Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (118) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 196430  
Subject: Reforming marriage Date: 1/9/2005 7:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Touchstone Magazine has an excellent issue out with marriage as its theme (http://www.touchstonemag.com/, especially http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-01-038-f).

An excellent point in one article: marriage was already dead as a viable institution as a result of no-fault divorce laws long before homosexuals had a crack at it. The banning of gay marriage should therefore only be a first step in the restoration of the process.

Not only is no-fault divorce part of the decline, assisting it was the sexual revolution and widespread use of contraception.

Using the language of economics, Akerlof pointed out that “technological innovation creates both winners and losers.” In this case the introduction of widespread effective contraception—especially the pill—put traditional women with an interest in marriage and children at “competitive disadvantage” in the relationship “market” compared to modern women who took a more hedonistic approach to sex and relationships. The contraceptive revolution also reduced the costs of sex for women and men, insofar as the threat of childbearing was taken off the table, especially as abortion became widely available in the 1970s.

The consequence? Traditional women could no longer hold the threat of pregnancy over their male partners, either to avoid sex or to elicit a promise of marriage in the event their partner made them pregnant. And modern women no longer worried about getting pregnant. Accordingly, more and more women (traditional as well as modern) gave in to their boyfriends' entreaties for sex.

In Akerlof's words, “the norm of premarital sexual abstinence all but vanished in the wake of the technology shock.” Women felt free or obligated to have sex before marriage. For instance, Akerlof finds that the percentage of girls 16 and under reporting sexual activity surged in 1970 and 1971 as contraception and abortion became common in many states throughout the country.


Akerlof, by the way, is a liberal and a Nobel Prize winner, in economics. The article's author also points out that the sexual revolution has had a disproportionate deleterious effect on the poor (my bold):

One pair of statistical trends illustrates the way in which the social pathologies of the late twentieth century fell disproportionately on the poor. About 5 percent of college-educated women now have a child outside marriage (little change since the 1960s), but about 20 percent of women with a high-school education or less now have a child outside marriage (up from 7 percent in the 1960s).

So, playing devil's advocate for a moment, I have a suggestion regarding marriage, and that is to go to two tiers:

Common marriage: Such marriages have inheritance rights and access to spousal health insurance and other payroll benefits, but no tax or welfare privileges. Divorce is no-fault, with child support but no alimony involved. This option is open to any combination of people of any sex, with, say, a limit of 5 adults participating (thereby allowing Mormon and Muslim polygamy).

Covenant marriage: Such marriages are restricted to two people, again of either sex (though I strongly doubt that any gays would select this option). They must either give birth to or adopt a child within 3 years. (If that doesn't happen, the marriage reverts to the common option with no penalty.) Divorce will carry a financial penalty in addition to court costs, corresponding to the societal cost of divorce: special education needs, government funded childcare, welfare dependency, juvenile deliquency and incarceration of the children, etc. This comes to approximately $30,000 per divorce, but as a penalty it could be calculated as a percentage of per capita GDP and applied as a one-time graduated tax on each spouse's income. If fault can be determined by a court, then the penalty can be apportioned accordingly between the spouses (but with some sort of graduation based upon the losing spouse's income).
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JustWhoIAm Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117600 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/9/2005 8:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 17
I'm sorry to tell you this, but gays have nothing to do with destroying or saving marriage. What people see as the destruction of marriage is only a symptom of the decline of personal responsibilities. If christians and others (religious or not) have more divorces now than in the past, it is due to people deciding they do not need to adhere to a commitment they made in the past.

People are finding all kinds of reasons not to blame themselves. Blaming homosexuals is just one example. You also have people blaming big business for their lack of a job. Way too few are willing to come forward and say, "It's my fault." It is easier to say, "It's their fault." Then you have the governments and churches taking the up the side of the 'not my fault' crowd, because they want their patronage. They do not want to insult the 'victims' and lose their support. Which allows it to extend to another area that they can blame others for. The spiral has gone on for a long time, likely dozens of years or decades. Of course, this is all G.W. Bush's fault.

Keith

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117616 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/10/2005 12:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Paul,

So, playing devil's advocate for a moment, I have a suggestion regarding marriage, and that is to go to two tiers:

Common marriage: Such marriages have inheritance rights and access to spousal health insurance and other payroll benefits, but no tax or welfare privileges. Divorce is no-fault, with child support but no alimony involved. This option is open to any combination of people of any sex, with, say, a limit of 5 adults participating (thereby allowing Mormon and Muslim polygamy).

Covenant marriage: Such marriages are restricted to two people, again of either sex (though I strongly doubt that any gays would select this option). They must either give birth to or adopt a child within 3 years. (If that doesn't happen, the marriage reverts to the common option with no penalty.) Divorce will carry a financial penalty in addition to court costs, corresponding to the societal cost of divorce: special education needs, government funded childcare, welfare dependency, juvenile deliquency and incarceration of the children, etc. This comes to approximately $30,000 per divorce, but as a penalty it could be calculated as a percentage of per capita GDP and applied as a one-time graduated tax on each spouse's income. If fault can be determined by a court, then the penalty can be apportioned accordingly between the spouses (but with some sort of graduation based upon the losing spouse's income).


* Gag! Blech! Spit! Vomit! *

Yuck!

This scheme does NOTHING to recognize what marriage is -- the union of a man and a woman to provide a stable envirnment for bearing, nurturing, and raising children -- under the natural law, which is what should guide our legislation.

Second, the greatest social cost comes not from true marriage, but rather from children born out of wedlock or born into relationships that are not stable. Thus, the proposed penalties fall exactly in the wrong place -- on those whose efforts to act rightly fail rather than on those who act wrongly.

Third, in most divorces, there's plenty of fault to go around -- and often not only to the couple, but also to others who should have intervened but failed to do so. The usual behaviors such as affairs and abuse that we construe to imply fault in a divorce usually are only symptoms of much deeper problems within the relationship. Some time ago, "Dear Abby" ran a column in which she printed a poem, the jist of which is that the wife claimed to nag her huaband because he drank too much and he claimed to drink because he could not stand her nagging. The poem concluded that the husbant was a lush and the wife was a shrew. The bottom line is that neither of them had any business entering into a marriage in the first place.

We need to amend our civil laws to provide

>> (1) a fairly rigorous screening process to ensure that people who wish to marry are both mature enough to understand the nature of marriage and psychologically and emotionally healthy enough to be capable of fulfilling the essential obligations of marriage, as a requirement for obtaining a marriage license, and

>> (2) serious legal penalties for people who bear children out of wedlock or otherwise fail to provide an adequate home environment for their children.

In the way of penalties, I generally favor fines sufficient to cover the apportioned social cost of such offenses, but serious prison sentences certainly would be appropriate for habitual offenders.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117617 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/10/2005 12:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Keith,

I'm sorry to tell you this, but gays have nothing to do with destroying or saving marriage. What people see as the destruction of marriage is only a symptom of the decline of personal responsibilities.

That's true.

Of course, the issue of not holding people accountable for their own actions began back when our elected officials decided to mount a campaign of radio and television advertixements saying to "lock your car and take your keys" rather than providing vigorous prosecution of, long sentences for, and adequate jails to house those convicted of "grand theft (auto)" (late 1950's and early 1960's, IIRC). I was too young to vote back then, but the trend has continued to snowball.

If christians and others (religious or not) have more divorces now than in the past, it is due to people deciding they do not need to adhere to a commitment they made in the past.

That's a major part of the story -- but only part of the story. The other part of the story is people making commitments that they had no right to make due to factors such as their own ability to fulfill essential obligations implied within that commitment, their own lack of understanding of the commitment that they were making and their own obligations under it, their own inability to recognize obvious indications of the inappropriateness of the relationshop due to their own immaturity, or their own ability to follow their own judgement due to excessive social and/or familial pressure.

The current social order has replaces a situation in which many people remained in abusive or otherwise sick relationships with a situation in which there's no sense of commitment at all. Neither is healthy. Going forward, let us promote marriages that are rooted in the health of both spouses and their relationship together.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117618 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/10/2005 2:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
This scheme does NOTHING to recognize what marriage is -- the union of a man and a woman to provide a stable envirnment for bearing, nurturing, and raising children -- under the natural law, which is what should guide our legislation.



I'm sure this has been mentioned previously, but what about the people who wish to marry, but do not wish to have children. Your view of marriage is very narrow, and it should not be a part of any legislation.


Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: khalou Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117619 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/10/2005 4:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
campaign of radio and television advertixements saying to "lock your car and take your keys"

I remember that!

Thanks for the blast from the past. :o)

k

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117620 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/10/2005 4:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
rev: This scheme does NOTHING to recognize what marriage is -- the union of a man and a woman to provide a stable envirnment for bearing, nurturing, and raising children -- under the natural law, which is what should guide our legislation.

Since contraception isn't natural, I assume you want to outlaw birth control, then.




Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2195501y Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117623 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/10/2005 8:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Traditional women could no longer hold the threat of pregnancy over their male partners, either to avoid sex or to elicit a promise of marriage in the event their partner made them pregnant.

I think this goes to the gist of the issue.

As soon as no one could be coerced or trapped into marriage, the whole instutution fell apart like a house of cards it always was.

2195501y


Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117624 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/10/2005 9:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
This scheme does NOTHING to recognize what marriage is -- the union of a man and a woman to provide a stable envirnment for bearing, nurturing, and raising children -- under the natural law, which is what should guide our legislation.

It seems that every single poster missed the point of the original post. I must have set a personal worst in lack of clarity. I repent.

In my post, I proposed making marriage an institution that does just what I quote. The idea is that you create two versions of marriage (this already exists in Louisiana, BTW). The first is common marriage, which would be the end point of the destructive process now underway. For this, you take away tax benefits, but leave in civil benefits.

For covenantal marriage, stability for raising children is provided by backloading an exit penalty and by mandating that children either be engendered or adopted. Such marriage would also have tax advantages, perhaps higher than now occurring. Finally, currently married couples would, by claiming marriage tax rates, be automatically deemed covenantal.

Make the exit cost high enough and people will find a way to stay married. In other words, to use an economic phrase, you make it sticky. Gays would be welcome, but I believe that those that try would soon be making significant contributions to the community coffers. In any event, they would finally get to put their money where their mouth is.

There is no other way I see to take back marriage from the barbarians that now control it.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: MrCheeryO Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117625 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/10/2005 11:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Covenant marriage...

Been there, done that. A bust.

As gay-union feud looms, covenant marriage languishes

The issue during that session was, by comparison, benign. It was a bill that created a second type of licensed marriage, called a covenant marriage. It was a program pushed by ministers as a reaction to what they saw as the devaluing of marriage across the country......

Louisiana was the first state to pass it; Arizona was second....

According to Maricopa County, less than 1 percent of couples take out a covenant license. In 2003, for example, just 80 couples got married in a covenant ceremony, compared with more than 20,000 the old-fashioned, no-fault way.

The low numbers surprise state Treasurer David Petersen. As a state senator in 1998, he introduced the legislation. "This was something that the faith community really wanted. I felt we had a duty to give the choice to those who wanted it," Petersen said. "I never really thought about the numbers. But I never thought it'd be as low as it's been, either. I could envision 5,000 or 10,000." All total, less than 800 couples have taken the covenant option......

The covenant marriage experiment shows it's hard to get people to commit themselves to love, honor and respect. But getting people to squash the rights of others? That's easy.


http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0110ruelas10.html









Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117631 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 11:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Charlie,

I'm sure this has been mentioned previously, but what about the people who wish to marry, but do not wish to have children.

To "marry" in such situations is contrary to the natural orientation purpose of marriage.

The statement that the natural orientation of marriage is to provide a stable environment for bearing, nurturing, and raising children does not imply any guarantee that every couple who marry will succeed in bearing children. Nonetheless, it's fallacious to enter a supposed marriage (1) with an explicit intent of not bearing children, (2) with explicit knowledge that one is not capable of consummating the marriage, or (3) if there's some other dysfunctionality that precludes providing and maintaining a stable and nurturing home environment.

Your view of marriage is very narrow, and it should not be a part of any legislation.

Whether you perceive a statement to be "wide" or "narrow" is immaterial to its accuracy.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117632 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 11:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
feedmeNOwhuman,

Since contraception isn't natural, I assume you want to outlaw birth control, then.

The natural law objectively does provide justification for doing so.

That said, it's also very clear that contraception is not the same magnitude of crime as abortion because contraception does not extinguish human lives. Thus, there's no moral compulsion to regulate contraception.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117633 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 11:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
MrCheeryO,

According to Maricopa County, less than 1 percent of couples take out a covenant license. In 2003, for example, just 80 couples got married in a covenant ceremony, compared with more than 20,000 the old-fashioned, no-fault way.

Here is where churches really should have taken a stand by insisting that all couples wishing to marry in the church enter a "covenant marriage" under secular law because the "covenant marriage" is the only form of marriage that's compatible with Chriatian marriage.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117634 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 12:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
<<Here is where churches really should have taken a stand by insisting that all couples wishing to marry in the church enter a "covenant marriage" under secular law because the "covenant marriage" is the only form of marriage that's compatible with Chriatian marriage.

Norm.
>>

LOL
Are you saying that Christian marriage needs a secular law and penalties to hold it together? Sounds like the fine tradition of a "church leader" having a mistress because divorce was forbidden by the church!
If you need secular penalties to hold the marriage together then it is no longer a "christian marriage".



Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kasuma724 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117635 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 1:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
<<Nonetheless, it's fallacious to enter a supposed marriage (1) with an explicit intent of not bearing children, (2) with explicit knowledge that one is not capable of consummating the marriage, or (3) if there's some other dysfunctionality that precludes providing and maintaining a stable and nurturing home environment.>>


Norm...

I love you like a brother, but this is one of the more hurtful, thoughtless and unkind things I've ever heard you say.

I would urge you to review some of the things God has to say about Job's "comforters" and the Pharisees who placed burdens on God's people that He never intended them to bear. To imply that marriage is worthless apart from the intention/possibility of bearing children is just unbiblical.

While I agree that marriages are entered into too blithely in our culture, to add to the pain of those who are not able to bear/father children is cruel.

Kas

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117636 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 1:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
<<To imply that marriage is worthless apart from the intention/possibility of bearing children is just unbiblical. >>

Yes it is!

Genesis 2:
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him
.
.
.
But for Adam [h] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [i] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called 'woman, [k] '

for she was taken out of man."


24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

####################################



Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117637 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 1:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
To "marry" in such situations is contrary to the natural orientation purpose of marriage.

The statement that the natural orientation of marriage is to provide a stable environment for bearing, nurturing, and raising children does not imply any guarantee that every couple who marry will succeed in bearing children. Nonetheless, it's fallacious to enter a supposed marriage (1) with an explicit intent of not bearing children, (2) with explicit knowledge that one is not capable of consummating the marriage, or (3) if there's some other dysfunctionality that precludes providing and maintaining a stable and nurturing home environment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you are using on every narrow definition of what marriage is, and it is an important point to raise if talking about legislating marriage.

The notion of marriage has many different defnitions. For some it's been a monetary arrangement. We are not that far removed from women being sold to men for land and business purposes. Arranged marriages are also used for these kinds of purposes.

There is the notion of marriage because two people love each other. This is the romantic ideal of marriage. It has kept the writers of novels, films and tv programs gainfully employed for a long time. All one has to do is see a wedding like a royal wedding to see that people yearn for this kind of marriage.

There is marriage for convenience. People marry to better their personal lot in life. Specifically I am thinking of those who marry for immigration purposes.

Now we have various groups of people trying to include their definitions of marriage to a long list of definitions. There are gay people who wish to live in a committed legal marriage. And there are religious people, like Norm, who say marraige is for children.

My point is there is no one definition of marriage, because it is an evolving notion. We, as a society have to be very careful about legislating such notions. It wasn't that long ago that inter-racial couple were forbidden from marrying.

The narrow view, in my opinion, is a danger.

Charlie


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117638 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 2:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Paul,

It seems that every single poster missed the point of the original post. I must have set a personal worst in lack of clarity. I repent.

I actually understood that you were being somewhat sarcastic from your comment about playing advocatus diaboli. Nonetheless, the exercise of critiquing your proposal was quite thought-provoking.

In my post, I proposed making marriage an institution that does just what I quote. The idea is that you create two versions of marriage (this already exists in Louisiana, BTW). The first is common marriage, which would be the end point of the destructive process now underway. For this, you take away tax benefits, but leave in civil benefits.

Yes, I'm aware that Louisiana offers this choice because I saw the news reports when that state adopted it. According to another post, Arizona apparently also provides a similar choice.

For covenantal marriage, stability for raising children is provided by backloading an exit penalty and by mandating that children either be engendered or adopted. Such marriage would also have tax advantages, perhaps higher than now occurring. Finally, currently married couples would, by claiming marriage tax rates, be automatically deemed covenantal.

The problem here is that it's children born into an environment that is not nurturing who pose the most challenging social problem. Unless the law provides more severe consequences for bringing children into such environments, the penalty that you propose for ending a "covenant marriage" would only discourage people from entering such a marriage.

Make the exit cost high enough and people will find a way to stay married. In other words, to use an economic phrase, you make it sticky. Gays would be welcome, but I believe that those that try would soon be making significant contributions to the community coffers. In any event, they would finally get to put their money where their mouth is.

Actually, I like the innovative solution that one Italian judge imposed after a couple seeking a divorce presented a settlement that he deemed unacceptable. He decreed that the parents would place the family home in a trust for the children, with both parents as trustees, and that the children would live there. Since the parents had agreed to alternate custody every two weeks, he further decreed that the parents would alternate custody every two weeks, as they had proposed, and that each parent would stay at the house with the children while exercising custody and would stay elsewhere when the other parent exercised custody. Within a matter of months, the parents concluded that the inconveniene of moving every two weeks greatly exceeded their differences and decided to remarry each other.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117639 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 2:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Kas,

Me: Nonetheless, it's fallacious to enter a supposed marriage (1) with an explicit intent of not bearing children, (2) with explicit knowledge that one is not capable of consummating the marriage, or (3) if there's some other dysfunctionality that precludes providing and maintaining a stable and nurturing home environment.

You: I love you like a brother, but this is one of the more hurtful, thoughtless and unkind things I've ever heard you say.

How is my statement either thoughtless or unkind?

To imply that marriage is worthless apart from the intention/possibility of bearing children is just unbiblical.

If you reread my statement carefully, you'll note that I did not make any mention of impossibility of bearing children. Rather, I made mention of impossibility of consummating the marriage -- and there is a BIG difference. One need not be impotent to be infertile.

While I agree that marriages are entered into too blithely in our culture, to add to the pain of those who are not able to bear/father children is cruel.

How does remaining single add to somebody's pain?

Note that there is nothing precluding a single person from having meaningful, loving, caring relationships.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117640 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 2:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Lawrence,

Are you saying that Christian marriage needs a secular law and penalties to hold it together?

No. Rather, I am suggesting that somebody who chooses a marriage that easy to dissolve under civil law over a marriage that is less easy to dissolve under civil law manifests his or her intent by such a choice. Such manifest intention that the marriage be easy to dissolve clearly is not compatible with the Christian concept of marriage ("Let no man separate what God has joined.") and therefore reason for the church to refuse such marriages as contrary to scripture.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117641 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 2:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
khalou,

I remember that!

Thanks for the blast from the past. :o)


Careful! You're dating yourself....

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117642 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 2:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Charlie,

The notion of marriage has many different defnitions.

If so, it's only because too many people have been using the term sloppily for too long.

For some it's been a monetary arrangement. We are not that far removed from women being sold to men for land and business purposes. Arranged marriages are also used for these kinds of purposes.

There is the notion of marriage because two people love each other. This is the romantic ideal of marriage. It has kept the writers of novels, films and tv programs gainfully employed for a long time. All one has to do is see a wedding like a royal wedding to see that people yearn for this kind of marriage.


It's true that both financial arraangements and romance ordinarily are part of a marriage -- but they are not the purpose of a marriage in their own right. Rather, they are means toward fulfillment of the purpose of a marriage, which is to provide a stable environment in which to bear, nurture, and raise children. The financial arrangements of a marriage obviously are intended to provide for the material needs of the family -- food, clothing, shelter, etc. -- while the romantic element is fundamentally oriented toward building strengthening the bond between the parents and toward promotion of the procreative act.

There is marriage for convenience. People marry to better their personal lot in life. Specifically I am thinking of those who marry for immigration purposes.

A so-called "marriage for convenience" is, quite bluntly, a violent abuse of marriage in which each supposed spouse uses the other for his or her no ends. Such relationships usually have "arrangemetns" in which the "husband" has a "mistress" and the "wife" has a "consort" -- each of whom is known to the other supposed spouse. In reality, the whole facade of marriage is a sham.

Now we have various groups of people trying to include their definitions of marriage to a long list of definitions. There are gay people who wish to live in a committed legal marriage. And there are religious people, like Norm, who say marraige is for children.

My point is there is no one definition of marriage, because it is an evolving notion. We, as a society have to be very careful about legislating such notions. It wasn't that long ago that inter-racial couple were forbidden from marrying.


The English word "marriage" is far bigger than you, me, or any of the groups who think that it should mean something different than what it really means.

If two or more people -- whether gay or straight -- want to have some sort of legal covenant between them by which they confer certain rights to each other, I have no problem whatsoever with such arrangements. Nonetheless, I reject the use of the term "marriage" to refer to such relationships.

The narrow view, in my opinion, is a danger.

Rather, the misuse of the English language is the real danger.

The English language is spoken and understood throughout the world. It is the principal language of technology, commerce, medicine, and cultural intercourse and a major language of diplomacy throughout the world. Its expansion as a global language is a major contributor to the promotion of peace, prosperity, and good will throughout the world. Groups of incorrigible imbeciles who persist in corrupting the language to their own ends, global communication will break down -- undermining over three score years of advances in these areas. That, sir, is the real danger.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kasuma724 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117643 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 3:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 15
<<How is my statement either thoughtless or unkind?

If you reread my statement carefully, you'll note that I did not make any mention of impossibility of bearing children. Rather, I made mention of impossibility of consummating the marriage -- and there is a BIG difference. One need not be impotent to be infertile.

How does remaining single add to somebody's pain?

Note that there is nothing precluding a single person from having meaningful, loving, caring relationships.>>


Your statement is unkind because you have completely disenfranchised anyone who doesn't fit your definition of marriagable... essentially limiting it to those who intend to and believe they are capable of producing children.

That discounts the fact that marriage was created by and blessed by God in Eden, long before children came into the picture. (Yes, I'm aware that God knew the future - but the original Genesis marriage blessing doesn't mention children.)

It discounts the fact that God uses the marriage relationship as a symbol of the relationship Christ has with the Church.

It discounts the examples of godly people who were not blessed with children and suffered the derision of those around them who assumed it was a sign of God's disfavor.

It reduces marriage to the sex act (you've said someone is impotent they should not marry(!?)) rather than the mystery of the joining of 2 people into one.

I am single and am content to be. I have loving, meaningful relationships. My singleness gives me blessings that married people do not have - in that I must rely on God directly for many of my needs. I am free to pursue what I believe God has called me to do. I have resources available to the work of God that someone with family obligations may not have.

But I am completely aware that I miss some of the blessing that married people have - their understanding of the Trinity is enhanced by their perspective as two-become-one. I do not have the level of partnership that a married couple should have in life/ministry. There is no one in my life that will be with me until "death do us part".

I am also aware that those without children miss some of the blessings of being a parent - insight into the love the Father has for His children and exactly what it cost to sacrifice His Son on our behalf.

I repeat, I am perfectly content to remain single. But not all have this call. Those who, for whatever reason, do not fit your definition of marriagable, do not need to hear the noise of their unworthiness in your eyes.

That's why I urged you to consider Job's "comforters".


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: khalou Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117644 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 3:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The English word "marriage" is far bigger than you, me, or any of the groups who think that it should mean something different than what it really means.

If two or more people -- whether gay or straight -- want to have some sort of legal covenant between them by which they confer certain rights to each other, I have no problem whatsoever with such arrangements. Nonetheless, I reject the use of the term "marriage" to refer to such relationships.

The narrow view, in my opinion, is a danger.

Rather, the misuse of the English language is the real danger.

The English language is spoken and understood throughout the world. It is the principal language of technology, commerce, medicine, and cultural intercourse and a major language of diplomacy throughout the world. Its expansion as a global language is a major contributor to the promotion of peace, prosperity, and good will throughout the world. Groups of incorrigible imbeciles who persist in corrupting the language to their own ends, global communication will break down -- undermining over three score years of advances in these areas. That, sir, is the real danger.

