Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are absolutely right, if people want to have sex then they'll do it. But if they want to get married, and walk up there and say "till death do us part", then they damn sure better have a good reason to get divorced. If you are incompatible, that should have been known well before you said your "I do's", and especially before you start popping out babies together. The point of this legislation isn't to punish married couples. It is to make a person think twice before they get married in the first place. Because marriage is supposed to mean something. Here is something else she said..
"Something is wrong when you can get out of a marriage easier than a loan for a car."
I understand the reasoning behind making divorce difficult; it's like Cortes burning his ships so that the only alternatives to success was death.
Why is it so important that people who marry do so for life? Would it be better if people didn't get married and just had kids and lived together for as long as they could stand each other? How would that be better?
For me, marriage is supposed to be for life and to one person, but that is my personal and religious belief and I don't see what it has to do with any aspect of the government. If there are tangible societal benefits to discouraging divorce why do would stop there? What about requiring pregnant women to be married? Or requiring couples to eat dinner together at least three times a week? How about guidelines for marital intimacy?
In late June 2009 Kern authored the "Oklahoma Citizens Proclamation for Morality" implicitly blaming gay marriage and President Barack Obama's official acknowledgment of Gay Pride month (among other things) for the economic crisis which was then ongoing. [20] At the official signing ceremony for the proclamation, Kern's opponents booed and chanted, while her supporters countered with Christian hymns.[21]
Im sure she knows it'll never pass, but it'll get her re-elected. "I tried fer yew!"
Agree. It's window dressing for the whack job fundies on the far right. Just like Bush butt-kissed that crowd with his proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Bush knew it wouldn't fly, but it made clowns like Dobson feel their money and votes went to the right guy just the same. Saddest of all is that the yahoo's vote for people like Kern because they think she's doing the right thing.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
I understand the reasoning behind making divorce difficult; it's like Cortes burning his ships so that the only alternatives to success was death.
Why is it so important that people who marry do so for life? Would it be better if people didn't get married and just had kids and lived together for as long as they could stand each other? How would that be better?
For me, marriage is supposed to be for life and to one person, but that is my personal and religious belief and I don't see what it has to do with any aspect of the government. If there are tangible societal benefits to discouraging divorce why do would stop there? What about requiring pregnant women to be married? Or requiring couples to eat dinner together at least three times a week? How about guidelines for marital intimacy?
It depends on your point of view. From a religious perspective, marriage is a contract between you, your spouse, and god himself. That you will stay together until death do you part(or until one of you cheats on the other, then you can get divorced but the cheater can never remarry).
But in my opinion, marriage has a lot to do with having children. With the advent of the welfare system and child-support enforcement, there isn't quite as much of a need for marriage just for the sake of taking care of the kids. But I do find it rather problematic that 1/3rd of all families with children is single-parent. I came from a single-parent family and I struggled a lot growing up because of it. And many times even now, I contemplate how I would have been different if my father had been around(well not my father, he was an *******, but you know, a good father :P).
It depends on your point of view. From a religious perspective, marriage is a contract between you, your spouse, and god himself. That you will stay together until death do you part(or until one of you cheats on the other, then you can get divorced but the cheater can never remarry).
But in my opinion, marriage has a lot to do with having children. With the advent of the welfare system and child-support enforcement, there isn't quite as much of a need for marriage just for the sake of taking care of the kids. But I do find it rather problematic that 1/3rd of all families with children is single-parent. I came from a single-parent family and I struggled a lot growing up because of it. And many times even now, I contemplate how I would have been different if my father had been around(well not my father, he was an *******, but you know, a good father :P).
So, you'd rather this law pass even if it means a lousy, abusive fathers be forced onto kids even though the wife is trying to get out of such horrors?
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
But in my opinion, marriage has a lot to do with having children. With the advent of the welfare system and child-support enforcement, there isn't quite as much of a need for marriage just for the sake of taking care of the kids. But I do find it rather problematic that 1/3rd of all families with children is single-parent. I came from a single-parent family and I struggled a lot growing up because of it. And many times even now, I contemplate how I would have been different if my father had been around(well not my father, he was an *******, but you know, a good father :P).
So then it seems to me the problem is not divorce, but children. Why not make birth control, for both sexes, readily available & affordable? Sex ed people, sex ed & affordable birth control. Solves many problems.
So, you'd rather this law pass even if it means a lousy, abusive fathers be forced onto kids even though the wife is trying to get out of such horrors?
Abuse and adultery would still be an allowable reason to get divorced.
And secondly, if divorce was harder to get it would force people to think twice before getting married in the first place.
My mother divorced my father because he was a cheater. So this law would not have stopped her from divorcing him. But it could have prevented her from marrying him in the first place. Since she didn't start having kids with him till after they got married(she had 3 children with him, I was the youngest). Maybe a law like this would have prevented her marrying him in the first place(of course I wouldn't have been born, which kind of sucks :P).
So then it seems to me the problem is not divorce, but children. Why not make birth control, for both sexes, readily available & affordable? Sex ed people, sex ed & affordable birth control. Solves many problems.
Who is to say that I don't support birth control? In fact, not only do I support birth control. But I think any woman or man who is receiving government assistance should be forced to take birth control(do they have male birth control?).
Abuse and adultery would still be an allowable reason to get divorced.
And secondly, if divorce was harder to get it would force people to think twice before getting married in the first place.
My mother divorced my father because he was a cheater. So this law would not have stopped her from divorcing him. But it could have prevented her from marrying him in the first place. Since she didn't start having kids with him till after they got married(she had 3 children with him, I was the youngest). Maybe a law like this would have prevented her marrying him in the first place(of course I wouldn't have been born, which kind of sucks :P).
How would that law prevent your mother from marrying your father? How would she know if he was a cheater? Things happen unfortunately, most times no one sees it coming. Why would you want two people who simply fell out of love, even if they went to counseling & tried to work it out, to be unable to get divorced? How horrible is that, I would never want to be forced to stay in a marriage that wasn't working out. You can't legislate on love, just like gay marriage. You either allow it for all or for none, how stupid is it to make laws based on someone's emotions?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
