Reply With Quote
Double Secret Probation marriage.
Daily affirmations - I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, I love my wife.
Double Secret Probation marriage.
[QUOTE]You assumed I believed that voluntarily entering into a covenant marriage would reduce crime? The reasoning behind that conclusion eludes me...
I wasn't drawn into the discussion because I felt strongly about the law, but by your insinuating that God could possibly be laughing at a strong commitment to marriage.But in that case, I'd like to hear what value you think this law would bring to society.
All I've heard from you is, essentially, "What's the big deal?"
Feel free to mock the covenant, but don't pretend that God feels the same way unless you have something in the form of doctrine to back that notion up with.
You're right, I gave you too much credit. I should have known you had no position on this issue. My mistake.
I made no such insinuation. My suggestion was that God is laughing at Man's arrogance, not the covenant of Marriage itself., but by your insinuating that God could possibly be laughing at a strong commitment to marriage.
Feel free to mock the covenant, but don't pretend that God feels the same way unless you have something in the form of doctrine to back that notion up with
And I would bet He'll laugh even harder in 20 years when the next politician panders to his gullible cons uents by proposing the creation of "Ultra-Covenant Marriage" where the penalty for Divorce is life in prison - unless the couple opts out.
Last edited by Spurminator; 12-19-2006 at 11:09 AM.
now you're changing your argument. Just admit that anything that "threatens" gay marriage you're against.
[QUOTE]Most people understand the difference between not feeling strongly about an issue and not having an opinion.
If what you've got from my posts is that I have no position on the issue, then I've seriously overestimated your ability to comprehend. My mistake.
Spurminator, along with EStout, Scott and FWD, is a most stellar possessor of opinion and insight. ... and they are all funny when they want to be.
On the other hand, Jochhejaam and 2pennies are funny all the time.
I'm against government-endorsed gay marriage.
Except when the government endorses heterosexual marriage.
Then give an opinion. Make a point.
Please.
Last edited by Spurminator; 12-20-2006 at 12:40 AM.
So where do you place your drive-by posting style??? With the insightful or with the comical?
If I'm insightful, you are a dumbass.
I place my posting style FIRMLY in the "don't give a " category.
GoN's posting style is "Ham on Wry"
I'm afraid GON will not include me on the first category
Because Man's law can't reinforce a damn thing about the sanc y of marrige. Do we need a press confrence from memebers of congress next that they indeed have decided God is a the one in charge next? Perhaps a George Dubya Bush can grant a presidential pardon for Gods part in the terroristic Great Flood next. Or maybe just a congressional resolution in support of God.
Sure, God's laws are above the laws of men, but the laws of men can make God's laws better! I get it now!
It is wonderful that we're going to allow government supersized marriages for an extra 39 cents. Sorry, no fries with that.
I wonder, is its voluntary to pay the taxes for this legislation or do I have to support it? I think I know the answer. I love voluntary legislation that effects everyone while providing unequal rights. Hoooray! Anything to make it seem as though marriage by the state is a pure act that is endangered by the gays. Oh no, the gays! Run!
Just have the covenant marriage applicants pay a $1 surcharge. The administrative costs can hardly be much of anything.
I don't think this has anything to do with gays. I think this has mostly to do with a symbolic opposition to no-fault divorce, and to the permissive and cavalier at udes toward marriage in our culture.
From a philosophical standpoint, I prefer to steer clear of initiatives that give the state any authority to influence the sanc y of marriage, because I do not trust the state to be a faithful vanguard of the sanc y of anything. But if this is something that some people really want, then OK, fine. Government is here to serve and my opposition isn't so strong that I think it worth fighting to stop. I really don't think it's any more relevant from a public policy standpoint than offering "Choose Life" license plates (for a small extra cost).
ES, that someone would need a state mandate saying their marriage is stronger shows me just how little perspective people have on marriage. A surcharge would be fine.
This is absolutely gay marriage related, even if it is in a mostly indirect sense. One of the main points that is raised when it the subject is discussed is the high divorce rate as it is, and I see this as an attack on that divorce rate.
Anyhow, I firmly believe that anyone who feels the need for a stronge state issued marriage doesn't realize what marriage actually should be to begin with.
Agreed. Like I said before, it's not really something I'd picket the State Capitol over.From a philosophical standpoint, I prefer to steer clear of initiatives that give the state any authority to influence the sanc y of marriage, because I do not trust the state to be a faithful vanguard of the sanc y of anything. But if this is something that some people really want, then OK, fine. Government is here to serve and my opposition isn't so strong that I think it worth fighting to stop. I really don't think it's any more relevant from a public policy standpoint than offering "Choose Life" license plates (for a small extra cost).
