Marriage Debate

ImaginalDisc said:
That's a quotable little paragraph revealing what a controling, jealous man you are to view women as purchaseable property.
Click to expand...

?!? ImaginalDisc, you're clearly going off the deep end in choosing to interprit his statement that way. (Indeed, to make such an interpritation even halfheartedly justifiable you'd have to imagine that he thinks men are also purchaseable property.)

Aaron
 
ImaginalDisc said:
That's a quotable little paragraph revealing what a controling, jealous man you are to view women as purchaseable property.
Click to expand...


That's an interesting interpretation. The quotable paragraph referred specifically to both myself and my wife. Why did you refer only to women?
 
Meadmaker said:
Can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question. If two people desire a legally binding marriage contract, based on the traditional vows of marriage

1) Should they be allowed to enter into such a contract?
Click to expand...
Yes, but it would only be as binding as their commitment to it.

Any legal contract can be broken. There is no way to legally force two people to stay married if they no longer wish to be together. The same is true of the intangibles like love and honor. Depending on how you define it, "obey" could run counter to some forced servitude laws.

In short, two people can enter into just about any legal contract they want to, but it doesn't mean that it will necessarily stand up in court. As long as one or the other doesn't challenge it, they can certainly enter into the contract.
Meadmaker said:
2) Can they today?
3) How?
Click to expand...
I have no idea, but I assume it would involve a prenuptial agreement.
 
HeavyAaron said:
?!? ImaginalDisc, you're clearly going off the deep end in choosing to interprit his statement that way. (Indeed, to make such an interpritation even halfheartedly justifiable you'd have to imagine that he thinks men are also purchaseable property.)

Aaron
Click to expand...
What is ambiguous about this statement? "I want to control their whole darned bodies."
 
Meadmaker said:
That's an interesting interpretation. The quotable paragraph referred specifically to both myself and my wife. Why did you refer only to women?
Click to expand...
Because you are in a relationship with your wife, and have expressed a desire to have her choice of sexual partners restricted by the force of law.
 
HeavyAaron said:
Not enough to believe it has anything to do with purchasing women.

Aaron
Click to expand...
Perhaps I skipped a step.

Man courts woman.

Man marries woman.

Man now control's wife's sexual choices forever with the force of law.

= The aquisition of rights over another human being.
 
Meadmaker said:
And for what it's worth, I don't want to control the genitals of married people, including myself and my wife. I want to control their whole darned bodies.
Click to expand...
Man, are you ever in the wrong country! The level of government control in individual personal lives that you are talking about are more along the lines of China than it is the US.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Perhaps I skipped a step.

Man courts woman.

Man marries woman.

Man now control's wife's sexual choices forever with the force of law.

= The aquisition of rights over another human being.
Click to expand...

Yes, you did.

1) Man courts woman.

2) Man and woman surrender their freedom to choose sexual partners to each other.

3) As a consequence of 2, man now control's wife's sexual choices forever with the force of law (in this hypothetical world) and vice versa.

= the voluntary surrender of freedom to another in sacrificial love

Aaron
 
HeavyAaron said:
I do... he's saying that contracts have a binding more powerful than you're allowing for. Namely there are legal ramifications to unilatterally breaking a contract.
Click to expand...
Some contracts are more powerful, yes. Some contracts are not. I cannot enter into a legally binding contract that requires myself or another person to break the law, for example.

Likewise, I don't think that there is a marriage contract that could be written in such a way that it cannot be broken: unilaterally, bilaterally, or otherwise. I'm no authority on the subject, so I may be wrong.
 
Upchurch said:
Some contracts are more powerful, yes. Some contracts are not. I cannot enter into a legally binding contract that requires myself or another person to break the law, for example.

Likewise, I don't think that there is a marriage contract that could be written in such a way that it cannot be broken: unilaterally, bilaterally, or otherwise. I'm no authority on the subject, so I may be wrong.
Click to expand...