Norm.


I found this history interesting--

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=567

It seems that marriage has meant many things over time and has changed the most fairly recently. Are you certain that our current version is the "true" one and will not change in the future, and if so, why?

k :o)

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117645 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 7:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Kasuma,

Your statement is unkind because you have completely disenfranchised anyone who doesn't fit your definition of marriagable... essentially limiting it to those who intend to and believe they are capable of producing children.

Your criticism is missing the mark because you are miscontruing what I said in a way that's far more broad than the actual statement.

That said, even the scriptures are quite clear that some persons are NOT capable of marriage.

That discounts the fact that marriage was created by and blessed by God in Eden, long before children came into the picture. (Yes, I'm aware that God knew the future - but the original Genesis marriage blessing doesn't mention children.)

Wrong.

God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the Earth and subdue it. (Genesis 1:28a)

It discounts the fact that God uses the marriage relationship as a symbol of the relationship Christ has with the Church.

Not at all. In fact, quite the contrary -- one of the essential elements of this sign is precisely that the union brings forth new life, just as the union of Christ and the Church brings new life to all who come to faith.

It discounts the examples of godly people who were not blessed with children and suffered the derision of those around them who assumed it was a sign of God's disfavor.

No to that also -- though there is no doubt, in the scriptures, that children are a blessing.

It reduces marriage to the sex act (you've said someone is impotent they should not marry(!?)) rather than the mystery of the joining of 2 people into one.

No, again, though a marriage is "ratified" by the exchange of vows, then "consummated" by a complete sexual act. A marriage that is ratified but not consummated is not completed. Note, though, that consummation is presumed if the bride and the bridegroom have cohabited after the ratification of the marriage.

You completely missed the essence of my original statement -- that, under natural law, marriage is a union of a man and a woman, oriented toward providing a stable environment for bearing, nurturing, and raising children. That statement has many ramifications, not the least of which is the direct implication of a stable and intimate relationship between the man and the woman in which each is wholly committed toward their common well-being and purpose.

Note, BTW, that I was speaking from the perspective of natural law rather than from the scriptural perspective for a very important reason. The scriptures are fundamentally religous in nature, so they cannot be the basis for legislation in a pluralistic society. Natural law, OTHO, is inherent in nature, independent of the tenets of any religion, and thus binding upon all humanity -- even atheists. Of course, all of us who recognize God as the creator of the universe recognize that God also created the natural law. Since God, who cannot contradict himself, is the author of both natural law and scripture, it is readily apparent that there cannot be any contradiction between natural law and scripture.

I am single and am content to be. I have loving, meaningful relationships. My singleness gives me blessings that married people do not have - in that I must rely on God directly for many of my needs. I am free to pursue what I believe God has called me to do. I have resources available to the work of God that someone with family obligations may not have.

But I am completely aware that I miss some of the blessing that married people have - their understanding of the Trinity is enhanced by their perspective as two-become-one. I do not have the level of partnership that a married couple should have in life/ministry. There is no one in my life that will be with me until "death do us part".

I am also aware that those without children miss some of the blessings of being a parent - insight into the love the Father has for His children and exactly what it cost to sacrifice His Son on our behalf.


Gosh, all these tradeoffs!

The reality is that any choice of one legitimate Christian lifestyle over another necessarily involves some degree of sacrifice. If you choose marriage, you probably will have to make less income go further than a single person. If you choose to remain single, you don't experience the roles of spouse and parent, with all the blessings that they can bring.

OTOH, there are many -- indeed, too many -- "marriages from hell" in our society. The causes are many -- immaturity, inadequacy, addiction, abusiveness, belligerance, selfishness, etc., etc., etc. There probably are some regulars on this board who could tell of their attempts at marriage that turned into complete horror stories. Those who are not ready, whether personally, emotionally, physically, or spiritually, to fulfill the obligations of marriage cannot have an absolute right to marry and cause such grievous suffering to others.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117646 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 8:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
rev2217: "Those who are not ready, whether personally, emotionally, physically, or spiritually, to fulfill the obligations of marriage cannot have an absolute right to marry and cause such grievous suffering to others."

No right is absolute, but how would you write a law to enforce your view and meet Constitutional scrutiny???

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)."

From Loving v. Virginia, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

"While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)."

Id.

JAFO ---- Regulating basic civil rights will always bring strict scrutiny from the USSC. A mere rational basis will not suffice.

"In order to satisfy strict scrutiny, a law must be neither vague nor substantially over- or underinclusive. It must further an overriding state interest yet be drawn with narrow specificity to avoid any unnecessary intrusion on [protected, Constitutional] rights."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s118.htm

"The strict scrutiny standard is the most thorough analysis. Sometimes it is referred to as strict in theory but fatal in fact because few governmental programs survive strict scrutiny. The governmental purpose, objective, or interest may be referred to as "compelling." The means to achieve the purpose, objective, or interest is reviewed to determine if it is "narrowly tailored" to the accomplishment of the governmental purpose, objective, or interest."

http://www.wifcon.com/analadarscrutiny.htm

See also: http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/scrutiny.htm

'The Court also applies strict scrutiny to classifications burdening certain fundamental rights. Skinner v Oklahoma considers an Oklahoma law requiring the sterilization of persons convicted of three or more felonies involving moral turpitude ("three strikes and your snipped"). In Justice Douglas's opinion invalidating the law we see the origins of the higher-tier analysis that the Court applies to rights of a "fundamental nature" such as marriage and procreation. Skinner thus casts doubt on the continuing validity of the oft-quoted dictum of Justice Holmes in a 1927 case (Buck v Bell) considering the forced sterilization of certain mental incompetents: "Three generations of imbeciles is enough."' [emphasis added]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=262&invol=390

"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and . . ." [emphasis added]

Id.

Maybe I may simply lack imagination, but even assuming arguendo that your proposal is a compelling government interest, I cannot begin fathom the test(s) you would use that would be so narrowly tailored to meet your ends and not be either over-inclusive or under-inclusive?

Curiously, JAFO




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cowhoney Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117647 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/11/2005 11:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Jafo,

Your "legal" dissertation is correct.

Boy Howdy, I wish I could bill you out!

The mistake of most posting is trying to find a legal/civil "law" regarding marriage.

Y'all know I really want to say "nuke" here; but, I ain't gonna!


....8, 9, 10 !


1/2 cigar later:

Some prayer here:


I PRAY that all of you find someone that I love as much as Mrs. Cowhoney; more important, may you find someone who loves you more than Mrs. Cowhoney loves me!

I pray for many things: If God ignores all my future prayers, He did more than right by me in giving me a living Saint for a wife.

Should He see fit to grant you a fraction of my blessings, may He, through the Spirit, find you a mate comparable to mine.

I cannot offer a greater blessing,
Cowhoney


Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117648 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/12/2005 12:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
cowhoney wrote:

I PRAY that all of you find someone that I love as much as Mrs. Cowhoney; more important, may you find someone who loves you more than Mrs. Cowhoney loves me!

I have to tell you, Cowhoney, that's probably the best advice that anyone ever gave me: to find someone else who loves you more than you love them.

I know it sounds stupid and it sounds unfair, but when you think about it, it's really not stupid or unfair at all.

I already KNOW that I love my husband with all of my heart. Knowing that I have all of the faults that I do, I think that much more of the love my husband shows me!

Silly? Perhaps.

Good advice? I think so.

I cannot offer a greater blessing,

There is no greater blessing than love.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jrdown Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117649 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/12/2005 12:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Cowhoney and CCSand ~

Every now and then it's nice to contemplate how blessed we are for those of us in a happy marriage.

I love my husband more now than I did when we married 22 1/2 years ago and I thought I really loved him then!

Life is still a great adventure and he still can make me cry with his thoughtfulness!


Robyn



Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117651 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/12/2005 12:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
JAFO,

No right is absolute, but how would you write a law to enforce your view and meet Constitutional scrutiny???

The same way that, for example, legal requirements for blood tests (to show that one is free of sexually transmitted diseases) and laws forbidding polygamy pass constitutional scrutiny. Your portrayal of marriage as a "civil right" is coming across as an implication that anything goes because the government has no right to regulate it. Obviously, that's not what the court has said because the court has not tossed out, for example, laws forbidding polygamy or requirements to be free of sexually transmitted diseases.

More fundamentally, there's a big difference between a prohibition of marriage in certain cases and requirement to resolve various obstacles to marriage before you can marry. The fact that there may be no way to resolve certain obstacles (for example, a sexually transmitted disease that has no cure, like HIV/AIDS) does not prevent the state from enforcing a requirement that one resolve it before marrying, even though the effect of such obstacles may be a permanent prohibition.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117653 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/12/2005 12:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
rev2217:

JAFO: <<<<No right is absolute, but how would you write a law to enforce your view and meet Constitutional scrutiny???>>>>

"The same way that, for example, legal requirements for blood tests (to show that one is free of sexually transmitted diseases) and laws forbidding polygamy pass constitutional scrutiny. Your portrayal of marriage as a "civil right" is coming across as an implication that anything goes because the government has no right to regulate it."

How you draw that conclusion from what I wrote does not imply reasonably decoding skills.

"Obviously, that's not what the court has said because the court has not tossed out, for example, laws forbidding polygamy or requirements to be free of sexually transmitted diseases."

And I never said that is what the court said.

"More fundamentally, there's a big difference between a prohibition of marriage in certain cases and requirement to resolve various obstacles to marriage before you can marry."

And what all hurdles would you require be cleared?

"The fact that there may be no way to resolve certain obstacles (for example, a sexually transmitted disease that has no cure, like HIV/AIDS) does not prevent the state from enforcing a requirement that one resolve it before marrying, even though the effect of such obstacles may be a permanent prohibition."

I tend to doubt that your suggestion would pass Constitutional scrutiny, BWDIK.

In fact, how many states still requier a blood test? Texas does not. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/fa.toc.htm

Your prior post indicated alot more issues that you wanted to address - "immaturity, inadequacy, addiction, abusiveness, belligerance, selfishness, etc., etc., etc. . . . those who are not ready, whether personally, emotionally, physically, or spiritually, to fulfill the obligations of marriage . . ." -

How do you propose to test for all of these requirements and meet Constitutional standards?

You went from a long list to a discussion of blood tests and HIV/Aids when I asked for details.

Curiously, JAFO





Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117656 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/12/2005 5:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
JAFO,

Your prior post indicated alot more issues that you wanted to address - "immaturity, inadequacy, addiction, abusiveness, belligerance, selfishness, etc., etc., etc. . . . those who are not ready, whether personally, emotionally, physically, or spiritually, to fulfill the obligations of marriage . . ." -

How do you propose to test for all of these requirements and meet Constitutional standards?


One by one.

Of course, the Congress can restrict the authority of the federal courts over such matters under Article III, Section 2, second paragraph, of the U. S. Constitution.

Seriously, there may not be tests that will identify some of the problems that I listed in the earlier post with any reliability, but we certainly can try to develop such tests.

There are other options, too. State legislatures certainly can raise the minimum age for lawful marriage to an age where immaturity is less likely to destroy a relationship (perhaps twenty-five or even thirty?) in their respective states.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117657 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/12/2005 5:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
rev2217:

JAFO: <<<<How do you propose to test for all of these requirements and meet Constitutional standards?>>>>

"One by one."

Succinct, but not particularly enlightening.

"Of course, the Congress can restrict the authority of the federal courts over such matters under Article III, Section 2, second paragraph, of the U. S. Constitution."

Right. Removing the court and leaving Congress in charge, so often recommended, so rarely used.

"Seriously, there may not be tests that will identify some of the problems that I listed in the earlier post with any reliability, but we certainly can try to develop such tests."

Good luck.

"There are other options, too. State legislatures certainly can raise the minimum age for lawful marriage to an age where immaturity is less likely to destroy a relationship (perhaps twenty-five or even thirty?) in their respective states."

Taht may solve the "marriage" problem, but I strongly suspect that the cure would create otehr problems. That cure might be worse than the problem.

Eliminating shotgun weddings, by itself, would increase out-of-wedlock births. Raising the marriage age wold increase it even further because some number of currently legitimate births (aprt from shotgun weddings) would become impossible because the spouses would no longer be able to marry. Furthermore, do you really want to be the one to tell all the soldiers under x age going off to war that they cannot marry?

