Marriage Debate

Why should you be able to sieze your partner's assests if they grab someone else's, err, assests?

If they agreed to that part of the deal, then they broke the contract.

Do you think that people shouldn't be allowed to enter into such a contract? If so, then I would ask why you are asking the government to prevent two adults from entering into a voluntary agreement.
 
If they agreed to that part of the deal, then they broke the contract.

Do you think that people shouldn't be allowed to enter into such a contract? If so, then I would ask why you are asking the government to prevent two adults from entering into a voluntary agreement.
You're being unclear. Do you think marriages should by law, always include adultery as a breach of the marriage contract?
 
You're being unclear. Do you think marriages should by law, always include adultery as a breach of the marriage contract?

The short answer is no.

The longer answer is that if I could write the laws myself, I would allow cafeteria style union agreements between adults where they could pick and choose from all sorts of agreements commonly used by couples today, and write their own into the space at the bottom, and it would be legally binding. Meanwhile, I would have one specific contract called "marriage", or maybe "covenant marriage", which had sort of standard terms that included adultery as breach of contract and people could say, "I'll take that one please."
 
The short answer is no.

The longer answer is that if I could write the laws myself, I would allow cafeteria style union agreements between adults where they could pick and choose from all sorts of agreements commonly used by couples today, and write their own into the space at the bottom, and it would be legally binding. Meanwhile, I would have one specific contract called "marriage", or maybe "covenant marriage", which had sort of standard terms that included adultery as breach of contract and people could say, "I'll take that one please."
That's fine. I personally think that the "covenant" marriage represents jealousy, a lack of trust, and inappropriate possessiveness, but if two people willingly chose that, fine.
 
That's fine. I personally think that the "covenant" marriage represents jealousy, a lack of trust, and inappropriate possessiveness, but if two people willingly chose that, fine.

We've come a long way. Now, people express tolerance for the idea that two people can actually get together and agree on legally binding marriage vows. It doesn't get more tolerant than that:D


But...where will that slippery slope lead?:eek:
 
We've come a long way. Now, people express tolerance for the idea that two people can actually get together and agree on legally binding marriage vows. It doesn't get more tolerant than that:D


But...where will that slippery slope lead?:eek:

That's not funny. It is my personal opinion that entering into a legally binding, indefinate contract forcing your partner not to have sex with anyone other than you is simply innappropriate, because it's tantamount to purchasing their genitals.
 
Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense to me as well. It seems like your concept of "no government recognition of marriage" is more like a "no government definition of marriage".

ETA: By which I mean it seems that you would like people to be able to tailor their marriage agreement to their own needs/desires, instead of having the government dictate the only possible legal agreement that one can enter into.


It doesn't bother me that some people don't want what was once called "marriage", with all its legal obligations and standard definitions. I think "one size fits all" marriages just don't seem to be realistic in this day and age. But for those people who want the old fashioned sort, complete with the ability to take your soon to be ex spouse to the cleaners because he started dallying with the intern, I think it ought to be available.

We're very close to agreement. But to be clear, I still wouldn't want the government RECOGNIZING the marriage, not just not defining it. In other words, there could be no laws which distinguish between the unmarried and the married. But as such, such, it opens the field completely wide as to what private contracts you could enter into, and like any contract, it carries the force of law as interpritted by the courts.

Aaron
 
That's not funny. It is my personal opinion that entering into a legally binding, indefinate contract forcing your partner not to have sex with anyone other than you is simply innappropriate, because it's tantamount to purchasing their genitals.

And I think using faul language and drinking alcohol to be innappropriate. But I'm not stopping anyone from doing these things. Likewise, I wouldn't try to restrict what contracts people can legally enter into. In fact, I'd get rid of those restrictions that we already have.

Aaron
 
And I think using faul language and drinking alcohol to be innappropriate. But I'm not stopping anyone from doing these things. Likewise, I wouldn't try to restrict what contracts people can legally enter into. In fact, I'd get rid of those restrictions that we already have.

Aaron

That's not a good comparison, since drinking and foul language don't control the sexuality of others with legaly enforced restrictions.

Frankly, if you mistrust your partner so much that you try to use a legally binding contract to control their gentials, you have major problems.
 
That's not funny. It is my personal opinion that entering into a legally binding, indefinate contract forcing your partner not to have sex with anyone other than you is simply innappropriate, because it's tantamount to purchasing their genitals.

My wife did not purchase my genitals.

Although she's free to borrow them any time she wishes.
 
We're very close to agreement. But to be clear, I still wouldn't want the government RECOGNIZING the marriage, not just not defining it. In other words, there could be no laws which distinguish between the unmarried and the married. But as such, such, it opens the field completely wide as to what private contracts you could enter into, and like any contract, it carries the force of law as interpritted by the courts.

Aaron

And that could probably work, if implement slowly. You wouldn't want to suddenly end all government benefits tied to marriage, because people have counted on them. As I've said, I think a lot of those benefits ought to be attached to something else. For example, I think I ought to pay lower taxes in recognition of the fact that I pay a full time "employee" to care for my children and perform a portion of the domestic duties. (i.e. my wife. She even lets me keep some of the money.), but I think that should be tied to her status as a full time caregiver, as opposed to her status as someone who "bought my genitals".

ETA: Just to make clear, I wouldn't like Aaron's approach, but it could be made to work to my, and his, satisfaction.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by HeavyAaron :
And I think using faul language and drinking alcohol to be innappropriate. But I'm not stopping anyone from doing these things. Likewise, I wouldn't try to restrict what contracts people can legally enter into. In fact, I'd get rid of those restrictions that we already have.

