|
Grex > Agora46 > #92: Keep your religion off your private property! | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 185 responses total. |
flem
|
|
response 123 of 185:
| 
Aug 20 16:04 UTC 2003 |
Personally, my only objection to polygamy is that it seems that cultures that
practice polygamy usually practice forced marriage too. God forbid that 14
year old girls actually decide for themselves who to marry.
|
slynne
|
|
response 124 of 185:
|
Aug 20 17:49 UTC 2003 |
The answer there is to raise the age at which a person can get married
to 18.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 125 of 185:
|
Aug 20 18:19 UTC 2003 |
Based upon my experiences, and as a parent, I think 30 would be better....
8^}
|
tod
|
|
response 126 of 185:
|
Aug 20 19:04 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
lynne
|
|
response 127 of 185:
|
Aug 20 20:38 UTC 2003 |
Hmmm. I'd been thinking of the (mostly-Mormon) high-profile cases that
have come to my attention. Those really bug me--besides forcing or
brainwashing barely pubescent girls into marriage, I think incest is
relatively common. I think the "elders" of societies like these are on
a total control trip. Having said that, and considered a situation where
three consenting adults have concluded that they want to spend the rest
of their lives together, I find that I could care less what they want to
do. Ain't my business. And yet, I don't think that more than two people
(regardless of sex) should be able to get married. I think the law should
define a different ceremony/institution/whathaveyou to ensure legal rights
in such a situation.
(Then again, of people that can and do get married, maybe half of them
actually understand and mean the vows they're supposed to speak. So I
don't know why any of this matters to me in the first place. People suck.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 128 of 185:
|
Aug 21 01:25 UTC 2003 |
Vows are tricky things, especially when they become irrelevant because of
significant changes in circumstances or the people involved. Contracts I can
understand, as they also contain terms for termination, but vows don't seem
to recognize human nature. I think it admirable to keep one's "vows" so
long as keeping them is relevant to something, but what then when they are
no longer relevant?
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 129 of 185:
|
Aug 21 01:40 UTC 2003 |
resp:122 Oh go soak your head, Rane-- now you're making judgment calls
(about mine, no less, ya hypocrite). It was a point of clarification
and my own bloody opinion. Sure it's not relevant and people are
going to do what they damn well please-- it was for any stray idiot
that might get the mistaken idea I condoned it, if somehow that could
be construed. Pete's sake almighty, take a chill pill.
|
flem
|
|
response 130 of 185:
|
Aug 21 14:10 UTC 2003 |
Actually, that makes some sense. No more marriages as such, just make rules
for a new kind of corporation for individuals to pool their resources and be
treated by society as a unit in many senses. Built-in procedures for any
individual leaving the corporation and so forth.
|
lynne
|
|
response 131 of 185:
|
Aug 21 15:05 UTC 2003 |
...for further details, read any Robert A. Heinlein book. :)
|
scott
|
|
response 132 of 185:
|
Aug 21 15:29 UTC 2003 |
From a really old Doonesbury cartoon:
"Personally, I favor a system of lapel pins".
|
rcurl
|
|
response 133 of 185:
|
Aug 21 18:19 UTC 2003 |
I think #138 touches upon a large part of the problem: a lot of people just
don't want homosexual and other variant marriages to be CALLED marriage.
As shown in Vermont, it is more acceptable if called something else. Of
course, "A rose by any other name.....".
|
scg
|
|
response 134 of 185:
|
Aug 21 18:23 UTC 2003 |
I don't think I'd enjoy polygamy much, and thus don't feel very strongly about
it. However, if the goal is to ban forced marriages, incest, spousal abuse,
and people not taking care of their children, it strikes me as far more
effective to ban those things rather than to ban polygamy. A polygamy ban
on those grounds strikes me as really reaching.
|
lynne
|
|
response 135 of 185:
|
Aug 21 23:08 UTC 2003 |
I'd settle for banning brainwashing in addition to the list in 134, but
you'd have to be able to enforce all these things. So far, track record
on effectiveness not all that great.
|
i
|
|
response 136 of 185:
|
Aug 22 00:49 UTC 2003 |
Re: #133
Hmmm... The Church says "baptism"; the state says "birth certificate".
The Church says "confirmation"; the state says "legal age". The Church
says "late rites", the state says "death certificate". Looks to me
like the state needs to say that "marriage" is also strictly a Church
function and switch to the "partnership" business instead.