Raising the age for marriage would also, I suspect, increase POSSLQs, which does not necessarily increase societal stability.

The devil is often in the details, which is why I supect that you do not want to engage a discussion about the details of your plans/proposals.

Regards, JAFO


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cowhoney Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117660 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/12/2005 10:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Jafo,

I disagreed with most of your posts on this topic; Good golly Miss Molly, I know good lawyerin' when I see it. You articulate your positions in a manner discernable, probably only to CCSand and me.
Alas, I can only bring a knife to this gunfight!

Best for 2005,
Cowhoney

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117661 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/13/2005 12:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
JAFO,

Eliminating shotgun weddings, by itself, would increase out-of-wedlock births.

True, but such marriages rarely are viable anyway. They also have become increasingly rare.

JTOL, I'm thinking that a better solution to the problem of births out of wedlock might well be to levy a stiff excise -- say, $500 per month for twenty-five years from the date of birth with automatic adjustment for inflation -- on each parent for each child conceived out of wedlock. There could also be an automatic appropriation (probably 80% of the excise) to whoever raises the child to cover the cost of doing so until the child becomes independent and to the child thereafter, with the remainder of the excise going toward (1) mandatory "insurance" (probably a fund since most states self-insure) that would cover the tax in case of death or medical disability of a parent and (2) administrative costs of collecting the tax and paying the benefit. Of course, such a plan would require (1) vigorous criminal prosecution of any failure to pay the tax other than by reason of death or medical disability, (2) provision for recovery of liability covered by the "insurance" component from the estate of the person liable therefore, up to the assets of the estate, (3) automatic transfer of liability for the amount owed by an unknown parent to a parent who refuses to cooperate in establishing the identity thereof, and (4) an exception in case of rape reported to the authorities within twenty-four hours of the act or of the release of the victim by those involved in the rape. Additionally, there ought to be a legal presumption that individuals who conceive children out of wedlock, except in case of reported rape, do not have adequate judgement to be good parents.

As for divorce, I noted in an earlier post that I really do like the innovative solution imposed by an Italian judge a few years ago who directed that the family home be placed in a trust for the children, who would continue to reside there, with both parents as trustees, and that the parents -- who would alternate custody in two-week periods -- would reside with the children while exercising custoty and elsewhere during the intervening weeks. This solution clearly is not suitable in every case, but this solution ought to be the preferred solution in cases for which it is suitable. In other cases, it would be possible to structure a "divorce excise" in a way similat to the excise for a child born out of wedlock for the non-custodial parent.

The devil is often in the details, which is why I supect that you do not want to engage a discussion about the details of your plans/proposals.

I agree that implementation of any plan to promote stability requires great care to get it right and that a poor implementation of a great concept is a recipe for disaster. I was not proposing a hasty implementation of anything. Rather, such a program clearly needs representation of all relevant fields of expertise to flush out the details and to make sure that the implementation is sound. I'm not sure that this discussion board is the forum where that level of discussion can happen.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wradical Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117662 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/13/2005 1:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
(NORM:)JTOL, I'm thinking that a better solution to the problem of births out of wedlock might well be to levy a stiff excise -- say, $500 per month for twenty-five years from the date of birth with automatic adjustment for inflation -- on each parent for each child conceived out of wedlock.
_______________________________
I fear that would just increase the number of abortions, more than it would solve any problems.

Bill


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117663 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/13/2005 1:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 14
Talk about big government and the nanny state. Norm, you put liberals to shame with your desire for government intrusiveness, and liberals are usually excoriated for plans that are far less intrusive.

Regards, JAFO



Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrZenRoot Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117664 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/13/2005 2:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
Norm,
Your ideas are impractical.
Repeat after me:
You can't legislate morality.
You can't legislate morality.
You can't legislate morality.
You can't legislate morality.
And you wouldn't want to.
Lucky for all of us, Christ did not ask us to make sure our governments complied to our interpretation of His will.
Don

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cowhoney Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117665 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/13/2005 7:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Bill,

I think you are correct in your position that "taxing" outofwedlock births would increase abortion rates.

A position that I had long before the heart attack, in days when money flowed in like water and taxes were brutal, was to offer every person on public assistance $5000 tax free, not interfering with your welfare or medicade (sp) to be irreversably sterilized. I came up with this idea when I owned a couple of small apartment buildings in the early 80's.

The story:

I showed an apartment to a young mother, 18-19 years old, she had a newborn in her arms. The rent on the unit was $175/mo plus utilities.
I had my standard contract application which she filled out and honestly stated her cash income was $247/mo from welfare. I tried to be kind and explained the fact that she simply could not afford rent and utilities and expect her and her child to eat. Without any hesitation she told me that if she had another baby her cash assistance would be $327/mo. She spoke about breeding another child like some folks talk about trying to get overtime hours or finding a second job. Having recently come off of law enforcement I was pretty callous about dealing with people I viewed as welfare parasites; but, I was taken aback by her viewing indiscriminate breeding as a money making venture. I figure this gal would have jumped at the 5K idea. God only knows how many disfunctional children this gal popped out over the years.

Some day I will post about the best tenant I had, a hooker!

Regards,
Cowhoney

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wradical Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117667 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/14/2005 12:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
(Cowhoney:)A position that I had long before the heart attack, in days when money flowed in like water and taxes were brutal, was to offer every person on public assistance $5000 tax free, not interfering with your welfare or medicade (sp) to be irreversably sterilized.

Careful-you don't sound like the conventional Catholic you often appear to be!

I showed an apartment to a young mother, 18-19 years old, she had a newborn in her arms. The rent on the unit was $175/mo plus utilities.

Well - That would have been very reasonable rent, even back in the early 80's - almost anywhere. Did you have a mortgage on the building? Interest rates were killers back then. We bought our first house in 1980 and couldn't get a conventional loan. There was some seller financing @ 13%, and some help from our parents, to put together the purchase price. And that was pretty normal back then. Todays' low interest rates boggle my mind. A mortgage today has a lower rate than a money market account in 1980!

I hope - but doubt- that people today take advantage of today's low rates to lock in long-term mortgages and avoid ARMs, which are marginally better for the short-term, but will come back to bite you when rates go up (as I'm sure they will.)

Bill








Print the post Back To Top
Author: cowhoney Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117668 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/14/2005 9:55 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Bill,

You are correct that my old view was not in line with Catholic teaching on the subject. Time made me a better Catholic.

Cowhoney

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117669 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/14/2005 11:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Bill,

I fear that would just increase the number of abortions, more than it would solve any problems.

That's a legitimate concern. Of course, an excies applied to conception outside of wedlock would still apply in case of an abortion. It also would not cease upon the death of the child.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117670 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/14/2005 11:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
JAFO,

Talk about big government and the nanny state. Norm, you put liberals to shame with your desire for government intrusiveness, and liberals are usually excoriated for plans that are far less intrusive.

I don't see how this is any more intrusive than, for ecample, an investigation of a murder that occurs in the bedroom of a private home.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117671 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/14/2005 11:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
I don't see how this is any more intrusive than, for ecample, an investigation of a murder that occurs in the bedroom of a private home.



Really? I'm stunned. <shaking head>

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117672 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/14/2005 11:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Don,

You can't legislate morality.
You can't legislate morality.
You can't legislate morality.
You can't legislate morality.


So a govenment can't forbid murder?

Or do you regard murder as morally permissible?

Lucky for all of us, Christ did not ask us to make sure our governments complied to our interpretation of His will.

The new testament states quite clearly that God commissions governments for the punishment of evildoers. It seems to me that the root "evil" in "evildoers" carries a direct implication of immorality. Indeed, a government that creates crimes that are NOT rooted in morality -- or, worse yet, that enacts laws requiring immoral acts -- has overstepped its bounds.

Backing up a step, though, I did not propose to make it a crime to conceive a child out of wedlock. Rather, I simply proposed levying an excise for doing so that would cover the corresponding cost to society.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117673 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/14/2005 11:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Cowhoney,

I think you are correct in your position that "taxing" outofwedlock births would increase abortion rates.

That's exactly why the tax has to apply to conceiving a child out of wedlock rather than to bearing a child out of wedlock.

I showed an apartment to a young mother, 18-19 years old, she had a newborn in her arms. The rent on the unit was $175/mo plus utilities.
I had my standard contract application which she filled out and honestly stated her cash income was $247/mo from welfare. I tried to be kind and explained the fact that she simply could not afford rent and utilities and expect her and her child to eat. Without any hesitation she told me that if she had another baby her cash assistance would be $327/mo. She spoke about breeding another child like some folks talk about trying to get overtime hours or finding a second job. Having recently come off of law enforcement I was pretty callous about dealing with people I viewed as welfare parasites; but, I was taken aback by her viewing indiscriminate breeding as a money making venture. I figure this gal would have jumped at the 5K idea. God only knows how many disfunctional children this gal popped out over the years.


This anecdote exposes a major systemic problem. There was an attempt to solve it a decade ago by (1) limiting welfare to five years over one's lifetime for able-bodied individuals and (2) anacting a provision that a person on welfare who bore additional children would not receive additional funds. Nonetheless, other systemic problems with similar effects probably do remain in the welfare system.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117675 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/14/2005 3:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Actually, I like the innovative solution that one Italian judge imposed after a couple seeking a divorce presented a settlement that he deemed unacceptable. He decreed that the parents would place the family home in a trust for the children, with both parents as trustees, and that the children would live there. Since the parents had agreed to alternate custody every two weeks, he further decreed that the parents would alternate custody every two weeks, as they had proposed, and that each parent would stay at the house with the children while exercising custody and would stay elsewhere when the other parent exercised custody. Within a matter of months, the parents concluded that the inconveniene of moving every two weeks greatly exceeded their differences and decided to remarry each other.

I like that very much, and should this state (TX) ever adopt covenant marriage, I would be a voice within my vestry to restrict marriage to covenant marriage.

The problem here is that it's children born into an environment that is not nurturing who pose the most challenging social problem. Unless the law provides more severe consequences for bringing children into such environments, the penalty that you propose for ending a "covenant marriage" would only discourage people from entering such a marriage.

That's fine with me. They wouldn't get tax breaks that way, and the state could charge a front load for common marriages in order to fund child protective services, on whom an increased burden would be put to watch over such uncaring adults and their relatively unprotected children.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117676 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/14/2005 3:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Are you saying that Christian marriage needs a secular law and penalties to hold it together?

Norm: No. Rather, I am suggesting that somebody who chooses a marriage that easy to dissolve under civil law over a marriage that is less easy to dissolve under civil law manifests his or her intent by such a choice. Such manifest intention that the marriage be easy to dissolve clearly is not compatible with the Christian concept of marriage ("Let no man separate what God has joined.") and therefore reason for the church to refuse such marriages as contrary to scripture.


=============

Kat: My proposal is in terms of cost to society of divorce and lesser forms of marriage. It makes no statement about whether marriage needs to be protected. Rather, it simply asserts the state's interest in providing a just society and in making people responsible for their actions in terms of social cost.

We do that all the time with regard to environmental pollution. We need to do the same for moral pollution that damages third parties.

This not only accords with Christianity. I believe it accords with humanism, and even Playboy philosophy (eg, it's OK, you don't pay, as long as you don't hurt a third party).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117677 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/14/2005 4:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
True, but such marriages rarely are viable anyway. They also have become increasingly rare.

Do you have backing for this? The Touchstone issue I just read actually holds out the notiion of the shotgun marriage as too easily disposed of.

I would think that at least in certain cases, for example where the grandparents see eye to eye on things with each doing their part to enforce discipline on the "spouses," such marriages might be feasible.

In a brideprice system such as in Africa, such marriages are more than feasible; they are the norm.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117678 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/14/2005 4:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
You can't legislate morality.

BS.

Nearly all law legislates morality.

For example, shall we do away with the penal statutes on murder?
How about anti-pollution laws?
How about the Food and Drug Administration?

Liberals, in particular, are world-class morality legislators. They put Republicans to shame.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117680 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/14/2005 5:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
katinga: "My proposal is in terms of cost to society of divorce and lesser forms of marriage. It makes no statement about whether marriage needs to be protected. Rather, it simply asserts the state's interest in providing a just society and in making people responsible for their actions in terms of social cost.

We do that all the time with regard to environmental pollution. We need to do the same for moral pollution that damages third parties."


Your proposal appears to impose dollar costs on the participants before the social costs are known.

