annuled at any time. By its very nature, this is an inconsumate marriage; unless, of course, one is willing to classify inanimate objects as sex organs for the purposes of consumation.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
But the manner in which they have sex is what defines them. Name one -- just one -- characteristic of homosexuality, other than the same sex sex act itself, which defines homosexuals as being homosexual. You can't. It is the sex act, of and by itself, which defines them.
And thus you have stated the radical homosexual agenda.
Then you have absolutely no idea to what lengths the radical homosexual agendists will go to further their cause.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
If the only state where this marriage is recognized is Massachusetts then the cure should be obvious. They simply need to move to a state which does not recognize the marriage -- which they have already done -- and move away from each other and get on with their lives.
If the marriage is not recognized then it doesn't exist for the purposes of the law and they have been doing nothing more than cohabitating by the standards of that state. People who cohabitate can part at the discretion of either party at any tome; no harm, no foul.
If the marriage is not recognized then it doesn't exist for the purposes of the law and they have been doing nothing more than cohabitating by the standards of that state. People who cohabitate can part at the discretion of either party at any tome; no harm, no foul.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Hear, hear! I think Spike just got spiked.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Interesting...Mike Huckabee isn't afraid of the less-than 2% of people who would vote against him just for making such a statement. I'm sure some here would disagree, saying that the percentage is much higher, but, if that was the only criteria, I wonder...
One more thing...we used to isolate folks with incurable, contagious diseases all the time...
One more thing...we used to isolate folks with incurable, contagious diseases all the time...
spike
New Member
Exactly.
spike
New Member
There wasn't one.