Not that lots of Church types wouldn't have a hissy fit over that, but
it'd be amusing to counter-attack with suggestions that they be required
to get state permits & pay state fees to baptize, confirm, ordain, etc. -
after all, those things are at least as important as marriage (from a
religions point of view), so it's just as important that the state make
sure they're properly register, restricted, taxed, etc....
|
rcurl
|
|
response 137 of 185:
|
Aug 22 01:55 UTC 2003 |
What the churches do now is on top of the state marriage. None of what
they do has any legal significance. Therefore I see no need for state
regulation of what they do in these regards. However the term "marriage"
has now been coopted into law, so the churches should find their own new
term to describe what they do.
|
pvn
|
|
response 138 of 185:
|
Aug 22 07:28 UTC 2003 |
You horrible little man. You are the epitome of what is wrong with our
country - not the least because you think it is yours alone along with
similar like minded. Our founding persons wrote the 1st ammendment
language prohibiting the state from establishing a state religion not
because they were against religion per se but because they didn't want
the power of the state to favor one over another. ITs the
"establishment clause" not the "separation of church and state". Likely
as not our founding persons would think you insane to suggest that one
could run a republic without some sort of church - be it cosmic muffin
or hairy thunderer - as one needs some sort of structure to civilize the
savage beasts (children) in the first place. (Do you have any children
that are not in prison?) Or perhaps you are one who violates the 1st by
calling for the state establishment of the religion of statism - the
state is such a model of efficiency, just look at AMTRACK or Medicare.
The only reason I bother to enter this item is to warn other readers
that you are a statist - others would say fascist.
|
gull
|
|
response 139 of 185:
|
Aug 22 13:35 UTC 2003 |
Re #133: I used to think that, too, but a recent survey shows that 44%
of opeople say they'd be less likely to back a Presidential candidate
who supported civil unions. Only 10% said they'd be more likely. 41%
of people favor allowing civil unions and 53% oppose them.
Re #136: I totally agree, of course.
Re #138: Yes, the state is so wasteful that a whopping 3.6% of Medicare
spending goes to administrative costs. The private health care industry
does so much better, they only waste 31%. ;>
|
flem
|
|
response 140 of 185:
|
Aug 22 14:40 UTC 2003 |
re #136: Hear, hear. Would you consider running for governor of California?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 141 of 185:
|
Aug 22 19:57 UTC 2003 |
Our founding persons wrote the first amendment because they saw the
consequences of the church meddling in state affairs and the state
meddling in church affairs. No, they were mostly not against religion, but
many of them were deists at best and pretty much avoided religious
organization. But most founders did think a republic could be run without
religions, and they founded one - the USA.
My three children have never committed a felony. The oldest is 48. They
are all educated, civilized, contributors to society, and non-religious.
Why would you assume otherwise? It would seem that you are a narrow minded
demagogue, and your likes are one of the things wrong with our country.
|
klg
|
|
response 142 of 185:
|
Aug 22 20:12 UTC 2003 |
re: "#141 (rcurl): ... But most founders did think a republic could be
run without religions ...."
Not according to our readings.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 143 of 185:
|
Aug 22 20:32 UTC 2003 |
You are clearly mistaken, as our constitution nowhere requires religion.
|
pvn
|
|
response 144 of 185:
|
Aug 30 07:28 UTC 2003 |
Yes, repeat, no , it merely evolved from a context that presupposed
such. "Endowed by the Creator" for example ain't exactly a "secular"
statement. And you claim 'deists' are athiests which is patently
absurd. The genius of the US Constitution is that ultimately it is the
individual citizen granted authority (perhaps even 'ex nihilo')
delegated to State (or federal). Thus if the citizens of New Zion want
to have a cross as part of its city symbol it is neither the state nor
the federal government's place to prohibit it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 145 of 185:
|
Aug 30 20:04 UTC 2003 |
It obviously did NOT evolve "from a context that presupposed such", or
there would be some content that mentioned "such". The writers, of course,
had some personal opinions on "such", and probably on other matters too
such as their diet, but kept that (and personal diet recommendations)
strictly to themselves, as we all should if we are public servants.
It certainly is the federal governments obligation to deny religious
expression in the course of public duties. Any such religious expression
is inclined to "establish" because of the public authority held by public
servants.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 146 of 185:
|
Sep 16 05:31 UTC 2003 |
Rane, you insist upon considering the Consitution in a vacuum. It was not
written in one. The authors had many other texts, which provided the
background for what they put into that short document.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 147 of 185:
|
Sep 16 07:13 UTC 2003 |
Not at all - in fact I said so directly. Everyone has a background that
influences their behavior. But the founders, GIVEN their background, choose
to completely eliminate religion from the governmental structure they created.
That speaks volumes to their intent.
|