Environmental pollution cases are a lousy analogy, in my opinion, because PRPs get a chance to defend themselves and are only chased after the clean-up costs are being sought.

There is no way to "front-load" costs on the "lesser" forms of marriage and pass Constitutional muster. Not all such marriages end in divorce. Not all such marriages produce children. etc.

Trying to tax pregnancy, as norm suggested, instead of birth because the latter likely encourgages abortion would do nothing to decrease likelihood of abortion, because the measure of social damages would likely be so much less when there was no dependent child to raise until age of majority.

JAFO








Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117681 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/14/2005 5:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Paul,

Me: True, but ["shotgun"] marriages rarely are viable anyway. They also have become increasingly rare.

You: Do you have backing for this? The Touchstone issue I just read actually holds out the notiion of the shotgun marriage as too easily disposed of.

As far as easy disposition of "shotgun" marriages, my information is mostly anecdotal -- lots of conversations with friends who happen to be canon lawyers, psychologists, marriage counsellors, pastoral ministers, etc. It's also quite clear that there's a lot less pressure on couples who conceive out of wedlock to marry today than there was, say, four or five decades ago, so a lot of couples in such situations choose not to marry.

FWIW, many Catholic dioceses have policies of "strongly encouraging" couples who conceive out of wedlock to wait until after the birth of the child before celebrating marriage. There are several reasons for such policies, ranging from the degree to which public embarassment might still interfere with free will, thus impairing consent and the validity of the marriage, to the knowledge that many such relationships do not endure and that the legalities of a marriage only make life more difficult when they break apart.

I would think that at least in certain cases, for example where the grandparents see eye to eye on things with each doing their part to enforce discipline on the "spouses," such marriages might be feasible.

The fact that there's any external "enforcement" of "discipline" on either spouse creates a situation of duress. If it exists when the couple exchange vows, such duress -- however slight -- renders the exchange of vows null and void.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117682 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/14/2005 6:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
JAFO,

Your proposal appears to impose dollar costs on the participants before the social costs are known.

If we agree in principle that there are social costs, we can impose a tax that's on the low side of the estimates now and then adjust the amount of the tax when refined figures detailing the actual cost become available.

The other alternative, if our objective is to encourage moral behavior, is to impose a tax that's both onerous and certain to be sufficient to cover the costs to society -- which is a strategy that comes directly from the playbook of the environmental movement.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: khalou Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117683 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/14/2005 7:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
If we agree in principle that there are social costs, we can impose a tax that's on the low side of the estimates now and then adjust the amount of the tax when refined figures detailing the actual cost become available.

I'm not speaking to what you're trying to do, only with your method.

A young girl who gets pregnant out of wedlock probably has no money or is just making it. To give her a bill will make her worse off and she will be less financially capable to have and raise the child.

Also

The thing about discipline is that it first seeks to change the behavior, not necessarily punish people. If she isn't thinking about pregnancy or childbirth or raising a kid for 18 years when she has sex, what makes you think she'll stop and say- "Wait a minute! Did you hear about that fine? Let's not do this."?

I don't think so.

k


Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117684 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/14/2005 9:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The fact that there's any external "enforcement" of "discipline" on either spouse creates a situation of duress. If it exists when the couple exchange vows, such duress -- however slight -- renders the exchange of vows null and void.

I think you overinterpret the semantics. Any marriage where the in-laws see eye to eye and talk to each other is going to have a strong chance of success. Social control within a family is not duress. It's humanity and respect for parents. Respect for parents is of the 10 commandments, as I recall.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DrZenRoot Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117703 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/16/2005 4:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Nearly all law legislates morality.

And yet not all morality is legislated.
If you support a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marraige, why not include adultry, fornication, and pornography in the definition? Why shouldn't a marraige be free from these things? And why not include them in your constitutional definition?
Could it be because homosexuals are an easy target for churches?
As christians we can't pick our sins to oppose.

Liberals, in particular, are world-class morality legislators. They put Republicans to shame.

Ah yes. Let's not keep the argument about its own merits. Let's be sure and point the finger at those eeeeeeeeevil liiiiiiiiiberals.

Don

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117704 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/16/2005 5:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Nearly all law legislates morality.

And yet not all morality is legislated.
If you support a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marraige, why not include adultry, fornication, and pornography in the definition? Why shouldn't a marraige be free from these things? And why not include them in your constitutional definition?


In due time, in due time. Rome wasnt built in a day, and America did not regress morally in one day. One has the numbers for one thing and not others. Therefore we legislate what we can and come back for the rest later.

Could it be because homosexuals are an easy target for churches?
As christians we can't pick our sins to oppose.


As Christians, some may pick homosexuality first, because it is blantantly anti-biblical and most people have issue with it. You should remain vocal that after this issue is taken care of, we have more things of which to take care.

Liberals, in particular, are world-class morality legislators. They put Republicans to shame.

Ah yes. Let's not keep the argument about its own merits. Let's be sure and point the finger at those eeeeeeeeevil liiiiiiiiiberals.

Don


There are really no merits for the case of legislating that homosexuals can marry. So it must be something else, that is keeping this issue alive.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117706 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/16/2005 6:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
"As christians we can't pick our sins to oppose."

A total non-sequitor.

The fact is that gay marriage and homosexuality are issues within the church precisely because there are those who simply do not recognize them as sin. So arguments about picking sins to oppose are ridiculous with someone who doesn't even agree about what sin is. No one is arguing that adultery is not a sin. No one is arguing that fornication is not a sin. No one is arguing that pornography is not a sin. Many are arguing that homosexuality is not a sin and that both society and the church should approvingly recognize gay marriage.

"If you support a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marraige, why not include adultry, fornication, and pornography in the definition?"

As far as the constitution is concerned, which is a different issue than the church's postion, your comment is again a complete non-sequitor. No one is lobbying for the government to approvingly recognize adultery, fornication, nor pornography. No judges or other public officials are attempting to subvert the democratic process by shoving the legalization of these things down the throat of society. But that is precisely what the mayor of SF tried to do and what the MA Supreme Court is trying to do. And the constitutional doctrine of full faith and credit threatens to allow this small group of state judges to force their will on the whole country in the face of overwhelming popsition to the contrary.

You better believe that if judges started voiding laws against kiddie porn, for example, there would be an immediate move to clarify our system with a constitutional amendment making it sure that these laws would continue. The constitutional amendment against gay marriage is a response to attempts by gays and others to change the status quo against the overwhelming will of the people. In our system of checks and balances, when any branch of government acts in a way that is outrageous to the overwhelming majority of the people and it is supported by the courts, the peoples' only recourse, their check on the government, is to amend the constitution.

God bless,

Rich

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117736 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/17/2005 1:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Khalou,

A young girl who gets pregnant out of wedlock probably has no money or is just making it. To give her a bill will make her worse off and she will be less financially capable to have and raise the child.

Do you think that somebody who conceives a child out of wedlock, other than as a victim of rape, has demonstrated thereby the judgement and maturity to be an adequate parent?

At the very least, the fact that somebody conceives a child out of wedlock ought to create a presumption that the person is lacking in judgement and thus is not fit to be a parent, with the conseuqence that the child is placed in foster care until proven otherwise.

The thing about discipline is that it first seeks to change the behavior, not necessarily punish people. If she isn't thinking about pregnancy or childbirth or raising a kid for 18 years when she has sex, what makes you think she'll stop and say- "Wait a minute! Did you hear about that fine? Let's not do this."?

I don't think so.


It's more likely that some people will see what impact the tax has on the lifestyles of those who have made such mistakes. Part of the reason for placing children conceived out of wedlock in foster care, BTW, is to ensure that the children don't suffer as a result of the burden of the tax on the biological parents.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: mapletree7 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117738 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/17/2005 1:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
At the very least, the fact that somebody conceives a child out of wedlock ought to create a presumption that the person is lacking in judgement and thus is not fit to be a parent, with the conseuqence that the child is placed in foster care until proven otherwise.


Helloooo, Big Brother! Guilty until proven innocent! Murphy Brown, beware!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117739 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/17/2005 1:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Paul,

Social control within a family is not duress.

If "social control" within a family pressures a couple to exchange vows of marriage when they would not have done so otherwise, it IS duress because it has overridden their free will. Any "marriage" contracted under such circumstances is null and void.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117740 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/17/2005 1:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
mapletree7,

Guilty until proven innocent!

Guilt does not enter the picture because there's no crime involved.

Murphy Brown, beware!

Exactly!

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolferd1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117747 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/17/2005 2:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
This entire thread leaves me shaking my head. While I agree that out of wedlock pregnancies are a concern, I can't see how taxing people will make it better. Perhaps I just work with too many low income people who have a tough enough time keeping all the kids warm and fed to think that taxing them if they were not married to the man who fathered them is going to somehow improve all this -- Unless you have a big ranch,an unlimited wallet, and a lot of people standing in line to raise someone else's children and are going to take all the kids away from parents who can't afford the fines.

At the very least, the fact that somebody conceives a child out of wedlock ought to create a presumption that the person is lacking in judgement and thus is not fit to be a parent

While children need to have two stable parents, this statement is absolutely absurd.

Part of the reason for placing children conceived out of wedlock in foster care, BTW, is to ensure that the children don't suffer as a result of the burden of the tax on the biological parents.

I don't where you live, but around here they put children in foster care for a number of reason, but having parents who are not married is not one of them, nor is having parents who are not wealthy.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wradical Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117748 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/17/2005 2:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
(Wolferd1:)Unless you have a big ranch,an unlimited wallet, and a lot of people standing in line to raise someone else's children and are going to take all the kids away from parents who can't afford the fines.
__________________________________
Michael Jackson fits that description. So, if he volunteered...?



Print the post Back To Top
Author: mapletree7 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117754 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/17/2005 4:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Guilty until proven innocent!

Guilt does not enter the picture because there's no crime involved.


And yet you want the government to remove a child from it's parents.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117756 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/17/2005 8:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Norm If "social control" within a family pressures a couple to exchange vows of marriage when they would not have done so otherwise, it IS duress because it has overridden their free will. Any "marriage" contracted under such circumstances is null and void.

I'm afraid you're asserting American individualist cultural principles. If you get into other kinship systems in other parts of the world, familial social control can be very strong, and looked upon by all players as normative, including possibly parties to what we would assume to be shotgun marriages or other kinds of arranged marriages.

Paul

Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117758 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/17/2005 8:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
This entire thread leaves me shaking my head. While I agree that out of wedlock pregnancies are a concern, I can't see how taxing people will make it better. Perhaps I just work with too many low income people who have a tough enough time keeping all the kids warm and fed to think that taxing them if they were not married to the man who fathered them is going to somehow improve all this -- Unless you have a big ranch,an unlimited wallet, and a lot of people standing in line to raise someone else's children and are going to take all the kids away from parents who can't afford the fines.

As long as they stay together in a covenantal relationship, there's no tax, and indeed, there would be tax incentives.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117768 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/18/2005 12:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Paul,

I'm afraid you're asserting American individualist cultural principles. If you get into other kinship systems in other parts of the world, familial social control can be very strong, and looked upon by all players as normative, including possibly parties to what we would assume to be shotgun marriages or other kinds of arranged marriages.

Whether such marriages are "normal" in a particular society or not is not the issue. The fundamental principle is that the validity of a marriage depends upon the free consent of the individuals. If there is any impairment whatsoever to the free will of the individuals, there is no free consent and no legitimate marriage.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117769 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/18/2005 12:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Mapletree,

And yet you want the government to remove a child from it's parents.

I think that most people believe that the government has a duty to protect from abusive or otherwise inadequate parenting. If there's reason to believe that a child might be in danger, as is the case when the biological parents prove their lack some combination of judgement and self-control by conceiving a child out of wedlock, the government must protect the child.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117771 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/18/2005 1:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The fundamental principle is that the validity of a marriage depends upon the free consent of the individuals. If there is any impairment whatsoever to the free will of the individuals, there is no free consent and no legitimate marriage.


What about societies that arrange marriages? From my observations and conversations with people from such cultures, they seem to work out as well as free will marriages, and that probably because of commitment and support from the in-laws. That's probably also because luv and love have very little in common, to the point that one does not even feed the other.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117772 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/18/2005 1:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 100
rev: If there's reason to believe that a child might be in danger, as is the case when the biological parents prove their lack of judgement self-control by conceiving a child out of wedlock

So you believe that, since Nancy was already two months pregnant when she married Ronald Reagan, that when Patti was born, the government should have declared them unfit to raise a child and stepped in and confiscated her?

