Reply With Quote
Uh, no. I want it back where it belongs. In the Church, controlled by the One who created it in the first place.
your logic is flawed. this does not "outlaw" anything. It allows people to voluntarily submit themselves to a higher standard.
Uh, no. I want it back where it belongs. In the Church, controlled by the One who created it in the first place.
I bet when this falls flat, Bill O'Reilly will claim there's a War on Marriage.
You know, Weddings are "voluntary" too. But try telling your Texas Fiance that you just want to elope in Las Vegas.
Are you're arguing that all marriages should legally be desolved and should not be regulated or sactioned by the government?
Man, I really want to divorce my wife, but we're covenantly married. Guess I'll just have to beat her or her sister.
Decisions...
"Legally" dissolving marriage is unnecessary in my scenario. I AM arguing that Marriage should not be regulated or sanctioned by the government, yes.
yes religious people would probably like the option to submit themselves to such a standard and would probably vote for this lawmaker. However, I do not see how that makes it a piece of sh* and why garnering votes from your cons uents is wrong.
This law wouldn't affect anyone except the people who signed up for it.
I don't think that's Spurm's point at all.
To me the point is that government shouldn't do anything more with marriage than perhaps recognize its existence and accord it some sort of useful legal status (for the purposes of disposing of property upon death, for instance)
For those who wish to impose higher standards upon their own marriages -- exactly what it appears this law would allow -- the voluntarily choice to regulate a marriage by a particular religious, social, or moral doctrine is there. There's no particular reason that such a choice needs (or even should have) the state's imprimitur to be valid.
And, if that's true, the best thing for the State to do is simply back off.
life is full of choices. What's your point?
not being regulated or sanctioned by the government would essentially" legally" disolve all marriages.
Are you a gay marriage supporter?
I mean this is EXACTLY why Marriage should be a strictly Religious ins ution. When you let idiot Lawmakers decide what "Marriage" is, suddenly you have idiots like this one determining that there are different "levels" of Marriage.
God must be laughing right now.
I believe that if benefits are given for two people who join into a certain kind of legal "union," then those benefits should be extended to any two people.
I just don't get why we have to call it "marriage."
I'm for that just as long as you remove any benefits or penalties related to being married.
For instance, everyone pays for insurance. No more employee and spouse coverages. If you want to buy insurance for your wife or your children or the hobo on the corner of IH-35 and Rundberg, you pay full price.
If you'll remove all the marriage-related garbage from our laws, I'd be for letting it be defined by whomever wants to define it; churches, cults, whomever.
Well, I think employers/insurance companies should have the right to offer package deals to whomever they want, but I agree with your basic premise.
A contract should be as flexible as one wants. Someone could even have a prenuptual agreement if they wanted.
is there a particular reason it should not have the state's imprimitur? besides it's moral, because there's no way it can be deemed religious.For those who wish to impose higher standards upon their own marriages -- exactly what it appears this law would allow -- the voluntarily choice to regulate a marriage by a particular religious, social, or moral doctrine is there. There's no particular reason that such a choice needs (or even should have) the state's imprimitur to be valid.
back off of everything moral, social and religious... like helping the homeless?And, if that's true, the best thing for the State to do is simply back off.
does sex have to be involved to get those benefits of which you speak?
so your argument changes to it waste money? Now that I might agree with.
You mean sex like gender, or sex like whoopie? Either way, the answer is no.
like whoopie. then I don't have a clue what you're describing besides everyone stay single because there aren't extra benefits to being married that I'm aware of except health insurance coverage.
And if all the State does is set the floor -- recognizing that there is a legal status of being "married" that carries with it some significance -- there's nothing that prohibits individuals from having the flexibility to define their marriage however they choose to. If a couple wishes to operate under standards like those proposed for covenant marriages, so be it; if a couple wishes to view their marriage as a matter of convenience or expediency and maintain the ability to bail out whenever they choose to do so, so be it; if a couple wants to define their marriage by some middle of the road view, so be it. The State doesn't have to sanction each of those choices; it would only have to recognize the existence of the status of marriage.
I think there are compelling arguments for and against state recognition of marriage. Where the state chooses to recognize the status of marriage, though, I can't see a compelling reason to stratify the status based on the individual choices made by those who undertake the status. That's not the State's business. If the individuals involved in a marriage want to contract with each other to make it more difficult for either of them to invalidate the marriage, then that's their choice; but, again, they don't need the State's involvement to do that. I'm not sure why that's not self-evident.
So, should I take it then that you favor heavy-handed state regulation of legal status wherever possible?
I agree with everything you said there. However, the state sanctioning two choices instead of one is no big deal IMO.And if all the State does is set the floor -- recognizing that there is a legal status of being "married" that carries with it some significance -- there's nothing that prohibits individuals from having the flexibility to define their marriage however they choose to. If a couple wishes to operate under standards like those proposed for covenant marriages, so be it; if a couple wishes to view their marriage as a matter of convenience or expediency and maintain the ability to bail out whenever they choose to do so, so be it; if a couple wants to define their marriage by some middle of the road view, so be it. The State doesn't have to sanction each of those choices; it would only have to recognize the existence of the status of marriage.
you're right but there are many who want to subject themeselves to a higher standard. I don't think the state providing an easier means than highering an attorney is such a bad thing. On the contrary, I'm in favor of saving on attorney cost. btw, I have nothing against lawyers except the ones who aren't my friends or don't work for me lol..If the individuals involved in a marriage want to contract with each other to make it more difficult for either of them to invalidate the marriage, then that's their choice; but, again, they don't need the State's involvement to do that.
it's not heavy handed because most importantly it's voluntary, but also it sounds pretty weak. Now outlawing Trans Fats sounds heavy handed.So, should I take it then that you favor heavy-handed state regulation of legal status wherever possible?
When I got married, benefits weren't a part of that decision. I got married as a lifelong commitment to my wife and God.
why are you married if you don't believe in it?
You might also agree that employers/insurance companies would like to control and limit the number of people that are covered at a reduced rate and, so, are probably opposed to "gay marriage" on those grounds alone.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions