- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
I think hoops should always be put up to make doing the wrong thing tougher. Breaking up a family because your spouse can't read your mind is the wrong thing.
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
I'm not controlling them. I'm suggesting placing a hurdle in their way to see how much they want it. If they can prove that their differences are reconcilable, then more power to them.
I'm straight but I happen to believe in strict equality for all regardless of sexual orientation.
Does that mean I should be able to impose my beliefs on your pastor / priest and force him to perform marriages for gay and lesbian couples?
I agree, and that's where I think the scales have tipped in the wrong direction. NY doesn't even consider marital fault when apportioning marital property upon divorce. Yet politicians steadfastly stand by harsh criminal drug sentencing because of its supposed deterrence. Doesn't anyone see the disconnect here? Government cares more about punishing people wanting to get high, than people tearing up marriages. Even more ludicrous is the fact that deterrence as a justification makes more sense in the marriage context - infidelity is often a deliberative action - than it does in the context of drug abuse, of which addiction (read: compulsion) plays a large part.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
While the traditional Christian vow is of "Til Death Do Us Part", even secular unions frequently have this oath or one similar (i.e. "For as long as you both shall live").
The fact of the matter is that the current system of secular unions as overseen by state and local governments include the assumption of a permanent lifelong union and that all marriages are publicly recorded.
It seems that some people are under the mistaken that marriages (and divorces) are a private affair. Wrong. They are public and it is our business. Maybe you just shouldn't have gotten married. You don't have to, yaknow...
It is up to them to work out the solution. It's just not your business. If someone you personally know is in this situation, then feel free to talk to them about your concerns. I'm pretty sure they'll tell you it's none of your business, but you never know...
If you're so concerned about it, why not take up marriage counseling as a profession?
1.) Not all kids who are the products of divorce are 'maladjusted.' There is social stigma attached with being the child of divorced parents or a single parent, or even children born out of wedlock. THOUSANDS of kids grow up perfectly fine and contribute to society even if they come from this sort of situation.
2.) Nobody forces you to send your kids to school with 'maladjusted' kids. If you don't like it and can't trust your children to make friends with the right kids, that's your problem.
3.) There are a lot of kids out there into things they shouldn't be who come from 'stable' households.
4.) The state has no business telling us what is 'morally' appropriate or 'morally' inappropriate when it is wholly a private matter.
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Obviously you've never been in a bad relationship or marriage. Let me tell you from experience, Divorce is the very last solution. Nobody that I know including myself wanted to have a failed marriage but when it's obvious that it is failed and nothing can be done to repair it the best thing for both parties and the family as a whole is seperation and finally divorce. Irreconcilable Divorces is like a no fault divorce and can go a long ways to keeping the process civil which is most beneficial for any children involved.
Its not that simple. The fact is, is that marriage is unique as both a public and private affair. If it is public, then the government should have the right to dictate every aspect of it, including how many kids are produced from the marriage, what kind of sex is allowed, right? And if private, then there should be no legal recognition of marriage, and along with it, abolition of tax incentives, insurance benefits and the like, right?
You're still worried about 'maladjusted' children, right? :Q C'mon...I'd take parents who were divorced over parents who were fighting ANY day - and don't tell me I don't know. I was born out of wedlock, my mom remarried and fought with my stepdad day in and day out. They got divorced and we're all much happier.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Excellent analogy.
No, no, no, No, NO!
I will say it again. When you get married, it is before a government-appointed official (even if your minister), the marriage is publicly recorded at the courthouse, and your names are even printed in the local newspaper. When you get divorced, it is in front a judge, the divorce is publicly recorded at the courthouse, and it is printed in your local newspaper.
In our society, marriage (and divorce) is NOT a private matter. Don't like it, don't get married.
Yeah, god forbid someone else 'inconviences' (as if) your children with their divorce. I mean these people should know better! God, I don't think I could live with myself if I divorced my spouse and sent my child to school and let it affect your child's life. Give me a freakin break. You're clueless.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
No, not right. Land and home ownership is just as public as marriage and divorce, but the government can't tell you what furniture to put in the house, or what color to paint it (don't confuse your HOA with the government please). But they can dictate all the circumstances regarding the beginning and the ending (buying and selling) of that ownership. Make sense?
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Oh really? You think encouraging people to get counseling or work out their problems instead of fleeing from them is worst than divorce?
Marriage and divorce IS a private matter. It is 'public' only in the sense that marriage is endowed with certain legal protections, economic benefits, and others which should require legal process to establish and/or break. What I am arguing against, however, is the concept that one should require some sort of 'reason' to be married or divorced - that the state should deny you that right is unbelievable, because the state's role stops at the doorstep. Beyond the legal and economic aspects of the marriage it has no business in governing the actual processes of the relationship itself.
THEREFORE, public recording of marriage or divorce is meaningless with respect to the desires of the individuals in the relationship themselves. For the government to step in and tell us that marriage on a whim is 'immoral' or divorce is 'immoral' is not the place nor the responsibility of the state.
There's a BIG difference between 'encouraging' and 'forcing.' If you write it into law, you are compelling couples to do something, presumably against their will. Encouragement from politicians would be acceptable but legal prescription would not be, nor would it be likely to stand up in court.
Land is not an identity or status. Such "classification" issues like marriage have historically been given the strictest scrutiny by the Courts, and for good reason. There's the discrepancy in your analogy.
Right to Procreate
Right to Marry
Right to Abortion
Right to Parenting Decisionsand so on...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter