Reply With Quote
[QUOTE=jochhejaam]That you believe a marriage can be strengthened by laws making divorce dificult fully removes the marriage in discussion from the religous spectrum. No longer are we in any way discussing marriage by god, but rather marriage by the state because there is no law in the books that could stregthen marriage under the church.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.
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.
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.
Which has nothing to do with the issue of Covenant Marriage, or same-sex marriage.
Common ground. Finally.
They were elected, and are well paid to adjudicate, so that's not a problem.
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.
I tell you what Joch. [b]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.
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.
With that in mind, there is absolutely no way you can say sexual marriage is a weakining of any marriage. First of all, it meets the most important aspect of your argument for covenant marriage:
It is completely voluntary.
Pray tell Joch, why entering into a voluntary form of marriage for 2 men would be a problem for you when it has absolutely no effect on you? You have no problem advocating forms of marriage that some of us do not advocate going onto the books, why can the same not be said about sexual marriage? In a legal sense, the ONLY thing that a covenant marriage does to make the marriage stronger is make it harder for a divorce. If your criteria for the strength of a marriage is the difficulty of achieving a divorce then sexual marriage would be no different than any other marriage in strength as they would be under the same requirements as anyone else.
This is where your inconsitency lies Joch. On one hand, you have a problem with sexual marriage stemming from religous beliefs. On the other, you choose to view marriage in a purely legal sense (which frankly is the correct view to apply to a marriage discussion when changing the law) and forgo the obvious inconsistencies with religous marriage (strengthening marriage by god through the law of man. HA!). What you do for covenant marriage you do not do for sexual marriage because ultimately in a legal sense the church does not mater which renders any argument against sexual marriage without merrit.
Next, you seem to fail to grasp the point I am making. Status quo is where we are at right now with no covenant marriage law on the books. Those who seek to pass the law bear a burden to prove that the law is 1)nesecary, 2)beneficial, and 3) cost effective. So you as a proponent of this legislation should be able to provide information along those 3 points. How is the law nessecary? How would it benfit the State? Would the increase in costs be worth any benefits?
My concern of the increase in burden of the State's judiciary has nothing to do with whether or not they are elected or how well they are paid. I'm not worried about personal strain on the judges over these cases, but rathe increasing the time and monetary constraints of an already over burdended system. Our state judicial system is hardly sitting around twidling its thumbs just looking for something to do. Any time devoted to new endeavours detracts from somewhere else. That simply stresses the importance of proving this legislation as nessecary.
You admit that covenant marriages would require the judicial system to do more work, so I ask you (again) what are the benefits to society as a whole?
I've never stated or insinuated that. If you believe that I have show me the proof! 
<sigh> That's not what I said. I clearly stated that it "degrades the ins ution of marriage". 
