let me clear up your argument for you. You are in favor of allowing people to enter into covenant marriages as long as the government allows for gay marriage.When it facilitates one kind of marriage and not the other, that is an endorsement.
Somebody gets it...
Your anti-government involvement was just a cover-up.
No, let me clear up my own argument for you.
Here is my Government/Marriage Wish List, in order of Preference.
1. No Government involvement in Marriage beyond acknowledgment
2. Equal opportunity for Marriage, regardless of gender or sexuality
3. Opportunity for Marriage limited to heterosexual couples
#1 being most preferred, #3 being least preferred.
Are you following yet, or should I make a chart?
You are unprincipled IMO. You are not willing to fight for what you believe, in this case #1 or #2 or #3 which all sound wildly different.
We are AT #3.
#1 would be ideal.
#2 would not be ideal, but it's better than #3.
you have lots of wildly different wishes. Seems to me one wish is contradictory to the other wish.
Manny on the other hand is in favor of your #2 and any compromise would have to be something close to what he believes. It's highly unlikely he would except a total gay marriage ban.
That is understandable and we can debate each other respectably.
You don't have a firm stance.
Last edited by 2centsworth; 12-20-2006 at 04:32 PM.
You're overanalyzing the word "wish."
here's the definition
"1.to want; desire; long for (usually fol. by an infinitive or a clause): I wish to travel. I wish that it were morning. "
maybe I'm underanalyzing the word
Context. I specifically said Wish List in order of preference. Meaning, if #1 is available, I'm not interested in #2 or #3. If not, I would prefer #2 over #3.
It wasn't a perfect choice of words, but given everything I've said on this topic I don't understand how you would possibly think #3 was something I wanted.
because being in favor of #1 would preclude #2 if you're a strong supporter of #1. But it seems that you're a stronger supporter of #2 so maybe you have those turned around.
Why does it seem like I'm a stronger supporter of #2?
And why can't I prefer #2 over #3 if #1 is my most preferred? If I voted for Ralph Nader, could I not prefer John Kerry over George W. Bush? Could I not engage in a discussion over why John Kerry would be a better President than Bush?
[QUOTE]Correct, no more so than a speed limit sign can force anyone to refrain from exceeding the posted speed, but we don't discard the speed limit signs or make them more lax because very few obey them.
What the covenant can offer couples is the opportunity to proclaim and stress the importance of commitment to each other and to the ins ution of marriage.
With the current high rate of failed marriages and the resulting wake of childrens lives that are turned inside out by the parents divorcing, why would anyone dare to raise a voice against a covenant that stresses the imporance of being committed to marriage? Especially when you consider the fact that it's entered into strictly on a voluntary basis!
<If you have a reply to this, I'd like to thank you in advance for not falsely attributing statements to me that I've never made as Spurminator has done>
[QUOTE=jochhejaam]Actually, we DO make them more lax when few obey them. But thats an entirely different subject. Marriage is not a traffic law does the comparison hold much water, IMO.Correct, no more so than a speed limit sign can force anyone to refrain from exceeding the posted speed, but we don't discard the speed limit signs or make them more lax because very few obey them.
This is the part that gets me. Now, maybe its just me, but I'm not sure exactly WHY people need a stronger version of FOREVER. You shouldn't NEED a law a law saying that your marriage is stronger to do what you just mentioned anymore than you need a law to explain to you that you love somebody. Thats lunacy to me.What the covenant can offer couples is the opportunity to proclaim and stress the importance of commitment to each other and to the ins ution of marriage.
This new marriage can no more make a marriage bond stronger than a new diamond ring can cure the ills of cheating on a spouse etc etc.
Because 1) I don't believe the government should be in the marrige business to being with and 2) I believe it to be inhernetly unequel when one segment of society is being given services that others are being denied.With the current high rate of failed marriages and the resulting wake of childrens lives that are turned inside out by the parents divorcing, why would anyone dare to raise a voice against a covenant that stresses the imporance of being committed to marriage? Especially when you consider the fact that it's entered into strictly on a voluntary basis!