That's just about the dumbest post I've ever read.









Print the post Back To Top
Author: Hubris Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117773 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/18/2005 3:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
when the biological parents prove their lack some combination of judgement and self-control

Would this reasoning apply to parents who smoke? are overweight? make poor financial decisions? watch reality TV? More importantly, who gets to be the arbiter of which parents show suitable "judgement" and "self-control"?

Hubris

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117774 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/18/2005 4:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
More importantly, who gets to be the arbiter of which parents show suitable "judgement" and "self-control"?




There's a scary thought.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mapletree7 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117775 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/18/2005 5:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 30
I think that most people believe that the government has a duty to protect from abusive or otherwise inadequate parenting. If there's reason to believe that a child might be in danger, as is the case when the biological parents prove their lack some combination of judgement and self-control by conceiving a child out of wedlock, the government must protect the child.

I think you're forgetting someone important who conceived a child out of wedlock.

Sometimes I just don't get it.

You are seriously proposing that the government should remove a new born baby from its mother (if the mother is unwed) until the parent is 'proved' fit - whether that mother is 17 or 30, employed or unemployed, single or in a relationship, living with her parents/boyfriend/alone or living on the street, she should have to satisfy the government of her suitability as a parent.

First, this is extremely fascist. Babies don't belong to the government. They belong to their parents.

Secondary to it being fascist, it's a completely impractical and stupid idea.

Thirdly and most important, I can't imagine Jesus approving of anyone who wants to march into a hospital and rip an infant out of its' mother arms and put it in foster care until a judicial proceeding has been carried out. Maybe you need to meditate a little on the letters WWJD and try to grow a little compassion.



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117776 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/18/2005 5:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
maple: I think you're forgetting someone important who conceived a child out of wedlock.

Already mentioned Reagan.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117777 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/18/2005 6:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
hungryhuman wrote:

Already mentioned Reagan.

<giggle>

I don't think that's who s/he had in mind.

</giggle>

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117778 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/18/2005 9:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
There was a young maiden whom Christians and Moslem both highly esteem, her name was Mary.




Print the post Back To Top
Author: JDCRex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117779 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/18/2005 10:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 65
as is the case when the biological parents prove their lack some combination of judgement and self-control by conceiving a child out of wedlock, the government must protect the child.

Yes, that sounds like a great idea.

Much better that a baby is removed from a single mother regardless of circumstance. Perhaps she's a 30+ professional, taking a year off to care for the child. Who cares? Send in the black helicopters! Prepare the tear gas!

But make sure you leave the Bible Belt children alone. Even if they've got a severely depressed mother, delusional, psychotic, conflicted greatly because the church she goes to has no idea how to deal with her and may be reticent to guide her towards secular therapy. When she drowns her children in a bath tub, or chops off her baby's arms, at least it will be done under the sanctity of a good Christian marriage, however.

Your proposal is sickening, and if I wouldn't be banned for several lifetimes for saying what I really feel, I'd go a tad further in describing you.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ga1Dawg Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117780 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/18/2005 10:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
First, this is extremely fascist. Babies don't belong to the government. They belong to their parents.
**********************************
Babies don't belong to their parents, they belong to God.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117781 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/18/2005 11:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
Babies don't belong to their parents, they belong to God.

Well, if God knocks on the door of an unwed couple and demands they hand over the kids, then we'll cross that bridge...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117782 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 12:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
I had really been hoping to avoid this topic, and maybe I'll regret not following my first instinct, but here goes...

After having adopted two children (and working on #3), it has occured to me how low a birth rate the world would have if every perspective parent was prevented from having children until they ran through the ringer that my wife and I had to before they could have a child. I applaud that agencies and governments are very careful about who they entrust their charges to when considering perspective adoptive homes, but I also have read too many depressing Sci Fi stories of government controlled conception to want to see it applied to birth situations; it is not something that gives me the warm fuzzies.

While it would probably do great service to many children to have their parents "vetted" before they are "placed" in that home, it is simply beyond the purvue of our government to be that invasive. The unfortunate consequence to our freedoms is that we are free to screw things up and place great burdens upon society and our children. There is, unfortunately, no good way to manage families through governmental involvement.

Taxing those who have children while they are unprepared is pointless since any tax will directly and negatively impact the child born in the first place. Taking the child out of the home is unnatural and requires a rather subjective standard by which to judge the circumstances and from the examples we have today of CPS mistakes and failures, we surely cannot expect better success when the numbers of children "under their jurisdiction" increase exponentially.

The unfortuante circumstances are that we live in a fallen world and the consequences for our disobediences are direct and palpable. For many children, the sins of the parents are very much visited upon them, and often the sins become generational.

We cannot solve a problem of the heart with punative external processes. We will only solve the problem when, as a culture, we take charge of our collective morality and teach what is right, are clear about the immediate and future consequences, and learn to take responsibility for our selves and our actions. Unfortunately, there are many who believe that freedom of person and expression of self are the greatest goals of our society.

When our society teaches that self-control is not a realistic goal, that sex can be separated from procreation, and that marriage is divorced from family the consequences become very apparent with then number of out of wedlock conceptions, the number of abortions, the number of broken homes, the poor state of education, the crime rate, and many other social ills that burden our society and destroy lives. And because the messages about what is proper and dutiful come largely from religious sources, and we have surrendered our teaching of sexuality to the government, and the government is proscribed from teaching values even remotely related to religion, we now have two or three generations of people who have little concept of their personal responsibility for maintianing the fabric of society and instead expect the government (that very same governemnt who they do not trust to run their lives) to manage the social problems.

No amount of charity, social programs or anything else can come close to doing the job that a healthy family can do. But since broken homes beget broken homes, we are in a losing battle when we don't work to address the problem at the source and find ways to prevent broken homes.

Children need to be taught how to live in a good home by living in a good home. It certainly does not help them to be told that broken homes are all they can ever hope to have for themselves when they grow up.

I don't advocate that children be ripped from their broken home and placed in non-broken homes, but an idea just sprung unbidden to my mind. Mabe we shouldn't be adopting the child but instead adopt the whole family so that both can see how it supposed to work.

Well, I probably said too much as it is, so I'll stop now.

Ron

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dsracic Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117783 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 11:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 67
This scheme does NOTHING to recognize what marriage is -- the union of a man and a woman to provide a stable envirnment for bearing, nurturing, and raising children -- under the natural law, which is what should guide our legislation.

You mean, what marriage is to YOU. Marriage has been different things at different times in different societies. Check the Bible. Whether your marriage is a union based on love and mutual respect, a need to unite two powerful families, the desire for dowry income, or the need to produce an heir really isn't a concern of mine. Various churches have sanctioned marriages for all these reasons. They've also sanctioned multiple marriages, arranged marriages, and the like.

If you ask me, the REAL way to preserve marriage as something sacred is to get the government OUT of the marriage business. Let the government say that two people may unite their finances and resources under the law. Leave it at that. They can change resource partners every X months, if it strikes their fancy. It doesn't matter if the partners live together, are related, whatever. If two 50 year old sisters want to be partners so they can share benefits, so be it. Get "united" by the state just like you'd select a beneficiary. Sign on the line, and maybe pay for an attorney to draft the paperwork.

Let each religion & denomination sanction whatever type of marriage they believe to be appropriate before God. Catholics can insist on the 6 month waiting period and pre-cana counseling. The Little White Wedding Church in Vegas can insist that both participants be sober enough to stand under their own power, but nothing more. Your favorite denomination can insist on X, Y, and Z, whatever that might be. Then nobody can complain that their marriage is being defiled by allowing "those types" to get married, whether "those types" be baptists, gays, divorcees, homosexuals, or folks under 6 feet tall.

Marriage has changed from one-man-many-women to man-and-a-woman-purchased-by-the-mans-family to man-and-woman-he-lusts-after to man-and-his-dead-brothers-wife to man-and-woman-he-loves to man-and-woman-that-his-mother-approves-of. There's no way to tell what someone's motivation for wanting marriage IS. People get married for different reasons, under different circumstances, and the government has no place or just way to say "these are good reasons, and those are not." Anything the government touches, it tends to corrupt. I'd rather it stay far, far away from God, faith, and religion, given its track record with everything else.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117784 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 12:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Dave,

You mean, what marriage is to YOU.

No, I mean what marriage IS, as established by the nature of the universe. You might as well cease the Clintonesque distortion of the English language because I'm not going to buy into it.

Whether your marriage is... a need to unite two powerful families, the desire for dowry income, or the need to produce an heir really isn't a concern of mine.

Such dynamics rarely produce real marriages. Rather, they usually produce public facade of "marriage" behind which the supposed "husband" has a "mistress" and the supposed "wife" has a "consort," both probably known to the other supposed "spouse." Such relationships are shams.

If you ask me, the REAL way to preserve marriage as something sacred is to get the government OUT of the marriage business. Let the government say that two people may unite their finances and resources under the law. Leave it at that. They can change resource partners every X months, if it strikes their fancy. It doesn't matter if the partners live together, are related, whatever. If two 50 year old sisters want to be partners so they can share benefits, so be it. Get "united" by the state just like you'd select a beneficiary. Sign on the line, and maybe pay for an attorney to draft the paperwork.

I have no problem with laws that establish domestic relationships other than marriage and that provide certain rights, privileges, and benefits for individuals who choose to enter such relationships. Further, I see no reason to limit such relationships to only two adults. I object only to the use of the term "marriage" to refer to such relationships because such relationships are not really marriages.

That said, I do think that our civil society has a real interest in promoting, supporting, and strengthening real marriages because a real marriage is the natural environment -- and the best envirnoment -- in which to bear, nurture, and raise children.

Let each religion & denomination sanction whatever type of marriage they believe to be appropriate before God.

If you had used the term "relationship" rather than "marriage" in this sentence, I would agree with it.

Catholics can insist on the 6 month waiting period and pre-cana counseling.

The Catholic Church actually does not require any "waiting period" whatsoever for marriage. In response to the high rate of failed marriages in the United States, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has instituted a requirement that each couple who wishes to marry in the dioceses of the United States must complete an approved preparation program before the celebration of their marriage may take place. The bishops of the United States have approved several preparation programs, range from "Engaged Encounter" retreat weekends to various series of weekly seminars, sometimes called "pre-Cana," offered within many parishes, that fulfill this requirement. The practical reality, though, is that these programs are so heavily subscribed in many dioceses that a couple who wish to marry may have to wait several months for the next available opening. Additionally, some pastors require advance notice so they can ensure the availability of the oratory and the ministers who assist in the service.

Marriage has changed from one-man-many-women to man-and-a-woman-purchased-by-the-mans-family to man-and-woman-he-lusts-after to man-and-his-dead-brothers-wife to man-and-woman-he-loves to man-and-woman-that-his-mother-approves-of.

Actually, that is not accurate at all. In societies that permit polygamy, each marriage is between one man and one woman. Where a man has two or more wives concurrently, his two wives are related only through their husband. The other situations that you describe are also "one man and one woman" relationships.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117785 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 12:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
JDRex,

Much better that a baby is removed from a single mother regardless of circumstance. Perhaps she's a 30+ professional, taking a year off to care for the child. Who cares? Send in the black helicopters! Prepare the tear gas!

Not quite. A legal presumption of inadequacy does not prevent somebody from presenting evidence to the contrary and retaining custody of the child. It somply requires the person to present evidence that he or she can -- and will -- provide adequate care for the child in order to retain custody.

But make sure you leave the Bible Belt children alone. Even if they've got a severely depressed mother, delusional, psychotic, conflicted greatly because the church she goes to has no idea how to deal with her and may be reticent to guide her towards secular therapy. When she drowns her children in a bath tub, or chops off her baby's arms, at least it will be done under the sanctity of a good Christian marriage, however.

Nobody here is defending such parents. If there's clear indication that parents are not able to provide adequate care for their children, the children should be taken out of harm's way. Unfortunately, such situations frequently do not come to light until something happens to the children.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: dsracic Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117786 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 1:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
[references to marriages made for various reasons]

Such dynamics rarely produce real marriages. Rather, they usually produce public facade of "marriage" behind which the supposed "husband" has a "mistress" and the supposed "wife" has a "consort," both probably known to the other supposed "spouse." Such relationships are shams.

