RE: Legal union/versus Marriage

RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 3:25:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leakylee The colonies may have been founded to escape religious persecution, but they were still under the rule of England. And only tolerated what they allowed. So in someways morality stills rules the day. lee Many so called people escaping persecution were not actually escaping persecution but went to the Americas because they were too intolerant to stay amongst people of other persuasions. Why do you think America has more religious fundementalists than Europe? I live round the corner from a chapel the founding fathers visited before they left on the Speedwell to Plymouth to change onto the Mayflower. That chapel is still a black stocking chapel today and its congregation is known for being traditionally intolerant. Fortunately there are so few of them that they are looked on as freaks. As for marriage, it is a legal contract and that's why it has to be taken seriously. Breaking the contract can be financially painful. I've been married and wouldn't marry again, perfering if a relationship brokedown both parties could simply walk away without legal entanglement. Most people I know who have been married say that piece of paper called the marriage contract impacts on the relationship in psychological ways that aren't always positive which was my experience too. I've never been on so good terms as with my former wife now we aren't married. The problem is if children are involved and then no marriage contract means nothing anyway. You have obligations and if you don't accept them there is always the court behind you with a stick. As the saying goes- Marriage is a fine institution but who wants to live in an institution?

SirKenin -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 7:04:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Many people, including the dictionary, make the mistake of thinking that marriage is a contract. Marriage is not a contract, it is a covenant. There is a difference between the two. A contract can be broken by only one party, a covenant must be broken by all involved. In a church marriage, that includes God. The State cannot rule whether anyone can speak on behalf of God. Homosexuals, whether they want to or not, can not stand before God and demand marriage. It just does not work. I guess they can go through the motions, but that does not mean it is valid in God's eyes, and that is what matters. The State has no right to impose upon the Church to marry homosexuals. They have no jurisdiction, thanks to Jefferson. They have tried to sink their teeth into it because it is a cash cow for them, but as far as I am concerned they can butt out. A legal union, on the other hand, is a contract that either can break. Let the State dictate it. It is their institution, they have the right to do with it what they want. If the homosexuals want to marry, let them have a union. Suits Me just fine. After all, I believe in common-law marriages. I am not a big proponent of Church marriages. Isn't this a two-way street? If the State can not be permitted to impose homosexual marriage upon the Church, what right can the State call upon to prohibit homosexual marriage from the Church? My church marries homosexuals. A large number of other churches also marry gays. If the State is as compelled to remain out of the affairs of Church as you claim, how can they refuse to recognize those religious rites which formed a marriage between same-sex partners? If the Church chooses to marry homosexuals, I agree that the State is not in a position to not recognize them.

ArtCatDom -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 7:08:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin If the Church chooses to marry homosexuals, I agree that the State is not in a position to not recognize them. Good deal. As a cavaet though, I'm a filthy Unitarian-Universalist and we let almost anybody in. [:D] By the by, I just noticed your signature footer about Wicca. It gave me a good full minute laugh. meow

sleazybutterfly -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 8:01:28 AM)
my ex-partner and myself talked about marriage.. both in a legal sense and a religious sense many times over our four years together. Though being recognized by the church was important to us (us both being christian).. we came to accept it wouldn't be welcomed in most churches. The main reason marriage meant so much to us is because of the need in ourselves to be accepted by our faith and the ppl in it. It's all about legal terms..and the way things are put.. i can tell you that when we were trying to have a baby.. the last thing we worried about was what a group of ppl thought.. we were worried about being protected legally..and a legal union would have solved that problem a lot. If something happened to either one of us.. it would have been nice to know that she or i had the right to be taken care of.. i mean.. we both pay taxes..and social security like everyone else..why couldn't we have the same peace of mind that others get. Then whenever the whole "right to die" thing came up.. it was even more scary..what if something happened when the baby was being born.. i wouldn't have had any say in the way things were handled. That is what it's really about.. i mean.. yes it's nice to be recognized by our church..but.. we live in the real world...and other things matter just as much..if not more. Just because the church didn't want to see us.. doesn't mean God wouldn't. i think we all need to put that in perspective. The churches are wonderful..great places..but.. they are buildings just the same..God does not live there only.. so to us.. we could have had a legal union in the middle of the field..and it would have been in the sight of God..and no church or group could have changed that. Marriage is in the hearts of the two ppl involved.. and nobody can change what is in those hearts by a few changes on a piece of paper.

petwolf22 -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 8:32:08 AM)
im feeling the same way leakylee...

petwolf22 -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 8:38:18 AM)
So if marriage is a "covenant before God" and i don't claim to any particular faith and don't really believe in God, am i being blasphemous by getting married? Go inform the powers that be that for some reason consider marriage to be a contract....then they can just give all us non-believers the opportunity for civil unions and cut us out of the marriage pool altogether.

SirKenin -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 8:51:10 AM)
Petwolf, just think about it for a second. Go to get divorced. You want it, but your partner does not. Come back and tell Me what happens.

