Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FUNKED1 on February 26, 2004, 12:24:21 PM
-
It oughta specifially say that the government shall make no laws regarding marriage, and that any existing laws regarding marriage are void. This would be the best way for Christians or any other group to make sure their political enemies aren't allowed to redefine marriage in a way that they dislike.
For Christians, marriage is a sacrament - do they really want the state to regulate sacraments?
-
Joey, Have you evar been to a Turkish prison?
-
so how do athiests get married?
-
Do you like gladiator movies?
-
Originally posted by vorticon
so how do athiests get married?
However they want.
-
Athiest are godless heathens! That said, if there is no government benifit from mariage why wouldl they want to?
<--------Athiest.... mostly
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
It oughta specifially say that the government shall make no laws regarding marriage, and that any existing laws regarding marriage are void. This would be the best way for Christians or any other group to make sure their political enemies aren't allowed to redefine marriage in a way that they dislike.
For Christians, marriage is a sacrament - do they really want the state to regulate sacraments?
Unfortunately, to do that you'd have to alter many other laws. Not the least of which are tax laws. I can't say we'd want the church running taxation either.
-
I'm all for removing any mention of marriage from the tax laws.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I'm all for removing any mention of marriage from the tax laws.
Amen
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Amen
Me too. I was just pointing out that it wasn't as simple as your original post. Things are just so interconnected.
-
So what about the economical aspects of your desicion to "remove marriage"? Who owns what if two people decide to live together in a relationship type formerly known as marriage?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
So what about the economical aspects of your desicion to "remove marriage"? Who owns what if two people decide to live together in a relationship type formerly known as marriage?
You fight it out. Whoever is left living, keeps the stuff.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
For Christians, marriage is a sacrament - do they really want the state to regulate sacraments?
not only that.. it was ordained by God.
other religions may have "unions" but they are based on their religion.
maybe it's the word "marrige" that causes the problem.
a gonverment sanctioned union is another thing. right now the government recognizes marrige, but is trying to put it's trying to define it how it wants. not the way God designed it.
change that. homosexuals are trying to redifine marrige, and trying to get the government to agree.
only answer i see is to not let the government endorse marrige. no marrige liscenses. no benefits. nothing.
but then how do you deal with christian marriges? if the government endorses them that violates the seperation of church and state. if we can't have the 10 commandments in a park somewhere, we can't get married either.
well im talking follishly. im actually trying to come up with a logical response that people here will understand about how Christians feel about marrige.
logical. lol like 2/3 here listen to that.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
So what about the economical aspects of your desicion to "remove marriage"? Who owns what if two people decide to live together in a relationship type formerly known as marriage?
They will need to agree to a contract with each other. Let them make their own arrangements.
-
Im still waiting to see Adam and Eves marriage certificate....
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
They will need to agree to a contract with each other. Let them make their own arrangements.
Yes, the women will love you for that...you just set back the equality between the sexes about 100 years.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yes, the women will love you for that...you just set back the equality between the sexes about 100 years.
Why? Women and men are guaranteed equal treatment under the law.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Why? Women and men are guaranteed equal treatment under the law.
Yes, but in ye average relationship, the woman will have children. If the woman has children and stays home from work, while the man works, you will soon have an imbalance in income and wealth.
Marriage cures this by having the spouses share their economy (not exactly sure how that looks in the US legal system though, but it is fairly complicated over here) thus, even though the man might "own" 70-80% of the wealth in a relationship, the woman is entitled to half.
In your version, you will just leave the woman trailing behind the man, something opening up some very uncomfortable situations where the wife might become totally dependent on the husband.
etc
-
She will be as dependent as she allows for in the contract.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
She will be as dependent as she allows for in the contract.
*shrug* IMO that is unfair, and like I said, a solution that would set back the equality between the sexes about 100 years.
-
It's unfair for two people to voluntarily agree on a contract which establishes a partnership?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
It's unfair for two people to voluntarily agree on a contract which establishes a partnership?