Aaron
That's not a good comparison, since drinking and foul language don't control the sexuality of others with legaly enforced restrictions....

Drinking and foul language are pleasures or emotions of a similar kind to sexual pleasures. They are an excellent comparison, and one that I have repeatedly mentioned.

Foul language is controlled by government very, very loosely, but the use of alcohol (and all other "spirits") are highly regulated or prohibited by government.

Today in the United States, homosexual activity (as far as federal law is concerned) is decriminalized. What SSM proponents demand is nothing short of a redefinition of marriage in order for their behavior to be fully legitimized, as well as to reap the legal benefits of legal marriage.

Alcohol production, sales, and use are all highly regulated.

The potheads are still trying to get the same federal government to simply decriminalize the use of their "pleasure".
 
Drinking and foul language are pleasures or emotions of a similar kind to sexual pleasures. They are an excellent comparison, and one that I have repeatedly mentioned.

Foul language is controlled by government very, very loosely, but the use of alcohol (and all other "spirits") are highly regulated or prohibited by government.

Today in the United States, homosexual activity (as far as federal law is concerned) is decriminalized. What SSM proponents demand is nothing short of a redefinition of marriage in order for their behavior to be fully legitimized, as well as to reap the legal benefits of legal marriage.

Alcohol production, sales, and use are all highly regulated.

The potheads are still trying to get the same federal government to simply decriminalize the use of their "pleasure".

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your bigotry. Equating the desire of homosexual to recive legal recognition of their marriages with the legalized marijuana movement in order to discredit it, as though a person's sexuality, they way they were born, is some sort of vice is absurd. Please Hunter, try to make an arguement against same sex marriage that doesn't argue that it's wrong, or that it's non-traditional. Please, surprise me.
 
Drinking and foul language are pleasures or emotions of a similar kind to sexual pleasures. They are an excellent comparison, and one that I have repeatedly mentioned.

Foul language is controlled by government very, very loosely, but the use of alcohol (and all other "spirits") are highly regulated or prohibited by government.

Today in the United States, homosexual activity (as far as federal law is concerned) is decriminalized. What SSM proponents demand is nothing short of a redefinition of marriage in order for their behavior to be fully legitimized, as well as to reap the legal benefits of legal marriage.

Alcohol production, sales, and use are all highly regulated.

The potheads are still trying to get the same federal government to simply decriminalize the use of their "pleasure".

Did you just compare the sales of alchohol to homosexuality? Oh no you di'nt! Maybe a "fag tax" is due. What better way to regulate homosexuality and fix Social Security than tax this immoral behavior.

I can't believe they decriminalized homosexuality! For shame! Homosexuality should be illegal because when I walk into the bathroom of an Indians' game, I don't want to see two guys going at it. I mean, that's what's going to happen isn't it? If they make SSM legal, I'm going to be at a gym getting dressed and a GUY will rape me. If I can't feel safe in my own gym with all those gays running around, then where can I be safe? Only at my house. And God forbid if one of my children is influenced by the media and becomes gay! That child better run away and never talk to me again. Or just commit suicide. Because then, I'll at least get sympathy from people over a dead child instead of just a fag. Maybe I'll just go with the good line from Heathers: I love my dead gay son!
 
Drinking and foul language are pleasures or emotions of a similar kind to sexual pleasures. They are an excellent comparison, and one that I have repeatedly mentioned.

Foul language is controlled by government very, very loosely, but the use of alcohol (and all other "spirits") are highly regulated or prohibited by government.

Today in the United States, homosexual activity (as far as federal law is concerned) is decriminalized. What SSM proponents demand is nothing short of a redefinition of marriage in order for their behavior to be fully legitimized, as well as to reap the legal benefits of legal marriage.

Alcohol production, sales, and use are all highly regulated.

The potheads are still trying to get the same federal government to simply decriminalize the use of their "pleasure".
This is a problem common to many on your side, Huntster. You focus on the activities and pleasures of sex, over family. It happen all the time on this forum.

Homosexuality, is a misleading word in this regard; I get that. It has “sex” right in it, but I’d hope you, of all people, realize there’s a far greater component to the innate drive to couple up and build a family. There are couples out there, gay and straight, not participating (not anymore or, for some, ever) in any of your imagined “sexual pleasures”, and yet they are deeply in love, building homes, raising kids, and so on.

I, for one, am pretty sure I’d not have my life altered if Laurence V. Texas was overturned. If I were completely selfish, I’d offer that one over for the securities of marriage law. If there’s anything in my life you could compare to alcoholism, it’d be my “addiction” to my family. I guess I’m near a heroin addict, in that regard. But is that an addiction you honestly find offensive? I have a hard time believing you’d object to it as you would alcoholism, or demean it to the level of cursing.

Besides, I think you have to admit; it’s not about “activities”, even to you. You don’t usually treat the sexual orientation gay men have or the often-accompanying activities like alcoholism or cursing. Your very wife and most women have the same sexual orientation that all gay men have, and most men have the same as a lesbian. What offends you most is the anatomy, right? In fact, in most instances I think you treat these instincts like the blessings they are, and would find your comparison to something as deleterious as alcoholism or as silly as cursing as threatening and demeaning to traditional values, marriage, and family, as I do. As I’ve said before, it seems like a kind of “I’ll break it before I let you get it” way of thinking.

edited because I can't spell...
 
Last edited:
I'm obviously not doing something correctly. I'm not sure which one it is.

They're only similar if you cuss in between shots while you are sexually engaged.

Or maybe you have to boink in between shots while your screaming expletives.
 

Back
Top Bottom