<If you have a reply to this, I'd like to thank you in advance for not falsely attributing statements to me that I've never made as Spurminator has done>
Pete really doesn't understand my position on sexual marriage. I believe exactly as Spurm does. I would much rather see the government out of the marriage business completely, but because I see that as rater unlikely a compromise would be to allow everyone to marry as they wish.
I read your last paragraph and I in turn wonder, that in light of the increasing numbers of divorces, why anyone would turn away people so passionate about declaring their love for each other.
Yeah, that makes sense if you completely discount that #1 is an incredibly unlikely to happen. Pete, if people never came to comprimises and always stuck to their guns very little in this world would ever get done.
<If you have a reply to this, I'd like to thank you in advance for not falsely attributing statements to me that I've never made as Spurminator has done>
Stop being such a baby. I used "you" as a general term to describe those who rushed to the defense of this legislation.
Stop being such a baby. I used "you" as a general term to describe those who rushed to the defense of this legislation.Spare me the lecture, and in the future be less wreckless with your replies, and more attentive to detail. It'll save a lot of unnecessary off-topic bantering. <or don't>
[QUOTE=MannyIsGod]
There are those that are interested in stating through a covenant that "untill death do us part" means what it says, and they'd like to express that by entering the union without the option of an easy out.This is the part that gets me. Now, maybe its just me, but I'm not sure exactly WHY people need a stronger version of FOREVER.
Poor parallel. You don't need a license to tell someone you love them. They're words, no commitment necessary. Marriage requires some level of commitment just by the fact that you need a license to be so.You shouldn't NEED a law a law saying that your marriage is stronger to do what you just mentioned anymore than you need a law to explain to you that you love somebody.
And your proof of that is can be found where?This new marriage can no more make a marriage bond stronger...
I'm sorry Manny, but there's severe disconnect in your position here. A high divorce rate has absolutley no bearing on a State sanctioning sexual marriage...???I read your last paragraph and I in turn wonder, that in light of the increasing numbers of divorces, why anyone would turn away people so passionate about declaring their love for each other.
Gay marriage outside of Civil unions, is just....wrong. just gross really. Nobody sticks up for their religion these days and they only really care about being politically acceptable.
, they killed gays 100 years ago as a sport. At least they aren't hunted now. They have just as many civil rights as everyone else, and so do blacks.
And if you're wondering, I'm half Inuit, ers.
L is for Lucky!
Next can we have a marriage level where the only out is death? Purely voluntary of course
Fine, if you want to look at this as a purely legal situation then I'm all for that. But remember your stance on legal marriage as opposed to spiritual marriage when it comes to sexual marriage.Poor parallel. You don't need a license to tell someone you love them. They're words, no commitment necessary. Marriage requires some level of commitment just by the fact that you need a license to be so.
It can't be both ways.
And your proof that it will can be found where? The burden of proof is on those who want to pass new legislation. You don't need proof for retaining status quo.And your proof of that is can be found where?
The comment I made was that in light of the high divorce rates, I could not understand why someone would protest 2 people who's love for each other runs deep enough to fight for the right to marry that strongly. It makes no sense for me that people who profess to want stronger marriages and more of them would fight to stop people from entering into stronge marriages.I'm sorry Manny, but there's severe disconnect in your position here. A high divorce rate has absolutley no bearing on a State sanctioning sexual marriage...???
[QUOTE]Sarcasm in lieu of substance. Lame.
Oh, but it can. My views on covenant marriage are in no way tied in to, or constrained by my views on sexual marriage.Fine, if you want to look at this as a purely legal situation then I'm all for that. But remember your stance on legal marriage as opposed to spiritual marriage when it comes to sexual marriage.
It can't be both ways.
It's already law in three states. So much for status quo. Now, prove that it hasn't made for a stronger marriage bond as you stated.And your proof that it will can be found where? The burden of proof is on those who want to pass new legislation. You don't need proof for retaining status quo
If the generally accepted view of marriage wasn't between one man, and one woman, you might have a point. But it is, and you don't.The comment I made was that in light of the high divorce rates, I could not understand why someone would protest 2 people who's love for each other runs deep enough to fight for the right to marry that strongly. It makes no sense for me that people who profess to want stronger marriages and more of them would fight to stop people from entering into stronge marriages.
Divorce by duel!
[QUOTE=jochhejaam]I"m going to address your points in one cohesive post. I actually get annoyed with the fracturing of arguments into one sentence rebutals that remove the context of the entire argument.Sarcasm in lieu of substance. Lame.
Oh, but it can. My views on covenant marriage are in no way tied in to, or constrained by my views on sexual marriage.
It's already law in three states. So much for status quo. Now, prove that it hasn't made for a stronger marriage bond as you stated.
If the generally accepted view of marriage wasn't between one man, and one woman, you might have a point. But it is, and you don't.
Anyhow, you're free to define your views on covenant marriage and sexual marriage however you wish. But what you are doing is inherently inconsistent. As far as status quo goes, regardless of what the law is in other states it is not the law here. Therefor there should be a burden of proof to show the nessecity of passing this legislation on those who are actively supporting it. "Why not" is not a reason to pass new legislation.
What is generally accepted as marrige is irrelevant to what should be legal. At one point inter racial marriage was not what was generally accepted as permisable, but of course we're not allowed to prevent that from occuring now are we?
In the end I believe you have a point that if people want to enter into this of their own accord, then its not a big deal and its not a threat to anyone else. Thats not to say there is an actual need for the state to be involved in this sort of a situation. People can make it harder for a divorce, but in the end this will simply cause more work for our judicial system because these people who enter into a marriage of any sort (covenant or otherwise) and later decide that it was a mistake will attempt to get a divorce. The responsibility for mainting a marriage should not be transfered in anyway to the State and thats exactly what this legislation does.
I tell you what Joch. Outline me a marriage scenario where being in a covenant marriage would be beneficial to both parties involved that does not involve an increase of burden to the State.
[QUOTE]Thought by thought breakdown has been your M.O. with me in this thread, but a change in your style is fine by me.
Nope. One attempts to stress the importance of commitment to the ins ution of marriage, and the other degrades the ins ution of marriage.Anyhow, you're free to define your views on covenant marriage and sexual marriage however you wish. But what you are doing is inherently inconsistent.
Polar opposites.
This reinforces that you don't have a leg to stand on when you assert that covenant marriages don't exhibit a stronger bond. You have States that have similar laws on the book from which to attempt to support your theory.As far as status quo goes, regardless of what the law is in other states it is not the law here. Therefor there should be a burden of proof to show the nessecity of passing this legislation on those who are actively supporting it. "Why not" is not a reason to pass new legislation.
It's no different than States that passed a statewide smoking ban. There's data out there that should be able to support one's position on the issue regardless of whether or not their State has passed the law.
With that being the case your unsubstantiated theory or opinion does not pass muster. It's has zero clout. Totally without persuasive qualities, etc.
Established law is irrelevant? Precedent is quite compelling. Prior tempore potior iure.What is generally accepted as marrige is irrelevant to what should be legal.
Which has nothing to do with the issue of Covenant Marriage, or same-sex marriage.At one point inter racial marriage was not what was generally accepted as permisable, but of course we're not allowed to prevent that from occuring now are we?
Common ground. Finally.In the end I believe you have a point that if people want to enter into this of their own accord, then its not a big deal and its not a threat to anyone else.
They were elected, and are well paid to adjudicate, so that's not a problem.People can make it harder for a divorce, but in the end this will simply cause more work for our judicial system because these people who enter into a marriage of any sort (covenant or otherwise) and later decide that it was a mistake will attempt to get a divorce.
It's the free choice of individuals to enter into a more binding marriage. The State having such a law in place does not equate to them compelling couples to enter the Covenant.The responsibility for mainting a marriage should not be transfered in anyway to the State and thats exactly what this legislation does.
What's the point? I've never argued that a couple that tries to break a Covenant Marriage doesn't require that the State to be involved.I tell you what Joch. Outline me a marriage scenario where being in a covenant marriage would be beneficial to both parties involved that does not involve an increase of burden to the State.
Last edited by jochhejaam; 12-21-2006 at 07:25 PM. Reason: Added quotations to the last paragraph for clearity.
I agree with you Manny, but there's such a thing as not compromising your principles.
I still don't understand how I'm compromising my principles.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
