 Author
|
Topic: Am I the only Free Stater opposed to the Same-sex marriage bill? (Read 17754 times)
|
Mark D
Guest
|
I've read a few posts where the authors have said that marriage is a contract. Marriage is not a contract.
Oh my... "Do you promise...?" "Do you promise...?" An exchange of mutually beneficial promises? That's a contract. AAAAGGGGHHHH. I was waiting for you to show up in here and say that very thing. What's worse, I'm going to have to acknowledge that you are correct.  Two promises, with the exchange of consideration...yes that's a contract by definition. However, my point in that discussion was directed toward the sharing of property and possessions as should be apparent if you go back and read it again now that I've said that. These issues are add-ons that really have nothing to do with the institution of marriage. Despite my imprecise description, my overall argument remains intact. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
My wife and I got married without any assistance of any "third party," governmental or otherwise. That's not marriage...that's making a vow to each other and living as though you are. Prove it. You're making assertions, and expecting them to be treated as facts, despite a total lack of any evidence, whatsoever. Did you get married by someone (have the titled conferred) or not? We got married. To each other. We don't need any outside authority to create that. In any case, no one is forced to get a marriage license. Agreed. Nor should they be. Good. So you've agreed that the notion that this extends government oppression to a group previously not oppressed is false - not one additional person is forced to get licensed as a result of the legal chance. It's merely an option that you have. Since same-sex spouses could be forced to testify against each other if they don't have one, opposing gay marriage is supporting initiated force. End of story. That just makes no sense what so ever. I guess that you and I should be married too so we can't be forced to testify against each other. No one should be forced to testify against anyone. However, specifically creating a discriminatory system in which sexual orientation is used to subject some to violence and others not, is oppressive. "If you are heterosexual, you won't be forced to testify against your spouse; if you are homosexual, you will be forced to testify against your spouse." Any reduction in the amount of forced used by the government against innocent people is a good thing. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
Mark D
Guest
|
Prove it. You're making assertions, and expecting them to be treated as facts, despite a total lack of any evidence, whatsoever.
"Marry - To unite in wedlock or matrimony; to join a man and woman for life, and constitute them man and wife according to the laws and customs of a nation." Noah Webster 1828. It's only recently that we've begun to redefine the term to mean something else. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 11:19:26 pm by Mark D »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark D
Guest
|
Good. So you've agreed that the notion that this extends government oppression to a group previously not oppressed is false - not one additional person is forced to get licensed as a result of the legal chance.
That was never my argument. Please see my original response on this thread. I raised two points: 1 - It places a private relationship between two people within the sphere of government when previously it was not. 2 - It establishes an implied requirement that the members of society as whole recognize a union which they may or may not want to. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 11:27:04 pm by Mark D »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark D
Guest
|
No one should be forced to testify against anyone. However, specifically creating a discriminatory system in which sexual orientation is used to subject some to violence and others not, is oppressive. "If you are heterosexual, you won't be forced to testify against your spouse; if you are homosexual, you will be forced to testify against your spouse." Any reduction in the amount of forced used by the government against innocent people is a good thing.
Sorry to separate all of these. It was just easier as I was thinking and typing... Sexual orientation isn't used as the basis for descriminating (traditional use of the word without all the connotations). All people are compelled to testify against one another. There has been created an explicit exemption for one group. Those who are married. That exemption is available to all people. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
However, my point in that discussion was directed toward the sharing of property and possessions as should be apparent if you go back and read it again now that I've said that. These issues are add-ons that really have nothing to do with the institution of marriage.
Oh but they do!  Originally, in this "institution"--and I'll temporarily assume Judeo-Christian marriage-was not the bride herself property "to be given"? And take the old vows, "to have and to hold": is this not the classic, ancient language used to convey property? Well, obviously treating women like meat wasn't workable. So apparently this institution changes over time. But even today, we retain the notions of dower, marital property, ad nauseum. But that's just us. In the grand scope, the questions about property rights upon marriage span nearly all cultures. "Nothing to do with it"? Humbug! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
Mark D
Guest
|
"Nothing to do with it"? Humbug!
No, not intrinsically. One could strip all notions of property rights from the equation and what would remain would still be marriage. These issues are tangental and do nothing to define the institution. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
Sexual orientation isn't used as the basis for descriminating (traditional use of the word without all the connotations). All people are compelled to testify against one another. There has been created an explicit exemption for one group. Those who are married. That exemption is available to all people.
Ah yes. Who created this exemption? Judges. And why did they create it? Compelling "married people" to testify would tend to tear apart long-term relationships--just by putting the spouse on the stand, even if he or she knew nothing particularly relevant. The contours of the exemption(s) vary from place to place. [edited for accuracy.] "Nothing to do with it"? Humbug!
No, not intrinsically. One could strip all notions of property rights from the equation and what would remain would still be marriage. These issues are tangental and do nothing to define the institution. What defines the institution? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 12:24:38 am by B.D. Ross »
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Prove it. You're making assertions, and expecting them to be treated as facts, despite a total lack of any evidence, whatsoever. "Marry - To unite in wedlock or matrimony; to join a man and woman for life, and constitute them man and wife according to the laws and customs of a nation." Noah Webster 1828. It's only recently that we've begun to redefine the term to mean something else. That does not support your assertion that marriage requires a third party. That was never my argument. Please see my original response on this thread. I raised two points:
1 - It places a private relationship between two people within the sphere of government when previously it was not.
2 - It establishes an implied requirement that the members of society as whole recognize a union which they may or may not want to. That says the same thing that I asserted your argument as being, just in different words. And they are, of course, false. As noted, it doesn't place any relationship within the sphere of government. It merely allows the members of that relationship to do so, if they see fit. "Implied requirement" is a nonsense term. Sexual orientation isn't used as the basis for descriminating (traditional use of the word without all the connotations). All people are compelled to testify against one another. There has been created an explicit exemption for one group. Those who are married. That exemption is available to all people. No, it's only available to those who are allowed to get married. If some group is not allowed to enter in marriage, then the system is discriminating against that group. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
Mark D
Guest
|
That does not support your assertion that marriage requires a third party.
That says the same thing that I asserted your argument as being, just in different words.
Good morning...I'm going to drop the debate on your first two points. To argue your second point is fruitless unless we come to terms on your first point, which involves a definition. After reading through our string I don't want to continue the debate concerning the first point because I can't possibly win without some concessions that you would never make and I wouldn't want you to make. Let's shake hands and walk away on this one with the understanding that we are working with two separate definitions of marriage. I think that we can continue on with the rest though as the discussion doesn't rely upon the definition of marriage. First off, "implied requirement" is not a nonsense term. In fact, it's the way much of our society works today - Implied: Not explicitly stated - Requirement: That which is not optional Once law, acceptance by society is an implied requirement. It's not explicitly stated that I do so in the law itself but will nonetheless be required. My children will be taught the validity of such unions in school whether I agree or not, my business must support such unions whether I agree or not... this is how we formalize societal norms. On your last point Sexual orientation isn't used as the basis for descriminating (traditional use of the word without all the connotations). All people are compelled to testify against one another. There has been created an explicit exemption for one group. Those who are married. That exemption is available to all people. No, it's only available to those who are allowed to get married. If some group is not allowed to enter in marriage, then the system is discriminating against that group. Every single individual is permitted to be married. What's more, by your example, the system is discriminating against adults and minor children (not there own) as well. I'm sorry. This argument doesn't hold water. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Good morning...I'm going to drop the debate on your first two points. To argue your second point is fruitless unless we come to terms on your first point, which involves a definition. After reading through our string I don't want to continue the debate concerning the first point because I can't possibly win without some concessions that you would never make and I wouldn't want you to make. Let's shake hands and walk away on this one with the understanding that we are working with two separate definitions of marriage. Whatever religious notions you have don't apply to a discussion of marriage, with respect to how the government acts. If your religious sect doesn't want to recognize marriages that aren't performed by an albino riding a unicycle, that's your choice. However, it does not impact the objective validity of other marriages. First off, "implied requirement" is not a nonsense term. In fact, it's the way much of our society works today
- Implied: Not explicitly stated
- Requirement: That which is not optional
Once law, acceptance by society is an implied requirement. It's not explicitly stated that I do so in the law itself but will nonetheless be required. My children will be taught the validity of such unions in school whether I agree or not, my business must support such unions whether I agree or not... this is how we formalize societal norms. Nothing you don't explicitly agree to imposes a requirement on you, as a point of fact. In any case, your examples don't hold water. "Society" is not a homogeneous body. Many groups within "society" don't accept many things that are law. Drug laws and immigration laws are a current and common example where certain groups within society completely disagree with the law, as written. Your school example is meaningless - being taught that gay marriage exists should be the least of your concerns if you send your children to the government-run indoctrination centers. I can't imagine how you think that your business must "support" gay marriages. Every single individual is permitted to be married. The point had nothing to do with whether any particular individual can marry someone. The point was that, absent legally-recognized marriage, someone could be forced to testify against the individual that is his/her spouse. If the government prevents those particular individuals from getting married, then it is discriminating against those actual, particular individuals. What's more, by your example, the system is discriminating against adults and minor children (not there own) as well. I'm sorry. This argument doesn't hold water. The fact that the government discriminates against others does not excuse further discrimination. The fact that you dislike an argument does not have any effect upon its validity. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
Floridian
|
It's only recently that we've begun to redefine the term to mean something else.
I have one theory that the common acceptance of an oxymoron as a rational definition could have started with the coining of the term "rap music" in New York City in circa 1979. It wasn't long after that we got "reality TV", "gay marriage" and now (drum roll...) "green industry!" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Tu ne cede malis.
|
|
|
Mark D
Guest
|
Whatever religious notions you have don't apply to a discussion of marriage, with respect to how the government acts. If your religious sect doesn't want to recognize marriages that aren't performed by an albino riding a unicycle, that's your choice. However, it does not impact the objective validity of other marriages.
Strawman. I never mentioned any religion of any sort. Do you have an agenda? Drug laws and immigration laws are a current and common example where certain groups within society completely disagree with the law, as written.
So what? Violate them and they end up in the pokey. Your school example is meaningless - being taught that gay marriage exists should be the least of your concerns if you send your children to the government-run indoctrination centers.
Sounds like you agree that it's still an issue nonetheless (I homeschool btw). The point had nothing to do with whether any particular individual can marry someone. The point was that, absent legally-recognized marriage, someone could be forced to testify against the individual that is his/her spouse. If the government prevents those particular individuals from getting married, then it is discriminating against those actual, particular individuals.
This response does not address my charge. What about adults and non-family children? They don't have an exemption. Should we use this as an argument to Marry them as well? O.k....back to work. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark D
Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
This response does not address my charge. What about adults and non-family children? They don't have an exemption. Should we use this as an argument to Marry them as well?
I think you're arguing in reverse here. There is an exemption because they are married. Generally, people don't choose to marry for the sole purpose of gaining this privilege. O.k....back to work.
Great idea! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