Precisely. Marriage is something personal, and private. The only people who can define what their marriage IS are the ones participating in it. Having the state say "this is a 'valid' marriage and this one is not" is a bit ridiculous, since they lack the ability to see into the hearts and minds of the participants. I know of state-sanctioned "real" marriages that have all the negative aspects you described, plus a good dose of abuse, neglect, and cruelty thrown in to keep it interesting. I know of "immoral" or "invalid" marriages that are based on mutual respect, love, understanding, compassion and each partner believing that they are improved simply by being with the other. The state can't differentiate, and I think it shouldn't even begin to try.

[reference to civil unions between any adults]

Further, I see no reason to limit such relationships to only two adults. I object only to the use of the term "marriage" to refer to such relationships because such relationships are not really marriages.

It all depends, again, on how you define "marriage".

That said, I do think that our civil society has a real interest in promoting, supporting, and strengthening real marriages because a real marriage is the natural environment -- and the best envirnoment -- in which to bear, nurture, and raise children.

I agree, again, depending on your definition of a "real" marriage. I maintain that one man and one woman who lack respect for eachother, are abusive and cruel, neglectful of their children, and disinterested in their development are NOT good parents, despite having all the sanction of a "real" marriage, as defined by the state. The state has a HUGE interest in promoting, supporting, and strengthening any relationship based on love, tolerance, patience, understanding and compromise. THOSE are the traits that make good parents, and lead to good children.

Again, I think the government should get OUT of the marriage business. Sanction "personal unions", and NOTHING else. If people want to get married, let them do that TOO. The state's interest is in encouraging stable relationships, which leads to happy and productive citizens. The state shouldn't decide which relationships are in any way "blessed" or "real", any more than they should decide which religions are "blessed" or "real".

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dsracic Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117787 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 1:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
A legal presumption of inadequacy does not prevent somebody from presenting evidence to the contrary and retaining custody of the child. It somply requires the person to present evidence that he or she can -- and will -- provide adequate care for the child in order to retain custody.

Frightening. Sounds a lot like "guilty until proven innocent" to me.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117788 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 1:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
dsracic wrote:

Frightening. Sounds a lot like "guilty until proven innocent" to me.

A legal, though rebuttable presumption, is not at all the same thing as the determination of fact that results in guilty verdict. One is a starting point. The other is an ending point.

Perhaps you'd be less frightened if you knew the difference.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ibsulon Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117789 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 2:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
Sorry to intrude, as I don't properly belong here, but I have a question after reading the thread.

Barna has studied marriages between those who identify themselves as Christian and those that do not and finds no discernable difference in divorce between the two.

Though at my former church, there was no real problem with divorce past the theoretical (partially because the pastor's daughter divorced a man after he allegedly molested the children) I know that there is a fairly strong current against divorce in most Christian churches.

That is, until you get into the specifics. It seems like it's always more valid when you are friends with the person going through the divorce. This was a pretty common thread from what I saw.

My question, then, is why hasn't the Christian Church cleaned up its own house before looking to remove the speck out of the secular world's eye? Do you not really believe what you say? Your children?

Do you seek to raise the world's standard precisely because you cannot meet your own? I know that Daniel, when he came into training under the Chaldeans, "8 resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine, and he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way. 9 Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel, 10 but the official told Daniel, "I am afraid of my lord the king, who has assigned your [c] food and drink. Why should he see you looking worse than the other young men your age? The king would then have my head because of you."" (NIV, Daniel 1:8-10)

If you do not even have the strength to keep your own marriages together, then where is the power of this God you speak of?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117790 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 4:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
No, I mean what marriage IS, as established by the nature of the universe.


The fact of the matter, as has been told repeatedly on this thread and others like on other boards, is marriage has changed throughout history. All we are doing now is working on a new definition, whether you are for same sex marriage or not.

You discount that and call it English language, but it is true.

My problem with defining marriage is who gets to define. Clearly Norm would not want people like me to define it, and in turn his ideas of marriage scare the <bleep> out of me.

If the voters were presented with the notion that marriage was not only between a man and a woman, but also for the intent of bearing children, I bet you would see most of these initatives fail.

The scary thing for some of you on this board, is that one day there will be same sex marriage. You can kick and scream about it all you like, but time is on my side.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MrsPoppy Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117791 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 5:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
If there's reason to believe that a child might be in danger, as is the case when the biological parents prove their lack some combination of judgement and self-control by conceiving a child out of wedlock, the government must protect the child.


What is inherently dangerous about conceiving a child without first procuring a piece of paper that says "married" on it?

There are thousands of perfectly wonderful people for whom the institution of marriage is irrelavent and unecessary. I can respect your religious convictions and that you personally would choose to be married before conceiving. But to imply that those who choose otherwise are deviant and dangerous? That is where religous conviction turns to zealotry and my eyes glaze over.

Meanwhile, my parents were married when I was born and my mother beat the crap out of me. Marriage doesn't guarantee safety and harmony for any child.

It takes all kinds, but I have to admit, I cannot begin to comprehend the minds that work like yours. I am certain you would feel likewise for me, but then, I have no desire to remove loved children from loving parents.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117792 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 6:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Dave,

Frightening. Sounds a lot like "guilty until proven innocent" to me.

There's no question of guilt or innocence here because this is a civil matter rather than a criminal matter.

That said, those of you who advocate that people should bear and attempt to raise children out of wedlock, with no interference from the government, might do well to contemplate how the word "bastard" (literally meaning "a child born out of wedlock") came to have its strong negative connotations. (For a hint, see Hebrews 12:7-8.)

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: MrsPoppy Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117793 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 6:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
There are other options, too. State legislatures certainly can raise the minimum age for lawful marriage to an age where immaturity is less likely to destroy a relationship (perhaps twenty-five or even thirty?) in their respective states.

Given the statistical drop of fertility in women begins at 25, this idea seems to be in complete contrast with your purpose.

Regrettably, the best time to have a child is when a woman is little more than a child herself. Physically, of course, not mentally.

Additionally, one would have a very hard time restricting legal adults from entering into a contract, which is what marriage is.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MATZOID Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117794 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 6:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
I think that most people believe that the government has a duty to protect from abusive or otherwise inadequate parenting. If there's reason to believe that a child might be in danger, as is the case when the biological parents prove their lack some combination of judgement and self-control by conceiving a child out of wedlock, the government must protect the child.

Yes, comrade. We make list of 'dangerous' parents for Central Committee review:

unwed
drink alcohol
got divorced
work on Sunday
eat shellfish
take Lord's name in vain
not fully paid party members
vote for sinners



Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117795 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 6:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Eric,

My question, then, is why hasn't the Christian Church cleaned up its own house before looking to remove the speck out of the secular world's eye?

As Christians, we most assuredly do have a duty to begin with our own house. Individually, that means rigorous examination of our own situation in the light of the gospel.

>> For singles: Is my heart aligned with the will of God as it's expressed in scripture? If I'm dating, am I dating a believer whose heart is also aligned with scripture? Is our dating relationship ordered correctly, based upon mutual respect for each other, such that it will lead to a healthy marriage?

>> For married people: Is my heart aligned with the will of God as it's expressed in scripture? Did I mean the words of my marriage vows? Am I living those vows completely today? Do I treat my spouse with complete respect and self-giving, both at home and in public? Am I doing everything possible to support my spouse in his/her efforts to fulfill his/her vows? Am I willing to repent and to ask my spouse for forgiveness for my failings?

From a pastoral perspective, the experience of the last several decades shows that most marriages that fail were on a course of failure before llong before the actual ceremony. Accordingly, pastoral action in many denominations now focuses on the actual discernment of and preparation for marriage. Unfortunately, there are too many pastors who lack the spine to tell couples whose relationships clearly are not ordered correctly that they need to deal with the obvious issues before they can celebrate marriage in the church.

In many denominations, all this takes place in a larger context of excessive secularization of the body -- that is, the supposed believers really are living the culture of contemporary society rather than living the gospel within the context of contemporary society. As a result, many pastors fear that rigorous discernment of marriage by the community of faith would lead to rebellion of their parishonners, who would either seek out another congregation that would do what they want or opt for a civil, rather than religious, ceremony (which, at least, would be honest). Until pastors start finding enough backbone to say no to people who clearly are not properly disposed to the sacraments, abuses of the sacraments -- including both ordination and marriage as well as baptism, confirmation (for denominations that maintain such a practice), and communion -- will continue to proliferate.

Do you not really believe what you say?

Yes.

Your children?

Don't have any.

Do you seek to raise the world's standard precisely because you cannot meet your own?

No. Rather, I seek to raise society's standard to promote the well-being of the children. Don't ever forget that children born out of wedlock are innocent victims of their biological parents' misdeeds. Most children born out of wedlock suffer both material poverty and parental neglect because the parent who attempts to raise them lacks the material and emotional means and the time to meet their needs in a manner that is adequate.

Note, BTW, that this is not about a child having perfect parents. Rather, this is about a child having adequate parents, or other adults who adequately fulfill a parental role, in his or her formative years.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117796 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 7:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
MrsPoppy,

What is inherently dangerous about conceiving a child without first procuring a piece of paper that says "married" on it?

Have you ever considered why the English word "bastard" -- which literally means "a child born out of wedlock" -- has such strong negative connotations?

The negative connotations arose precisely because children born out of wedlock rarely have adequate parents.

There are thousands of perfectly wonderful people for whom the institution of marriage is irrelavent and unecessary.

Fine. Nobody is forcing anybody to marry anybody.

Now, do you think that it is morally acceptable to conceive children without first making a commitment to provide a stable and nurturing environment for them?

I can respect your religious convictions and that you personally would choose to be married before conceiving.

Note that this is NOT a religious issue. Rather, it is a moral issue rooted in nature itself, which does not depend upon the teachings of any religion whatsoever.

But to imply that those who choose otherwise are deviant and dangerous?

I never suggested that those who conceive children out of wedlock are deviant. I said only that to do so is grossly immoral for the reasons noted above.

That is where religous conviction turns to zealotry and my eyes glaze over.

Again, this is NOT a religious issue as I explained above.

Meanwhile, my parents were married when I was born and my mother beat the crap out of me. Marriage doesn't guarantee safety and harmony for any child.

The fact that marriage does not guarantee safety and harmony is true, but the odds of a child receiving adequate nurture are statistically much better if the parents are married to each other than if they are not.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117797 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 7:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
MrsPoppy,

Additionally, one would have a very hard time restricting legal adults from entering into a contract, which is what marriage is.

We have never had a problem restricting marriage in the past. In fact, many places still have restrictions on marriage. For example, it's illegal to marry your brother or your sister. It's also illegal to marry a foster brother or a foster sister, even though there's no blood relationship between the two individuals. It's also illegal, in many places, to enter a marriage if you have a sexually transmitted disease. We have no problems enforcing those restrictions.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Diablo2Queen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117799 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 8:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Have you ever considered why the English word "bastard" -- which literally means "a child born out of wedlock" -- has such strong negative connotations?

The negative connotations arose precisely because children born out of wedlock rarely have adequate parents.


Or maybe because the people assigning the negative connotations were jerks???

<sarcasm>
It'd be so much better for the baby to be sent away than to remain with its mother. Of course we can't help women like that support their children. Much better to let nature take it's course, survival of hte fittest and all that.
</sarcasm>

http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1989-0/haller.htm
Excerpt:
Illegitimacy had always been stigmatized in English Society. Since the 17th and the 18th centuries, the negative attitude toward bastards was evident in legislation which denied them assistance from the poor rates. Justices were merely to see that the parents supported their child, not to enforce morality. Rates being administered in a more benevolent manner than intended, a rise in illegitimacy, and an increase in the number of forced marriages all collided with the Evangelical and Utilitarian philosophies of Victorian England; in 1834 the Poor Laws were reformed. Poverty and illegitimacy were moral issues which needed to be remedied, and the New Poor Law was designed to restore virtue and stimulate thrifty, industrious workers. The Bastardy Clause absolved the putative father of any responsibility for his bastard child and socially and economically victimized the mother in an effort to restore female morality. Its enactment fomented the growth of a modern and murderous form of an old institution, baby farming, which preyed on the infants of these humiliated and alienated mothers. Despite the tremendous toll it took on the lives of innocent children, the Victorians' fear of government intervention into social reform and the Victorian ideal of the inviolability of the family prevented its reform until the end of the 19th century.