I just think it's symptomatic of the "Pat Robertson Christian" era that some people feel compelled to support any kind of legislation (or two-ton granite display) that has a "Christian" purpose or inference, regardless of its actual value to society.
If they think they need it for their marriage, I agree that it is misguided. Perhaps this is just a voluntary protest saying, "I want to set an example for how marriage ought to be in this society," without forcing it on people. In my view, the actual practice of being faithful and devoted in a marriage sets the example, not a special piece of paper from the state. But, whatever.
If this proposal were capable in any way whatsoever of reducing the divorce rate, that would be a merit in its favor. Of course it can't, but...
In order to accept your "indirect" connection to gay marriage, one would have to first buy the notion that gay marriage contributes to divorce. The only possible connection I could think of would be if gay marriage were seen as being part of the permissive and cavalier cultural at udes regarding marriage that lead to people thoughtlessly entering into and then breaking up their marital relationships.
Indeed, there are certain non-traditionalist self-described free-thinkers of a hedonist bent who would like marriage to be defined as any freely-agreed-upon amorous relationship between any group of people of indeterminate number and nature, for whatever period said group desires to maintain the relationship. Traditionalists regard such an endeavor as highly deleterious to the vast majority of society, inasmuch as traditional marriage in general is a structure developed over history to maintain familial stability and support.
Government is an inappropriate tool to be used in this struggle, first of all because it is such a weak actor upon culture, and second of all because our government according to its own Cons ution is supposed to concern itself with the dispensation of equal rights to individuals, as opposed to the maintenance of group norms.
So when the state is used as leverage to uphold customs and traditions, then those customs and traditions are made vulnerable to death by a thousand cuts, because every individual and their special case has to be accounted for.
But if that is the bed that we make, then we get to lie in it.
Understand that covenant marriage can just be a perfunctory social statement, rather than something couples are leaning on as a bond to stay together. For the latter, it would be utterly useless and indeed reflect a grevious failure to grasp the nature of the commitment; for the former, it is probably inefficacious, but really not worth getting worked up about.
Your 'insults' directed toward JJ and 2centsworth certainly didn't qualify for that style. You were trying to make a point.
DGAF indeed....
Toucheé.
they can only be insults if someone of value is making them. In this case I know for a fact Guru has a big "L" stamped on his forehead.
If he really was DGAF he would not post but instead he lables himself "insightful" even though no one has ever given him credit for being anything but arrogant.
the government doesn't "endorse", they facilitate. Nevertheless, you went through a big speel about being against government-endorsed marriage, but when infact you're in favor of your version of government "endorsed" marriages. You are either unprincipled or can't make logical arguments.I'm against government-endorsed gay marriage.
Except when the government endorses heterosexual marriage.
Thats not true in the least. Spurm is saying that if the government is going to "facilitate" marriage for heterosexuals then they should do the same for sexuals. You can feel that way and also be against the government endorsing marriges at all.
In a perfect world government marriage would be a non existent object. However, the chances of complete removal of government from marriage is what is nonexistant. In that environment, it is very logical to say that marriage should be applied equally.
If I can't get X then at least give me Y.
Here is what Spurm said
That tells me his primary argument is that government is involved in marriages at all, period, finito!Why is the government involved in marriage? What right does government have to give special benefits to two people who enter into a religious agreement, and make rules about who qualifies for these benefits?
Why do you need the Government to hold you accountable for your marriage?
Uh, no. I want it back where it belongs. In the Church, controlled by the One who created it in the first place.
"Legally" dissolving marriage is unnecessary in my scenario. I AM arguing that Marriage should not be regulated or sanctioned by the government, yes.
Then to say it's ok if they are involved as long as they sanctioned gay marriage is contradictory or unprincipled.
A principled person would suggest a person who wants to have a legal marriage would have to hire an attorney at their own expense and draft the contract. BTW, gay people can do the same.
x precludes y.
When it facilitates one kind of marriage and not the other, that is an endorsement.the government doesn't "endorse", they facilitate.
Spurm is saying that if the government is going to "facilitate" marriage for heterosexuals then they should do the same for sexuals. You can feel that way and also be against the government endorsing marriges at all.
Somebody gets it...
Never said it was okay.Then to say it's ok if they are involved as long as they sanctioned gay marriage is contradictory or unprincipled.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
