Journal fustakrakich's Journal: You've got it backwards there chap. 15
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.
Think you have the right of it. (Score:1)
Hope the SCOTUS goes ahead and points out that the Federal government should be equally uninvolved in individual health, housing, retirement, education, &c.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Marriage has never had much to do with sex. It's mostly been about property and power.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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.