No contract can be written in such a way that it cannot be broken unless the contract contained no obligations, in which case there would be no function for it to exist in the first place. Meadmaker has said a number of times that he would like there to be financial consequences, enforced by the state, for a breach of the marriage contract for those that choose a contract with this provision. Personally I see nothing whatsoever wrong with the state offering this option. (In fact with pre-nups I think it probably IS an option.)

Aaron
 
HeavyAaron said:
No contract can be written in such a way that it cannot be broken unless the contract contained no obligations, in which case there would be no function for it to exist in the first place.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point.

HeavyAaron said:
Meadmaker has said a number of times that he would like there to be financial consequences, enforced by the state, for a breach of the marriage contract for those that choose a contract with this provision.
Click to expand...
Meadmaker has said lots of things. Financial consequences are already a part of modern day legal marriage. Prenuptial agreements just spell out in advance what the financial consequences are ahead of time rather than after. I'm not arguing against the possibility of that because that already exists.

But Meadmaker has also said that he would like the traditional marriage vows to be legally enforceable:
Meadmaker said:
Unless you both agree to celibacy, that means you have sex.

{snip}

Sickness and in health: No cutting and running when the going get's tough. Likewise with better and worse, sadness and joy.

{snip}

As long as you both shall live: No getting out of this. You're in it till the big sleep.
Click to expand...
Now, I'll grant you that he then went through and said that no one had to enter into any of these in their marriage contracts, but he is asking if they could.

HeavyAaron said:
Personally I see nothing whatsoever wrong with the state offering this option. (In fact with pre-nups I think it probably IS an option.)
Click to expand...
As I said, I'm not arguing against finaincial obligations, but do you see anything wrong with a contract that forces someone to have sex and that they cannot break by anything other than death? Would you consider that to be a legally enforcable contract?
 
Upchurch said:
Exactly my point.

Meadmaker has said lots of things. Financial consequences are already a part of modern day legal marriage. Prenuptial agreements just spell out in advance what the financial consequences are ahead of time rather than after. I'm not arguing against the possibility of that because that already exists.

But Meadmaker has also said that he would like the traditional marriage vows to be legally enforceable:

Now, I'll grant you that he then went through and said that no one had to enter into any of these in their marriage contracts, but he is asking if they could.

As I said, I'm not arguing against finaincial obligations, but do you see anything wrong with a contract that forces someone to have sex and that they cannot break by anything other than death? Would you consider that to be a legally enforcable contract?
Click to expand...

I believe our understanding of Meadmaker differs.

My understanding of Meadmaker is that the contract is legally enforcable in that if it is broken, the wronged party can have a court of law impose financial penalties. This is similar to loan contracts being legally enforcable.

Meadmaker, will you please correct me if I've misunderstood you?

Aaron
 
HeavyAaron said:
My understanding of Meadmaker is that the contract is legally enforcable in that if it is broken, the wronged party can have a court of law impose financial penalties. This is similar to loan contracts being legally enforcable.
Click to expand...
If that is his point, it is a moot point since that is the current state of affairs. Since Meadmaker has been speaking of things in terms of the way he would like it to be, I assumed that he was not arguing for the status quo.
 
Upchurch said:
Meadmaker has said lots of things. Financial consequences are already a part of modern day legal marriage. Prenuptial agreements just spell out in advance what the financial consequences are ahead of time rather than after. I'm not arguing against the possibility of that because that already exists.
Click to expand...

I'd like to make another point of clarity. Aside from a specific reference to a pre-nup (and then even then if it's not mentioned in the pre-nup) the courts do not consider fault in splitting assets in a divorce. That is NOT part of today's family courts. No-fault divorce laws simply try to divide assets in an even, and non-punitive fashion. Meadmaker is advocating punitive judgements in divorce courts (if the particular marriage contract calls for it.) Again, I believe this can be requested in a pre-nup under the status quo.

Aaron
 
Upchurch said:
If that is his point, it is a moot point since that is the current state of affairs. Since Meadmaker has been speaking of things in terms of the way he would like it to be, I assumed that he was not arguing for the status quo.
Click to expand...

I agree that he does seem to be arguing for the status quo, as I understand him and the status quo.

Perhaps he would like a change in the default behavior of the courts sans a pre-nup?

Aaron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom