Then, if you don't believe in it, its easy to see why you would not consider it as something to be followed.
Marry Me!
- Thread starter Mr. Hamtastic
- Start date
Then, if you don't believe in it, its easy to see why you would not consider it as something to be followed.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I think they should. But there is nothing to stop them from divorcing or dissolving the contract, and there shouldn't be.
So you can dump people for any reason whatsoever? Anything at all?
People cling to ritual, no matter how unnecessary. My 7 year olds were 6 months old when my wife and I got married... My parents insisted it be in a church, but that we keep it secret, and are aghast we won't say we were married a year earlier...LOL
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Isn't that how it is ?
Or so they think. Until very recently, there was no way to tell who was straying, was there? A woman could do what she wanted and get a man to take on all her expenses, children included, no question asked. It would be humiliating for the man to even admit it if he knew otherwise.
Sure you can, it's just division of property after that.
wait-male straying was winked at for generations, female was unacceptable
Mr. Hamtastic said:
Hell, why not go back to selling our daughters into marriage to the highest bidder?
There are, of course, answers to all of your questions, Mr. Hamtastic, although I admit I grow weary of taking these questions seriously. At some point, I want to shake people and say, "What part of this don't you get?"
Setting that aside for the moment, though:
• Homosexual marriage: The question here is one of equal protection. The discrimination against gay marriage is invested in the sex of the partners. Telling someone they cannot marry the person they love because, "You're the wrong sex to do that", is sex discrimination. As a matter of equal protection according to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, sex discrimination is inappropriate.
• Polygamy: Equal protection does not extend to matters of numbers. Polygamists will have to find a different argument.
• Bestiality: Explain to me how an animal can consent to marriage. Operant conditioning in a goat does not equal proper consent.
• Polygamy: Equal protection does not extend to matters of numbers. Polygamists will have to find a different argument.
• Bestiality: Explain to me how an animal can consent to marriage. Operant conditioning in a goat does not equal proper consent.
Depends on how you look at it. S.A.M., for instance, has a point about social engineering. But according to historian and college professor:
____________________
Notes:
Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, a History: from Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Viking, 2005.
Or so they think. Until very recently, there was no way to tell who was straying, was there? A woman could do what she wanted and get a man to take on all her expenses, children included, no question asked. It would be humiliating for the man to even admit it if he knew otherwise.
Which is why she was stoned to death for straying. I mean, even now in modern times, consider the terminology we use, on a social level, to define promiscuous men and women; a man would be called a ladies man, a ladykiller, a playboy, more recently we'd call him a pimp (not in the traditional sense, of course). Meanwhile, promiscuous women are called sluts, whores, hoes, tramps...
Its a power equation, hence, women usually get what they want by pretending its all the man's idea.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Tiassa-Right, Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. I agree. If a man and a woman are in love, and she is put into a vegetative state, why can't they be married? How is this different from marrying a goat? If Joe Someguy and the Janelle twins are in love, why can't they all get married to each other? Constitutional amendment aside. Hell, some religions are all for polygamy, but 9 time out of 10 it's man with a bunch of women. I think more complex social groups should be allowed.
I can't tell if you're being funny or serious...
Anyway, likening homosexuality to polygamy or bestiality doesn't fly.
What is it with Christians and consent?
Including social groups formed without consent?
If this is what it's coming to, it's time for the state to cease recognizing and sanctioning marriages.
Seriously—
—what is it with Christians and consent? In seventeen years of awareness of gay political issues, which were introduced to me by Christian advocates, I have encountered all manner of strange or stupid rhetoric. And in all that time, one thing that is consistent about the argument is that the idea of consent apparently has no place in matters of sex, love, and marriage.
What the hell is up with that?
Mr. Hamtastic said:
Including social groups formed without consent?
If this is what it's coming to, it's time for the state to cease recognizing and sanctioning marriages.
Seriously—
—what is it with Christians and consent? In seventeen years of awareness of gay political issues, which were introduced to me by Christian advocates, I have encountered all manner of strange or stupid rhetoric. And in all that time, one thing that is consistent about the argument is that the idea of consent apparently has no place in matters of sex, love, and marriage.
What the hell is up with that?
Women have to make a trade off between sexuality and childcare. Not unusually, they often used to opt for childcare. The "liberation" of women, per se, is a direct result of the availability of choices that confer decision making to women in the arena of conception.
Since when do they have to trade sexuality for childcare? Even in the 50s, when everyone supposedly had a white picket fence and 2.3 children, women were sneaking out and getting their swerve on.
I've had sex with three mothers, one of whom was married. Where is the choice there? They can have both. They have always been able to have both.