SirKenin -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 8:52:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin If the Church chooses to marry homosexuals, I agree that the State is not in a position to not recognize them. Good deal. As a cavaet though, I'm a filthy Unitarian-Universalist and we let almost anybody in. [:D] By the by, I just noticed your signature footer about Wicca. It gave me a good full minute laugh. meow lol. [:D] Glad you liked it. I thought it was funny too.

petwolf22 -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 8:56:49 AM)
Sorry, what is your point?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 10:00:02 AM)
I already said that if you want to go back to the Declaration of Independence, that would be a reasonable view too. That's even before the Articles of Confederation. But please let's not pretend that the United States of America was founded in the 1600's. quote: ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster No COUNTRY was founded here in the 1600's. Colonies, settlements--sure. But the country we live in was founded in 1789. If you want to use the date of the Declaration of Independence, that's fine, but the structure of the country wasn't established until the Constitution was ratified. Otherwise you might as well say that Italy was founded by Romulus and Remus. What about the Articles of Confederation?

ArtCatDom -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 1:26:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster I already said that if you want to go back to the Declaration of Independence, that would be a reasonable view too. That's even before the Articles of Confederation. But please let's not pretend that the United States of America was founded in the 1600's. Didn't mean to imply that it goes back that far. Most people just forget about/ignore the Articles and the Presidents who served under them. I feel it's a great disservice to recognize the efforts of those brave men. Every one remembers Washington, but who remembers President Huntington's serious contributions to our early country? I also mentioned the Articles because that is where you find the confederation officially named the United States of America. meow

HarryVanWinkle -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 9:56:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsMacComb quote: ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle To quote George Carlin, "I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man. No woman could or would ever have fucked things up like this." George has a point. Or perhaps its that She made things right, true and good, and man (not mankind, just man) fucked it all up, lol. [:D] This logic doesn't work. After all, who made man?

MistressLorelei -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 10:24:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle quote: ORIGINAL: MsMacComb quote: ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle To quote George Carlin, "I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man. No woman could or would ever have fucked things up like this." George has a point. Or perhaps its that She made things right, true and good, and man (not mankind, just man) fucked it all up, lol. [:D] This logic doesn't work. After all, who made man? She knew that some inferior creature would have to take out the garbage.

MsMacComb -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 11:25:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle This logic doesn't work. After all, who made man? Woman. She took a rib (from a jackass), added some hair (also from jackass), found two small eggs (made them more delicate in case she needed to kick or torment them) and a floppy stick (with a spring inside), deleted the "wo" from her name and just left it as man. Her mistake was not focusing on the brain enough. Somehow just enough jackass got mixed into the pot so most men ended up as barbarians. [:)]

SirKenin -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 11:36:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: petwolf22 Sorry, what is your point? My point is simple. You can not get out of a marriage without both party's consent. Therefore it is not a contract, but a covenant.

MsMacComb -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 11:38:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin My point is simple. You can not get out of a marriage without both party's consent. Therefore it is not a contract, but a covenant. I don't know where your from but you have no idea what you are taking about. Divorce in the USA takes about 3 seconds and can be done with one party present only in a variety of situations. Your point may be simple, its also simply wrong.

HarryVanWinkle -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 11:41:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsMacComb quote: ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle This logic doesn't work. After all, who made man? Woman. She took a rib (from a jackass), added some hair (also from jackass), found two small eggs (made them more delicate in case she needed to kick or torment them) and a floppy stick (with a spring inside), deleted the "wo" from her name and just left it as man. Her mistake was not focusing on the brain enough. Somehow just enough jackass got mixed into the pot so most men ended up as barbarians. [:)] Hmm, you may be onto something there. When you add in the problem of having put the brain in the wrong head, you just might have something there. But wait, what about George's original quote, "No woman could or would ever have fucked things up like this?"

MsMacComb -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/30/2006 11:46:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle But wait, what about George's original quote, "No woman could or would ever have fucked things up like this?" George is a man. He may stand by all his misstatments, his misunderestimations and his quotisms.[:D]

ArtCatDom -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/31/2006 3:01:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin quote: ORIGINAL: petwolf22 Sorry, what is your point? My point is simple. You can not get out of a marriage without both party's consent. Therefore it is not a contract, but a covenant. Please stop before you stick that foot any further into your mouth. You need both parties consent to get out of any contract. When I sign a contract to produce a piece of writing for a publisher, neither I nor my publisher can on our own negate the contract. If either of us backs out without the permission of the other, that is a breach of contract and the offended party is awarded damages for the breaking. Marriage is not differant in this regard. If one of you commits adultery (breaking the contract), you can take it to court, show the contract was violated and be awarded damages (alimony). meow

ArtCatDom -> RE: Legal union/versus Marriage (5/31/2006 3:03:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsMacComb quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin My point is simple. You can not get out of a marriage without both party's consent. Therefore it is not a contract, but a covenant. I don't know where your from but you have no idea what you are taking about. Divorce in the USA takes about 3 seconds and can be done with one party present only in a variety of situations. Your point may be simple, its also simply wrong. Um, he's wrong, but you're not presenting an accurate picture. In absence of violation of the marriage compact, it's exceedingly difficult to get a divorce in most states. In most of the states it's almost impossible to get a divorce without the consent of both parties or proof of violation of the marriage contract. meow

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125