And here's another excerpt from that paper:
Unwed mothers and their infants were an affront to morality. They were spurned and ostracized both by the public relief and charitable institutions. Muller's Orphan Asylum in Bristol in 1836 refused illegitimate children; they accepted only "lawfully begotten" orphans. Children conceived in sin had no doubt inherited their parents' lack of moral character and would contaminate the minds and morals of legitimate children in their care. Although there were a few orphanages opened to accommodate illegitimate children, the majority of the institutions adhered to the policy of denying them entry, despite the fact that the largest number of orphans were illegitimate. <16> In 1842, the Poor Law Commissioner issued orders that loose women ought to be kept away from women and girls of good character in the workhouses. <17>

Even family and friends could not be depended on to offer comfort and aid. If a young woman became pregnant while still living at home, she was forced to leave in disgrace and move to an area where she was not known. She was scorned by family, friends, and employer alike. Laura Clarke, a young unwed mother from the rural village of Cornwall, is a typical example. Uprooted by pregnancy, she was forced to leave her home in disgrace and move to another town where she was unknown. After her child was born, she was forced to farm it out in order to enter domestic service. The infant soon died and she drifted into prostitution. <18>

There were limited employment opportunities for young single women who were pregnant or who had illegitimate infants. The majority of them turned to factory or domestic service or embroidery, lace making, and trim work on ladies clothing -- "fancy work." All of these forms of employment kept them under the close scrutiny of their employers. It was impossible to conceal their condition in the latter stages of pregnancy, and they were fired immediately when it was discovered. <19> Young mothers were forced to look for new employment after the baby was born, but their efforts were hampered because they could not return to work with an illegitimate child in tow. <20> Childbirth brought fear of starvation for the mother and her child, alienation from family and friends, and censure from society, relief agencies, and employers. <21> In desolation and shame, young unwed mothers placed their infants in workhouses where their survival was questionable, <22> committed infanticide, or turned to baby farmers, who specialized in the premeditated and systematic murder of illegitimate infants. <23>






Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JDCRex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117800 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 9:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Have you ever considered why the English word "bastard" -- which literally means "a child born out of wedlock" -- has such strong negative connotations?

Because of bigoted starry-eyed zealots like you giving it one.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JDCRex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117801 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 9:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
I never suggested that those who conceive children out of wedlock are deviant. I said only that to do so is grossly immoral for the reasons noted above.

The one thing that is quantifiably grossly immoral with regards to this conversation are your deranged fascistic fantasies.

Do you ever dream about being an Inquisitor? I think you would have fitted right in.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Sensormatic Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117803 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/19/2005 11:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
More importantly, who gets to be the arbiter of which parents show suitable "judgement" and "self-control"?

Bottom line is that all humans fall short because we are all sinners by nature. No one is perfect and its not fair to judge especially when we all live in glass houses with bags full of stones to throw. Our faith helps us overcome and/or guide us though any problem in our lives (The Bible). We are responsible only for ourselves and the children that you are raising in the eyes of the LORD and we should be kind to our fellow man. This is my humble belief. I welcome all discussion.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MrsPoppy Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117804 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/20/2005 12:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Now, do you think that it is morally acceptable to conceive children without first making a commitment to provide a stable and nurturing environment for them?

I think parents can make a commitment to provide a stable and nurturing environment without being married. As my handle would indicate, I myself am married. But I've seen unmarried couples with children do a far better job at parenting than some other married couples I know.

Note that this is NOT a religious issue. Rather, it is a moral issue rooted in nature itself, which does not depend upon the teachings of any religion whatsoever.


I disagree. Religion is the adherence to a particular moral code. Yours is devoutly Christian and for you, that is synonymous with morality. There are moral codes that are built on other foundations.

Have you ever considered why the English word "bastard" -- which literally means "a child born out of wedlock" -- has such strong negative connotations? The negative connotations arose precisely because children born out of wedlock rarely have adequate parents.

I can't say as I would naturally assume that the negative connotation is rooted in what you say it is and I would welcome supporting documentation that shows that. While you're at it, I'd be curious to know from whence the negative connotations for the word "bitch" arose, since the word means "female dog".

Generally, I disagree with you.

Respectfully,
Poppy

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: silverwing008 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117805 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/20/2005 2:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
That said, those of you who advocate that people should bear and attempt to raise children out of wedlock, with no interference from the government, might do well to contemplate how the word "bastard" (literally meaning "a child born out of wedlock") came to have its strong negative connotations. (For a hint, see Hebrews 12:7-8.)

Actually, the negative connotation regarding its meaning today is largely relegated to another meaning, not the child of an unwed mother. Seriously, who goes around saying, "That poor child, he's a bastard." They don't. And just because a child's parents are not married, it doesn't doom that child to third-class status.

And, Norm, when I think of you relating to the word bastard, I think of the other definition: "an offensive or disagreeable person."

silverwing

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117806 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/20/2005 2:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Silverwing,

Me: That said, those of you who advocate that people should bear and attempt to raise children out of wedlock, with no interference from the government, might do well to contemplate how the word "bastard" (literally meaning "a child born out of wedlock") came to have its strong negative connotations. (For a hint, see Hebrews 12:7-8.)

You: Actually, the negative connotation regarding its meaning today is largely relegated to another meaning, not the child of an unwed mother. Seriously, who goes around saying, "That poor child, he's a bastard." They don't. And just because a child's parents are not married, it doesn't doom that child to third-class status.

And, Norm, when I think of you relating to the word bastard, I think of the other definition: "an offensive or disagreeable person."


You obviously did not look up the hint that I gave, but you probably would get the same information from the etymology in most dictionaries. It turns out that there's a very clear connection between the denotation and the connotation, which is precisely how the connotation came about.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117807 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/20/2005 2:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
MrsPoppy,

Religion is the adherence to a particular moral code.

No. Rather, religion is a complete and self-consistent set of beliefs about the existence and nature of deities, along with any worship or cult thereof consistent with said beliefs.

Note that Atheism is a religion with only one tenet -- that there is no deity.

Morality, rather, is absolute, and is inherent in the nature of the universe. The morality of acts such as murder and rape does not depend upon the tenets of any religion.

Yours is devoutly Christian and for you, that is synonymous with morality.

Wrong again. My Christian faith has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Although some commandments of the old testament do affirm moral principles, the moral principles do not depend upon that affirmation because they are inherent in the nature of the universe.

There are moral codes that are built on other foundations.

All moral principles are build on a non-religous foundation -- specifically, the natural order of the universe. That is precisely the distinction between "doctrine" and "morals" and the reason why morality is not part of doctrine.

I can't say as I would naturally assume that the negative connotation is rooted in what you say it is and I would welcome supporting documentation that shows that.

There's a very clear historical reference in Hebrews 12:7-8. I suspect that the etymology in many dictionaries would give you the same information.

While you're at it, I'd be curious to know from whence the negative connotations for the word "bitch" arose, since the word means "female dog".

I have not investigated this, but a wild guess would be that many female dogs are quite ferocious when protecting their young offspring. Perhaps the etymology in a dictionary might provide more information.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117809 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/20/2005 2:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Sensormatic,

Bottom line is that all humans fall short because we are all sinners by nature. No one is perfect and its not fair to judge especially when we all live in glass houses with bags full of stones to throw. Our faith helps us overcome and/or guide us though any problem in our lives (The Bible). We are responsible only for ourselves and the children that you are raising in the eyes of the LORD and we should be kind to our fellow man. This is my humble belief. I welcome all discussion.

That's clearly true of each of us individually. Nonetheless, I doubt that any of us would want to live in a society that refuses to punish crime because nobody is qualified to act as prosecutor, judge, or member of a jury -- which is precisely what your post seems to suggest.

The fact that we all fall short of the ideal is precisely the reason why sociologists now speak of a "adequate" parents rather than "perfect" parents. While the line of adequacy is somewhat fuzzy, I think that most of us are aware of cases -- indeed, probably among our blood relatives if we are honest -- in which children suffer in one way or another due to major failures of their parents. At some point, knowledge of abuse or neglect on the part of a parent imposes a moral, and posssilby legal, obligation to intervene for the sake of the child's welfare. Anybody who knows, for example, that a parent is abusing a child and does nothing about it become an accessory to murder if the child dies as a result of the abuse.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117819 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/20/2005 5:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Note that Atheism is a religion with only one tenet -- that there is no deity.



Note: Atheism is not a religion.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117821 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/20/2005 5:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
JT wrote:

Note: Atheism is not a religion.

To the extent that it claims that there is no supernatural being, yes, it is a religious belief - whether or not it is organized.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117825 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/20/2005 7:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
To the extent that it claims that there is no supernatural being, yes, it is a religious belief - whether or not it is organized.



Ok...I am 100% sure I will regret asking this. But how so?

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117845 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/21/2005 11:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Charlie,

Me: Note that Atheism is a religion with only one tenet -- that there is no deity.

You: Note: Atheism is not a religion.

Atheism most certainly IS a religion because it is a complete, self-consistent, set of beliefs about the existence and nature of deities. Note that there's no requirement for a religion to have any cult or practice of worship. Indeed, it takes a lot more faith to be an Atheist than to be a Christian because no Atheist can prove that there is no God and the consequence of error is certain eternal damnation!

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117853 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/21/2005 12:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Indeed, it takes a lot more faith to be an Atheist than to be a Christian because no Atheist can prove that there is no God and the consequence of error is certain eternal damnation!



Now that is a bunch of hooey! But you believe what you want.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117860 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/21/2005 1:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
rev2217:

{{{{Note that Atheism is a religion with only one tenet -- that there is no deity.}}}}

<<<<Atheism is not a religion.>>>>

"Atheism most certainly IS a religion because it is a complete, self-consistent, set of beliefs about the existence and nature of deities."

Atheism has beliefs about the nature of deities?

"Note that there's no requirement for a religion to have any cult or practice of worship."

Says who? You "win" all your debates by insisting that only you get to define the relevant terms.

re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

re·li·gion
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
- b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
--- (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion&x=16&y=20

"Indeed, it takes a lot more faith to be an Atheist than to be a Christian because no Atheist can prove that there is no God and the consequence of error is certain eternal damnation!"

Assumes a specific God, and a bad paraphrase of Pacal's wager. Even if athiests are wrong, and there is a god, why assume eternal damnation? Maybe god is a god of love and self-fulfillment, and do-overs, and you are simply reborn until you come to have faith?

JAFO



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cowhoney Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117907 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/21/2005 11:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Norm,

You are spot on in calling atheism a religion.....


We got some inhouse things to work on regarding placement of out of wedlock births.

Until then,
Pax Christi,
Cowhoney

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cowhoney Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117910 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/22/2005 12:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Indeed, it takes a lot more faith to be an Atheist than to be a Christian because no Atheist can prove that there is no God and the consequence of error is certain eternal damnation!



Now that is a bunch of hooey! But you believe what you want.

Charlie

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Charlie,

Your last post was "cowhoney"

If I error all I missed was hedonistic pleasure; if you error you miss Salvation!

....played my share of poker in days past; I know where to bet today!

Count your chips,
Play a hand for Eternity,
With respect,
Cowhoney

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117915 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/22/2005 1:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
"Now that is a bunch of hooey!"

What exactly about the statement was hooey? Can any atheist prove there is no God?

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 117939 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/22/2005 10:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Can any atheist prove there is no God?



LOL....that's funny. Of course an Atheist will do their best to prove there is no God, and then they will ask you for your proof God exists. I see this on a regular basis on AF. It turns into a cycle. To they Atheist, they have proved their is no God. They are satisfied their studies show no such existance.

I just think it is silly to call the non-belief in God a religion.

Charlie



Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 118007 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/24/2005 11:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
JAFO,

Atheism has beliefs about the nature of deities?

Yes. Specifically, "Atheism" is the single tenet that there is no deity.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 118009 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/24/2005 12:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
rev2217:

JAFO: <<<<Atheism has beliefs about the nature of deities?>>>>

"Yes. Specifically, "Atheism" is the single tenet that there is no deity."

That would seem to be a tenent about the existence of a deity (or deities), not "about the nature of deities".

JAFO





Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 118030 of 196430
Subject: Re: Reforming marriage Date: 1/24/2005 6:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
JAFO,

That would seem to be a tenent about the existence of a deity (or deities), not "about the nature of deities".

Non-existence of an entity would imply directly that its nature is either fictitious or extinct.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (118) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement