Marriage Idea...

[ChristianCenturion]

You can only give your reasons to people whom agree with you? Interesting.

A sad attempt to rephrase in order to produce a strawman. Revealing.

A more honest person would see that the statement of:
One does not need to waste time presenting something to someone that has already made declaration that they will reject it.

Is more understood... and also revealing as to 'which' was the least objective person.

 

[corvus_corax]

For that matter, what would be the sole purpose of said person entering into a Christian based forum?

I know this wasnt directed at me, and Im not an atheist (

), but I personally come here to get exposed to new ideas through the format of debate (I like debate for some-odd reason)
And believe me, Ive been exposed to a LOT of new ideas here on CF. Granted, some of them I dont agree with, but Ive found some ideas and information that has really got me thinking.

 

[Jessica78]

So why do you bother to answer? Wasting valuable Site space?

 

[Jessica78]

Oh yeah Corvux. we need to do something about that Agnosticism you got there... I think i got the cure for it

*Pouting with her lips towards Corvus*

 

[corvus_corax]

Oh yeah Corvux. we need to do something about that Agnosticism you got there... I think i got the cure for it

hehe....my agnosticism is a wide worldview for me, not just relating to God.
But that's a whole 'nother thread there and I shant derail this one with my agnostic worldview.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I know this wasnt directed at me, and Im not an atheist (

), but I personally come here to get exposed to new ideas through the format of debate (I like debate for some-odd reason)
And believe me, Ive been exposed to a LOT of new ideas here on CF. Granted, some of them I dont agree with, but Ive found some ideas and information that has really got me thinking.

I hold the balance of these in mind:

Luke 9:50
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

Luke 11:23
“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.

I see your identification as true. And I have seen honesty and ability to view things in light of new information.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

So why do you bother to answer? Wasting valuable Site space?

Case in point.
You are confusing statements for public view and private messages.
Sometimes... it's not 'all about you'.

Shalom

 

[Electra]

I'm just tossing this out here, it is my opinion and nothing more.

I think there is a solution to the marriage issue, one that could give equal rights to everyone.

What if the government got out of marriage altogether, erase the word from all legal documents, nullify all marriage licenses, and so on. Now, instead grant the legal benefits that currently come with marriage to each and every individual, married, single, gay, straight, or celibate. No longer would these benefits depend on relationship status. If someone wants to get married, they can go have a ceremony wherever they want with whomever they want, and the government does not care or contribute.

Any comments?

I think that is an excellent thought! I am anti-marrage in any case (just a personal opinion) and I think that idea is perfect.

 

[rebel_conservative]

marriage is a religious institution that was co-opted into a state institution because the state realised marriage is in the interest of its survival, because a marriage is the most stable environment for raising children

citation: marriage provides the best environment for children to be raised in. The institution of marriage is society's established and recognised framework for providing a stable, enduring and committed environment for raising children - tomorrow's breadwinners and citizens. Children have many needs but their most basic is the support, love and protection of their parents. Those relationships that provide children with the most stable environment in which to be raised are found in marriage.

In response to the claim that this is an argument for permanent relationships, not necessarily involving marriage, research clearly shows that marriage involves more commitment than cohabitation. Marriage is based on vows of life-long commitment that are made publicly and entail a change in legal status. Not surprisingly therefore, recent evidence from the British Household Panel Study found that married couples are far more likely to stay together than couples who cohabit, even when children are involved2. http://www.care.org.uk/resource/ls/ls951207.htm

marriage is in the interests of govt, because it makes society more stable and ordered.

citation: marriage is the basis of a stable society. Marriage serves an important cohesive role in society, requiring men and women to take on public vows of life-long commitment to each other and to their children. Marriage also provides the most committed relationship within which to share the support and care for a wider group of people, such as the elderly or other members of the extended family, a commitment and responsibility that is less likely to be found in the looser ties of cohabitation. http://www.care.org.uk/resource/ls/ls951207.htm

--- also, Charles Murray in his book "Losing Ground" proved that marriage civilises men, makes them more hard-working, less inclined to criminality etc which is undoubtedly in the interests of the govt.

so no, the state should not get out of the marriage business. the state should have a role in promoting marriage. what we should be doing is RAISING the bar to marriage, not be lowering it, for 'no-fault' divorce, Britney Spears 55 hour marriage, common law marriage and (yes) same sex marriage, makes a mockery of marriage as a secular and religious instution.

 

[Jessica78]

marriage is a religious institution that was co-opted into a state institution because the state realised marriage is in the interest of its survival, because a marriage is the most stable environment for raising children

Over 50% of the Children in Sweden are born outside wedlock. Yet, there is more (%) children that live in a family (mom and dad) then in the United States, which have somewhat lower Outside Wedlock births. (The divorce rate on the other hand is more or less the same in both countries, around 50% or so if i remember).