Yes, because when entering into that contract, the parties are probably not starting at a similar level. Rich guy wants to enter into contract with (sounds romantic too huh) poor girl, rich guy dictates contract, or else poor girl can find soemone else.
Or middle-class guy enters contract with middle-class girl with the terms that everyone keeps what they earn etc, girl has 3 kids, miss years and years at work and is passed over for promotion countless times, meanwhile guy works hard. 15 years later guy is rich girl is poor. Guy starts to boss girl around, threatening to throw her out of the house (that he bought because he was the one making money) unless she does this or that...girl stuck with desicion to either stay in slave-like relationship or move to shabby apartment...kids will stay with rich dad.
It isnt fair, its not even remotely close to fair even.
And while most lawyers would probably build shrines to worship you at, because of all new work they would get, I'd have to say that you offer a not-ideal solution. To put it diplomatically.
-
Hortlund it's totally voluntary and the woman is free to negotiate terms in her favor which prohibit the situations you describe. If she doesn't like the terms she can choose a different partner. If she is foolish enough to make a contract which hurts her then it is her fault, her problem. Caveat emptor.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yes, because when entering into that contract, the parties are probably not starting at a similar level. Rich guy wants to enter into contract with (sounds romantic too huh) poor girl, rich guy dictates contract, or else poor girl can find soemone else.
Or middle-class guy enters contract with middle-class girl with the terms that everyone keeps what they earn etc, girl has 3 kids, miss years and years at work and is passed over for promotion countless times, meanwhile guy works hard. 15 years later guy is rich girl is poor. Guy starts to boss girl around, threatening to throw her out of the house (that he bought because he was the one making money) unless she does this or that...girl stuck with desicion to either stay in slave-like relationship or move to shabby apartment...kids will stay with rich dad.
It isnt fair, its not even remotely close to fair even.
And while most lawyers would probably build shrines to worship you at, because of all new work they would get, I'd have to say that you offer a not-ideal solution. To put it diplomatically.
You do realize that the above situation could be addressed with a bit of forethought... through a contract.
-
Like I said, that does not mean anything. Even though both parties are equal "on paper" that is rarely the case de facto.
And like I said, this doesnt change the fact that your solution would set back the equality between the sexes with 100 years.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
so how do athiests get married?
Civil service....no mention of any 'COD' worked for me.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And like I said, this doesnt change the fact that your solution would set back the equality between the sexes with 100 years.
You have yet to demonstrate that.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Like I said, that does not mean anything. Even though both parties are equal "on paper" that is rarely the case de facto.
And like I said, this doesnt change the fact that your solution would set back the equality between the sexes with 100 years.
I still don't get how it would set back equality of the sexes 100 years. It would put both parties on equal ground in the relationship - any inequality would be consensual (or maybe what you see as inequality may not be seen as inequality between the two involved).
-
I don't see it either Tarmac. I'm thinking it's either language barrier or some type of cultural difference between the USA and Sweden.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
However they want.
what your suggesting would remove government marriages...therefore athiests wouldent be able to marry without going to a priest...throwing them in the same boat as the gays...
what we need is a definition that allows gays to get married but lets the church do it how they want as well...
how is it wrong for liberals to tell you you cant buy a assault rifle but allright for you to tell them gays cant get married...the only difference is the church backs one of them. and honestly the bible specifically states no divorce but thats practically become the norm. so what the church think really only effects those in the church.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
I still don't get how it would set back equality of the sexes 100 years. It would put both parties on equal ground in the relationship - any inequality would be consensual (or maybe what you see as inequality may not be seen as inequality between the two involved).
If you think you have equality with women you are living in a dream world. If your wife becomes pregnant, you do not have any say in your reproductive freedom. If she decides to carry the child to term you have just bought the farm for the next 18 years, You cannot abort, the financial burden is yours. Only she can choose.
-
Seperation between church and State.
There should be no benefits tax wise for married or single individuals.
A union should be as Funked stated between the individuals.
