Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

fustakrakich's Journal: You've got it backwards there chap. 15

Journal by fustakrakich

Get the churches out of marriage.

Marriage has historically always been a legal contract uniting two (or more) people, and not necessarily with consent. The function of the religious aspects of marriage are only to reinforce the seriousness of the legal contract. Historically marriage was used to share property, to end wars, to settle bets, and to buy goods. The history of marriage is property management. What part of that is religious?

That most marriages begin in a church does not make them a religious institution. Voting and town halls often happen in churches, yet no one seems to be demanding we get the government out of either of those and let the churches handle them. The argument that marriage should be left to the churches is an argument rooted firmly in historical ignorance. The church has no claim to marriage.

AC gets no resepct.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

You've got it backwards there chap.

Comments Filter:
  • Even agree that DOMA was a bad call, on Federalist grounds.
    Hope the SCOTUS goes ahead and points out that the Federal government should be equally uninvolved in individual health, housing, retirement, education, &c.
    • DOMA was a bad call, is backward and bigoted on all grounds... For some reason I believe you would disagree with that, but marriage is a business contract.

      BTW, Scalia was hilarious

      • All grounds? Do you adhere to the notion of an absolute Truth, upon which such a quantifier must needs be based?
        If so, can you share that Truth?
        I did not read Scalia's opinion, or hear his remarks.
        However, I cheerfully voted for Virginia's Constitutional Amendment that marriage means what it means a few years ago.
        I await being told that my First Amendment rights are revoked, and I am engaging in hate speech to instruct my son that form follows function, and the obvious function of the genitals is the pr
        • ...upon which such a quantifier must needs be based?

          That's not true. It can stand by itself. And it does.

          I see you're still trying to apply all the regular reactionary talking points, so convincing you that marriage is not a religious institution is off the table. But if you voted to restrict the the right to a marriage contract to a specific group of people, then you are a bigot (something to be proud of, for sure). You don't have any right to do that. You sure don't have any right to legislate the 'proper

          • How can you tell the temperature without admitting, at least tacitly, to an absolute zero?
            No, I'm not a bigot, nor would I take pride in such. Great smear.
            My thesis is to support the fruitful in a positive way.
            As a thought experiment, if everyone chose to go gay, we'd crash the human race.

            You sure don't have any right to legislate the 'proper use of genitals'.

            Nor did I ever assert or undertake such. Is your task to bury me in strawmen?

            You're just voting for Jim Crow laws, and, given the opportunity, probably would have voted against Loving.

            I love my son, my brother, my father, the men of my church, very, very deeply, in every way that is positive, shameless, and grows us in human

            • You are a textbook case of distraction and obfuscation... and projection.

              We tell the temperature by creating an 'absolute' zero. 0 is cold, 100 is hot. Where is the problem?

              Since you didn't see it the first time, I will repeat it for you: ...if you voted to restrict the the right to a marriage contract to a specific group of people, then you are a bigot... There is no 'smear' in that statement. It is a mathematical truth. As absolute as man can produce. I'm not sure what the term is when it's systematic in

              • OK, then, I didn't vote to restrict anything. I voted in favor of the traditional definition. Theoretically (lest I sound like I'm out to accuse anyone), only a bigot would detect bigotry in a simple, honest, well-founded opinion on the definition of a term.

                You keep on thinking I'm 'accusing' you of something (again the projection).

                Hey, as long as we agree that neither I, nor you, is racist or a bigot for holding their opinions, I think we can Coexist.

                • Getting back to the original post, the only real tradition marriage holds is that of property transfers. Your 'opinion' and your amendments represent a very short 'tradition'. And it is a very bigoted one based on superstitious beliefs. You have no right to decide what kinds of people can sign a binding contract. It is none of your business. Learn to butt out. Or learn to accept being called what you are.

                  • Getting back to what I said originally, I'm in agreement with you on the libertarian approach to the question.

                    the only real tradition marriage holds is that of property transfers

                    The stone cold hilarious point here is your desperate attempt to look past the point of sex itself, as well as marriage, is to optimize propagation of the species. And you can smear forth about "very bigoted one based on superstitious beliefs" as a basis for DOMA--get real, look at the facts: Billy Jeff signed it into law for political reasons, and rejoiced at its overturning at the SCOTUS for polit

                    • The stone cold hilarious point here is your desperate attempt to look past the point of sex itself, as well as marriage, is to optimize propagation of the species.

                      You have gone off the deep end...

                    • Marriage has never had much to do with sex. It's mostly been about property and power.

                    • Deep end. Really. You have no response for an obvious thesis, so you just call it "off the deep end". Thanks, Mr. Argument clinic.
                    • I suppose you're right. I don't know how to argue with a 'flat earther'. But it's certainly not for lack of effort.

                    • Last night I was cruising with Elvis in Bigfoot's UFO, and I can assure you: Earth is shaped like a carrot.
                    • How do you figure? You're going to point out that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, as though that was some representative sample?
                      If you don't have the sex, you don't have the children to defend your property, you lack power, and get crushed. But what do I know? I've only the one child.

Innovation is hard to schedule. -- Dan Fylstra

Working...