So i would not agree to your statement, rather that the best environment for raising children would be in a loving, caring environment, and if this is mom, dad, or Eric and Bob, does not matter for me.

 

[rebel_conservative]

Over 50% of the Children in Sweden are born outside wedlock. Yet, there is more (%) children that live in a family (mom and dad) then in the United States, which have somewhat lower Outside Wedlock births. (The divorce rate on the other hand is more or less the same in both countries, around 50% or so if i remember).

So i would not agree to your statement, rather that the best environment for raising children would be in a loving, caring environment, and if this is mom, dad, or Eric and Bob, does not matter for me.

there are more factors at play than just the legal definition of marriage, culture, etc.

children need a female figure and a male figure. this is vital to their development.

 

[Jessica78]

there are more factors at play than just the legal definition of marriage, culture, etc.

Your saying that the Swedish culture is better?

children need a female figure and a male figure. this is vital to their development.

This is a nice topic, shall we?
But funny thing is, i am on your side, more or less, but i have no problem letting a male/male female/female adopt a child, as long as its controlled that they get a healthy understanding of everything, and role models (as everyone else). But here is the problem, as i doubt that the average homosexual would explain to there child that they have an defect (to many X chromosome). I think they would have a problem accepting this.

I have nothing against homosexuals, but its not about that, its about telling and explaining reality to a child, which i think would be limited. You could on the other hand let the people "observeing" making sure the children gets educated about the situation(?)

 

[rebel_conservative]

Your saying that the Swedish culture is better?

I am saying that there are many factors at work, but if there is a higher percentage of two-parent families, then I think it is better. I am not sure that copying Sweden will result in an improvement in America though. every country is different, subject to different pressures. hardcore porn is legally and freely available in Sweden, and I also believe that bestiality might be legal there (forgive me for NOT wanting to Google this information...) I don't think that we can make the link between their pornography laws, or their marriage laws and two-parent families.

but i have no problem letting a male/male female/female adopt a child, as long as its controlled that they get a healthy understanding of everything, and role models (as everyone else).

[sarcasm] wow, I am surprised that a fascist would think that is has to be controlled... [/sarcasm]

I don't think that you can control it. best to just keep adoption to two-parent families. [fact: there are ALWAYS couples looking to adopt babies. it is the difficult cases, older kids taken from their families due to crime,neglect, abuse etc.]

 

[aeroz19]

Re: OP

Well, that isn't actually a good idea. The government should instead issue civil contracts that last for a set number of years with the option for a life contract, and with all the legal benefits that married couples now have. To the government, there would be no such thing as "marriage," only "civil contracts." Get what I mean?

 

[aeroz19]

there are more factors at play than just the legal definition of marriage, culture, etc.

children need a female figure and a male figure. this is vital to their development.

Well if you could prove this without reference to religion maybe you'd get somewhere with the legal system.

 

[Jessica78]

and I also believe that bestiality might be legal there

Tidelag (bestiality) is illegal under the "animal abuse" law.

I don't think that you can control it. best to just keep adoption to two-parent families. [fact: there are ALWAYS couples looking to adopt babies. it is the difficult cases, older kids taken from their families due to crime,neglect, abuse etc.]

Yes, i agree, Jane and Eric, as well as Jane and Jane should be allowed to do this (and are, in Sweden atleast).

 

[rebel_conservative]

Tidelag (bestiality) is illegal under the "animal abuse" law.

ok, I stand corrected

Yes, i agree, Jane and Eric, as well as Jane and Jane should be allowed to do this (and are, in Sweden atleast).

hehe the worlds first p.c. fascist...? do you work for these guys? the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party
I think it is a joke... but I am not so sure...

 

[Jessica78]

hehe the worlds first p.c. fascist...? do you work for these guys? the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party
I think it is a joke... but I am not so sure...

I am not affiliated with any party, as i am not for Democracy.

 

[Jessica78]

You seem to have a strange view of what a "Fascist" is. I presume you dont know what it really means? Its very simple definition.

 

[rebel_conservative]

I am not affiliated with any party, as i am not for Democracy.

You seem to have a strange view of what a "Fascist" is. I presume you dont know what it really means? Its very simple definition.

I was joking I know exactly what fascism is, something to do with train timetables... right? (hehehe, also a joke )

seriously though, I DO know what fascism is
do you think the Franco, Salazar, Peron, Pinochet and Papadopoulos regimes were "fascist"?
do you think National Socialist Germany was "fascist"?