If a person is part of a christian orginization, let them recognize their union in accord with their faith, Government has no need to be there. If they are athiests, let them recognize their union in accord with whatever their hearts desire, Government has no need to be there. If they are Gay, Second verse same as the first.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
If you think you have equality with women you are living in a dream world. If your wife becomes pregnant, you do not have any say in your reproductive freedom. If she decides to carry the child to term you have just bought the farm for the next 18 years, You cannot abort, the financial burden is yours. Only she can choose.
Biological differences and legal equality are two totally different topics.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Biological differences and legal equality are two totally different topics.
Yea...I see Blacks and whites are biologically different, so we shouldn't have legal equality...sheez how did I miss that.
-
Nice strawman.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Yea...I see Blacks and whites are biologically different, so we shouldn't have legal equality...sheez how did I miss that.
What Hortlund said. You can't seriously be this stupid, can you?
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
What Hortlund said. You can't seriously be this stupid, can you?
LOL...Since your so brilliant, tell me how to gain equality with women by aborting a child that I don't want. They have that choice. I want the right to not to be burdened with an unwanted child for 18 years...tell me about your equality bright boy.
-
Who'd have thunk it, FunkedUp the marriage guru?
I agree with him and tarmac by the way: people can negotiate any terms they want. If they want want to agree disadvantageous terms why shouldn't they? What business is it of the State to interfere?
The richer partner in the negotiations will have the advantage in this respect, but then why shouldn't they? It's their money after all.
Now a man is likely to be be richer than a women but that's a problem of employment not marriage. I don't believe you should build a prejudice into one area of society to counter-balance a prejudice in another. Better to correct the problem in women's pay.
-
My wife wrote into our pre nuptuals that I would not fart in bed.
No kidding :D
-
Funked is planning on marrying a man!
-
Originally posted by senna
Funked is planning on marrying a man!
Funked can't marry: he is part of Mietla's harem along with Ramzey.
-
ok CHT im having MAJOR dejavu right now.,
funked is going to reply about the "fart" post and laugh at my "jungle love" lyrics from morris day anf the time i was going to post.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
LOL...Since your so brilliant, tell me how to gain equality with women by aborting a child that I don't want. They have that choice. I want the right to not to be burdened with an unwanted child for 18 years...tell me about your equality bright boy.
You don't gain "equality" over her body. You consented to give up the right to control that baby in her body when you shot your wad. If you don't like that agreement, keep your donut in your pants.
-
I admit it.
I'm a lesbian.
-
Originally posted by Pei
Funked can't marry: he is part of Mietla's harem along with Ramzey.
:lol
-
Originally posted by JB73
ok CHT im having MAJOR dejavu right now.,
funked is going to reply about the "fart" post and laugh at my "jungle love" lyrics from morris day anf the time i was going to post.
im for the amendment, without it ull have people marrying anything and everything, like married to sheep.
ummmm oooh wait im against the amendment, MBaaaaaaaaaaaaaa long live Sheep.!
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
You don't gain "equality" over her body. You consented to give up the right to control that baby in her body when you shot your wad. If you don't like that agreement, keep your donut in your pants.
Lets see....her body lasts 18 years and $250,000. Not counting braces....I see that kind of equality can kick butt.....How about true equality, like abortions are on sale this week for $299.95
heres 150 keep the change. If you don't want to get one tough...keep your legs together.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Lets see....her body lasts 18 years and $250,000. Not counting braces....I see that kind of equality can kick butt.....How about true equality, like abortions are on sale this week for $299.95
heres 150 keep the change. If you don't want to get one tough...keep your legs together.
Hmmm. Awfull expensive prosti.
You may wanna try shopping elsewhere.
-
Originally posted by Ping
Hmmm. Awfull expensive prosti.
You may wanna try shopping elsewhere.
Never paid more than 10 bucks over seas. American women where free if they thought you had money.
-
Originally posted by whels
im for the amendment, without it ull have people marrying anything and everything, like married to sheep.
ummmm oooh wait im against the amendment, MBaaaaaaaaaaaaaa long live Sheep.!
Whels... you kept hitting on my girlfriends in big pac...