I think the question is why marriage has to be an ins ution recognized by government.
Baptism is likewise symbolic of a commitment to certain principles, but government doesn't deal in baptismal licenses or define the availability of certain benefits based on whether someone is baptized.
Why is a religious affirmation (if one desires such) not enough when it comes to marriage?
Marriage provides a legal framework. Emotional, financial, and whatever else is needed has to be delivered by the parents.
I didn't say or imply that was the sole purpose. I can't wait to hear your more effective solution, which would be voted down by 75% of Texans and 60% or so most everywhere else.Not only that, but if that is it's sole purpose, we can accomplish it by other, more effective, means.
Marriage means alot!!! It just doesn't mean much for some people.
I'll give you another example.
A man's word means alot!!! It just doesn't mean much for some.
Marriage is the ultimate example of one's love for another in an emotional and sexual sense.
The problem is that our society is degrading itself. Funny how the rise of a subtle sense of moral relativity in our society,(the justification for lying and cheating and other umbrella items) has also increased the divorce rate. It's like Reagan used to say, I rising tide lifts all boats.
Living together without marriage is an unwise thing to do, if it's not done for dire cir stances. All though it is true of the saying, "better test drive the car before buying it", living together w/o a commitment can muddy ones view on how one is happy with another, as well as it can help reinforce the idea. Commitment itself is what is lacking in the trial experiment. With out the vital tool you cannot accurately predict ones happines with another for a lifetime. Thus, Shacking up is not an accurate indicator of how one will live after the act of matrimony. You have no commitment, thus you have a lack of incentive for one party to try more to please another, therefore creating rift.
BUt back to my main point.
Govt should have an interest in the raising of it's future. Children are our biggest asset in this country. Our future depends on them.
Part of the reason for marriage is also to protect children. Although one can still effectively raise a child single handedly, not everyone is blessed with the same gift. Having the law have lesser reason's to have a house broken is unjust to the children.
Sometimes divorce is the only resort for happiness, but many a times it is compromise. Our children deserve their parents to be more commited to stick together than to have them easily flee for no reason.
Marriage has always been a cultural and religious ins ution, and the the fact that we have reduced it to a legal contract has devalued its significance for many couples. I say the government should get out of the marriage/divorce business altogether. If we want people to have healthy families and to care for their children better, we should focus our efforts toward what we really want: childcare training, family counseling, and public awareness initiatives/ad campaigns focused on getting fathers/mothers (especially fathers in light of the social climate) to take responsibility. We support add campaigns to quit smoking, stay off drugs, etc., why not give this a try? Offering marriage licenses clearly doesn't work. People are no more likely to stay together and build a strong family because they have a legal do ent than they would be if they just decided between themselves, their family, and God or whatever they believe in that they were going to be committed and be a family.
Oh yes, we definitely need the government to tell us how to be moral people.
I have an idea.. Dan why don't you move to San Fransico or New Jersey?
*cue the infomercial*
"Do it for the children! For the children!"
Pfffffft...children and the political usage of their position in society is one of the most over-wrought piles of stinking in the history of this country.
Compelled by guilt. Is that how easily you are subdued? All someone has to do to get you to agree is make you feel some spiritual guilt and you roll over?
What a trivial existence. So much of your life depends on the whims of the people you respect/ worship.
Here's a new one...respect yourself first. All the other bull will take care of its self.
But the children...HA! *spit*
^^^I didnt think it was an infomercial. Many laws are written to protect children at all cost, like the ones that force the father to pay child support even though the father is not related to the child.
But now i see your thinking. You don't view marriage as a tool that fosters a good environment for children. That's fine. I'm not judging anyone in particular. If you got offended, sorry. My words are not a divine edict on anyone. I know people are mature enough to dissect an oppinion from a condemnation.
I don't think guilt is the issue here. Talk to any child that's been through a broken home! GEt real and quit being facetious.
Okay. You seem to assume many things based on perceived conotations in my posts.
Let me clarify...
1) Bringing children into a politcal forum usually represents the attempt of the user to pull a "heart string" of the listeners. Its a sympathy call. A spiritual guilt. Its an attempt at convincing the person who may or may not agree with you that they should because its about "the children" thereby disarming them on the basis that they dont want to look like the guy who doesnt care about "the children". *spit*
2) I am NEVER offended by a dissenting opinion, my man. You and I may disagree on just about everything, but that doesnt mean I am unwilling to listen. Heck, my primary source for news is the FoxNews channel...doesnt mean I agree with anything they say, it just gives me a good indication of what the other side thinks (which is more valuable, IMO...I can predict what a typical whiney liberal would say on just about anything).
3) This is the most important... We are on an Internet forum. If I were reeeeeeal committed to changing the world and the opinions of its denizens, this is not the place I would start (nor finish...actually, I wouldnt be on the internet in general...nvm). Whatever is said here means little to nothing for me. Its just fun at work.
Huh? What would be "dire"?Living together without marriage is an unwise thing to do, if it's not done for dire cir stances....
.Living together w/o a commitment can muddy ones view on how one is happy with another, as well as it can help reinforce the idea. Commitment itself is what is lacking in the trial experiment. With out the vital tool you cannot accurately predict ones happines with another for a lifetime
Where do you get the idea that there is no commitment involved? That's crap. Living together and sharing the responsibilies of a household is a 100% finite indicator of whether or not you can stand...living together and sharing the responsibilities of a household.
I can't speak for everyone, but we have a ton of incentive to please each other ... and we are committed to doing so. A lot.Thus, Shacking up is not an accurate indicator of how one will live after the act of matrimony. You have no commitment, thus you have a lack of incentive for one party to try more to please another, therefore creating rift.
What law is that?
(p.s. -- if he's not related to the child, he's not "the father" of the child)
Yeah, I'm still trying to figure that one out....there are DNA tests if paternity is in question....
I think he may be referring to the all-too-common Virgin Births.
well you're obviously illogical and ignorant and know nothing about checks and balances.
Sorry, that was the best gtown impression I could come up with on short notice
Well, yes, I hadn't taken that into account; the societal prevalence of the "Joseph Syndrome."
Well, there is case law that says that if a man has been involved in the upbringing of the child and then leaves the mother, he may have to still pay child support even if he is not the biological father of the child.
________
new condos in Pattaya
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:56 PM.
I'm not sure what he meant by "many" laws but he may be referring to paying child support to those that the court would call "your" children by law as opposed to being your biological children.
My wife had 2 children when we married and we had 3 more shortly after, if we had divorced I would have had to pay child support for all 5 children even though 2 were mine by marriage only.
I'm not even sure if that's correct FWD, perhaps you know?
Think of the children. Won't somebody please think of the children!
________
PROBLEMS FROM AVANDIA
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:56 PM.
it's more like a bar to the alleged father's defense of non-paternity when certain facts (such as the ones you listed) are present
You say tomato. I say tomato.
It really doesn't work on a messageboard.
________
Nature's holistic caregivers 14000 crenshaw blvd
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:56 PM.
Don't get mad b/c I schooled you in front of all your friends.
You know what.Don't get mad b/c I schooled you in front of all your friends.
________
Volcano vaporizer
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:56 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
