Ban Gay Marriage In California Based On Morality? Then Ban Divorce, Too!

[Cheesy1]

Calif. Anti-Divorce Measure Gaining Momentum

To summarize: guy starts campaign to ban divorce in California to satirize the fact that if the state will ban gay marriage based mainly on the argument that it threatens the sanctity of traditional marriage, then divorce should be illegal too.

I think it's a pretty funny and thought-provoking idea.

 

[Troll]

 

[Espy]

It's true. Speaking as a Christian here, I have zero sympathy for Christians who have no issues with the ridiculously high divorce rate among their own but preach about the "sanctity of marriage".

 

[Bubble181]

This has been discussed before elsewhere (I forget which thread).
Still: I agree. I'm not a devout christian, and I don't oppose divorce *or* gay marriage. However, if you oppose one on moral/religious grounds, than you should also oppose the other. While this is meant as satire, I'm just plain afraid someone will start to take it serious.

 

[Armadillo]

^^what those two said.

 

[Troll]

Sorry, I should be more clear. I agree with the message, but I disagree with the stunt. Because it's a stunt. If you want gay marriage to be taken seriously, it can't be done with gestures like this. So long as they keep trying this, or trying to outlaw marriage, people will see it as "those kooky liberals in California." It's a more serious issue that needs more serious arguments.

 

[AshburnerX]

Sorry, I should be more clear. I agree with the message, but I disagree with the stunt. Because it's a stunt. If you want gay marriage to be taken seriously, it can't be done with gestures like this. So long as they keep trying this, or trying to outlaw marriage, people will see it as "those kooky liberals in California." It's a more serious issue that needs more serious arguments.

Serious arguments only work when the people your arguing against actually give a damn about you. Unfortunately, the people they are fighting against don't see them as equals and as such, really don't care what they have to say (unless it proves what they already believe).

 

[SpecialKO]

Sorry, I should be more clear. I agree with the message, but I disagree with the stunt. Because it's a stunt. If you want gay marriage to be taken seriously, it can't be done with gestures like this. So long as they keep trying this, or trying to outlaw marriage, people will see it as "those kooky liberals in California." It's a more serious issue that needs more serious arguments.

There's quite a few "serious arguments" out there, especially in California. Doesn't mean much against the "sanctity of marriage" crowd.

I agree that they shouldn't stop with the serious arguments, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

 

[Troll]

Sorry, I should be more clear. I agree with the message, but I disagree with the stunt. Because it's a stunt. If you want gay marriage to be taken seriously, it can't be done with gestures like this. So long as they keep trying this, or trying to outlaw marriage, people will see it as "those kooky liberals in California." It's a more serious issue that needs more serious arguments.

Serious arguments only work when the people your arguing against actually give a damn about you. Unfortunately, the people they are fighting against don't see them as equals and as such, really don't care what they have to say (unless it proves what they already believe).[/QUOTE]

Right, but that's partly what I'm saying. Gay marriage advocates are never going to win over the "homosexuality is a sin" crowd. That group, though, is not the reason gay marriage was outlawed. They don't have the numbers alone to do it. The group that really passed Prop 8 is the "I'm fine with people being gay, but not married" group. They don't think homosexuals should burn in hell, but they don't see them as a serious equal deserving rights. That group can be won over with the proper arguments. Stunts tend to push those folks into the welcoming arms of social conservatives.

 

[DarkAudit]

or trying to outlaw marriage

At least in one case, that wasn't a stunt. That was Texas' ass overrunning it's brain to try to stick it to gay marriage. Only later did someone go back and actually read what they passed.

 

[Seraphyn]

I can't really see how this little stunt would actually hurt much, so it's purpose of keeping the issue alive and in the news seems worthwhile enough. And I agree with the sentiment behind it. How can you say 'sanctity of marriage' with a straight face when nearly half of them end in divorce?

 

[Espy]

I can't really see how this little stunt would actually hurt much, so it's purpose of keeping the issue alive and in the news seems worthwhile enough. And I agree with the sentiment behind it. How can you say 'sanctity of marriage' with a straight face when nearly half of them end in divorce?

Yup.

 

[Rob King]

This ... is actually a very good point. Not a new point, but a good one.

That said, hypocrisy is everywhere, so I doubt "You're being hypocritical!" will work as a way to change peoples' minds.

 

[Espy]

This ... is actually a very good point. Not a new point, but a good one.

That said, hypocrisy is everywhere, so I doubt "You're being hypocritical!" will work as a way to change peoples' minds.

No, it won't change the masses but maybe, JUST maybe it will have an impact on a few people. That's never a bad thing.

 

[SpecialKO]

This ... is actually a very good point. Not a new point, but a good one.

That said, hypocrisy is everywhere, so I doubt "You're being hypocritical!" will work as a way to change peoples' minds.

No, it won't change the masses but maybe, JUST maybe it will have an impact on a few people. That's never a bad thing.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. You can even make the argument that incremental change is more important than sweeping change, because incremental is much more difficult to turn back the clock on.

Doesn't make the lack of sweeping change less frustrating, of course.

 

[fade]

I would fully expect the gay-bashers just to say, "Of course."

 

[Chibibar]

I can totally see where this is going. I mean the main "reason" behind Prop 8 was "Sanctity of Marriage" well...... sanctity is all aspect not just one So I can totally see banning divorce.

 

[SpecialKO]

I suspect that the actual banning of divorce would be one issue where the "Hollywood Left" and "Religious Right" would get equally pissed off.