Oye!

[taks]

It is outdated, but I also think that this law thingie is ridiculous as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

obviously you are not married. hehe...

 

i agree, however, that marriage should not have the legal basis it does other than automatic heir status. i.e. it is still a contract, but the rest of the mess should simply be personal.

 

taks

[Sand]

I almost got married and I am glad I dodged that bullet. I just think that government should just stay out of marriage altogether. Marriage is a religious social institution and should remain so. Church and state, gotta keep them separated.

Edited January 21, 2007 by Sand

[deganawida]

I almost got married and I am glad I dodged that bullet. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dude, mail-order doesn't count.

[Sand]

Nice joke, but it wasn't some lame ass mail order crap.

[Dark Moth]

Marriage is a religious social institution...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong.

 

Dude, mail-order doesn't count.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Laozi]

Marriage is just the ultimate pillow talk, if someone stays with you or not has little to with any quaint traditons and ceremonies

[Dark Moth]

So you are saying marriage didn't originate with religious practice, Dark Moth?  I think some religious scholars might disagree with you on that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In today's world, marriage is no longer a purely religious institution. Therefore, it's not a matter of separation of church and state. I thought you would have at least been smart enough to know that. "

[Sand]

Um... That is why I deleted that post, Moth. I decided to look up the origins and I was wrong. It started as a civil arrangement during the time the concept of private property came to being. It wasn't til the 16th/17th century that it became the norm for religion to get involved. At least for Europe.

 

Still I don't see the importance of marriage and why the government has to poke its nose in the private affairs of others. The only reason why it isn't a wholly religious affair nowadays is because the government is poking its nose in affairs that it has no place to poke its nose in.

Edited January 21, 2007 by Sand

[Dark Moth]

Well, glad to see we're now hablando the same idioma.

[Sand]

Well, glad to see we're now hablando the same idioma.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was bound to happen sooner or later.

[thepixiesrock]

I stand by my statement god dammit.

[Sand]

[Surreptishus]

Marriage is just the ultimate pillow talk, if someone stays with you or not has little to with any quaint traditons and ceremonies

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, maybe in your liberal commie pinko hemp wearing hippy commune where everyone is married to everyone else.

 

Where I come from marriage is a solid legally binding contract enforceable by death, beatings and forced consumption of dessert with meat e.g. Steak and Kidney pudding and mince meat pies.

[Sand]

[Enoch]

There is a canon of statutory interpretation that statutes must be construed as to avoid "absurd" results. I think that it would be pretty clearly appropriate to apply it in this case. (As well as the canon that criminal laws should be construed to the benefit of the accused.)

 

As for marriage as an institution of the state, as of 1997, there were 1,049 U.S. federal laws in which marital status was a factor. (Click the first search result here.) You can argue whether this is good or not, but you can't deny that there are social consequences of marriage.

[Laozi]

Yeah, maybe in your liberal commie pinko hemp wearing hippy commune where everyone is married to everyone else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hey, its how you were born so be thankful, you can never escape who you really are.

[metadigital]

Still I don't see the importance of marriage and why the government has to poke its nose in the private affairs of others.  The only reason why it isn't a wholly religious affair nowadays is because the government is poking its nose in affairs that it has no place to poke its nose in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blame the social scientists who are pillow-talking in the government's ear: marriage is good for the society, helps give children a formal structure for their upbringing and is good for the partners. Supposedly. As long as the parents don't hate each other, or one is a bully.

 

But government give tax breaks to married people. But not civil partners.

[Calax]

As for marriage as an institution of the state, as of 1997, there were 1,049 U.S. federal laws in which marital status was a factor.  (Click the first search result here.)  You can argue whether this is good or not, but you can't deny that there are social consequences of marriage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

except that the government has decided to use the church to standardize religion. You can only get married by either a pastor (or other rep of the church) or a judge (I think), plus you have to jump through several hoops to get to that point including blood tests, premarital counceling (which can be provided by a pastor) AND marrige and all the benefits thereof are ONLY for a marrige between opposite genders.

 

That sounds like a religious institution to me.

[Tale]

There's nothing about that to imply a religious institution. Even I'm able to legally perform marriages and I'm an atheist. It doesn't take much.

[Calax]

There's nothing about that to imply a religious institution.  Even I'm able to legally perform marriages and I'm an atheist.  It doesn't take much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well My main problem with it is that the government has religion DEFINE marrige (one man and one woman, no other combinations)

[Dark Moth]

except that the government has decided to use the church to standardize religion. You can only get married by either a pastor (or other rep of the church) or a judge (I think), plus you have to jump through several hoops to get to that point including blood tests, premarital counciling (which can be provided by a pastor) AND marriage and all the benefits thereof are ONLY for a marriage between opposite genders.

 

That sounds like a religious institution to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can't comment due to barefaced silliness of statement.

Edited January 21, 2007 by Dark Moth

[Calax]

except that the government has decided to use the church to standardize religion. You can only get married by either a pastor (or other rep of the church) or a judge (I think), plus you have to jump through several hoops to get to that point including blood tests, premarital counciling (which can be provided by a pastor) AND marriage and all the benefits thereof are ONLY for a marriage between opposite genders.

 

That sounds like a religious institution to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can't comment due to barefaced silliness of statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So I can't spell, never claimed I could did I?

 

not to mention the silliness that is ANY organized religion.

[julianw]

Still I don't see the importance of marriage and why the government has to poke its nose in the private affairs of others.  The only reason why it isn't a wholly religious affair nowadays is because the government is poking its nose in affairs that it has no place to poke its nose in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Marriage is important to the society because family is an important unit in the society today. One day, we may abolish marriage and family altogether but today when a marriage fails and a family fells apart, a lot of harm is done to the society. Your individual freedom dictates that marriage should be strictly private but when you live in a society, your personal freedom will be limited because there must be a balance between your freedom and the harmony of the society.

[Sand]

I am pretty close to my family and guess what. My mother didn't even bother to get married till almost two decades after I was born. I have a couple of friends who live together and are very much like a married couple but aren't married and they plan on not getting married, but eventually have children.

 

Marriage isn't all that important any more.

[metadigital]

Based on your enormous sample space of ... two.