Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down

Author Topic: The Make up of FSP  (Read 18221 times)

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #75 on: February 14, 2009, 01:21:45 am »

mar⋅riage
 [mar-ij]
–noun
1.    the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.


Where's the force being enacted now?

That’s a dictionary definition, not a legal one. I also don’t happen to subscribe to the prescriptivist school of lexicography, which is just another form of élitism.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2009, 11:03:17 pm by sj »
Logged

TacyTraverso

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #76 on: February 14, 2009, 01:32:40 am »

oh boy, i'll stick my neck out on this with a quick scan.  since we seem to live in a world where common societal agreements rule, then we can also use that same rule to word definitions.  ask anyone what they imagine when they think of "marriage" and words that follow will be like:  altar, church, rice, temple, (etc...)

marriage is of religious connotation and thus, doesn't belong anywhere in any legal document, no matter what state.  if the state insists on identifying such unions for property right purposes, let them call that acknowledgment a civil union.

hence, only civil unions should ever be in a court house, let marriage stay in the church (or where ever).

so, as a gay woman, i don't believe in gay marriage, nor any marriage sanctioned or viewed by government.  i do, however, feel that civil unions have some purpose in the law, and if they must be given out, let them be given to any who want them.  whether that be two women, two men, 5 men and 3 women, 7 women and a man, whatever.  if it's only legal purpose is to define property contract, then no religious argument belongs in the discussion and the religious word should be removed.

Logged
"Never regret yesterday. Life is in you today and you can make your tomorrow." - L. Ron Hubbard

"Do or do not, there is no try." - Yoda

"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." - Robert A. Heinlein

TacyTraverso

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #77 on: February 14, 2009, 02:05:27 am »

oh, and by the way, i'm a rebel scientologist (not involved with the main organization).  i view scientology as a philosophy though as the only god even slightly recognized by it is one's self.
Logged
"Never regret yesterday. Life is in you today and you can make your tomorrow." - L. Ron Hubbard

"Do or do not, there is no try." - Yoda

"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." - Robert A. Heinlein

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #78 on: February 14, 2009, 06:46:53 pm »

oh boy, i'll stick my neck out on this with a quick scan.

ATTACK!!!  J/k. ;) Welcome aboard again

since we seem to live in a world where common societal agreements rule, then we can also use that same rule to word definitions.  ask anyone what they imagine when they think of "marriage" and words that follow will be like:  altar, church, rice, temple, (etc...)

marriage is of religious connotation and thus, doesn't belong anywhere in any legal document, no matter what state.  if the state insists on identifying such unions for property right purposes, let them call that acknowledgment a civil union.

hence, only civil unions should ever be in a court house, let marriage stay in the church (or where ever).

See bold, I disagree. Atheists get married too. For some people, it has a religious connotation--because those religions have many notions about marriage. But the word doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. I really don't even think the word "union" should be used in law when attempting to define marriage. Bad form: it only redefines the word "marriage" upon the no-less undefined word "union". Or at least, they don't mean "union" literally. I don't see people getting sewn together upon filing their marriage license application...

It is only my preference (and now the way a perfect world would be), but I would prefer to see the law embrace the single concept of a "domestic partnership", under the law of contract and equity, solely for resolving very narrow issues in the event the domestic partnership ends. If certain people wish to add anything else on top of that--religious, or otherwise--that is an entirely private matter :)
Logged

TacyTraverso

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #79 on: February 14, 2009, 07:58:06 pm »

Agreed, bad choice of words on my part.  Marriage is a spiritual unification, or at least personal (i.e. not legal).  And yes, I concur on the use of legal language too.  Perhaps "Civil Partnership" would work.  Legally, I view such unions as personal companies (producing offspring and owning properties), so yes, only view law has is in helping protect both parties' rights in case such company breaks up and assets disputed.

Agree agree!  Thanks for keeping me sharp!
Logged
"Never regret yesterday. Life is in you today and you can make your tomorrow." - L. Ron Hubbard

"Do or do not, there is no try." - Yoda

"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." - Robert A. Heinlein

time4liberty

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #80 on: February 16, 2009, 04:07:36 am »

Yep, "marriage" simply shouldn't be defined by the state. That's the only solution which does not abuse someone's rights.
Logged

sonio

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 764
    • Sonio on Facebook
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #81 on: February 16, 2009, 10:41:08 am »

But should there be any governmental sanctioning of any personal relationship?  I mean, isn't that an area that the government is the least necessary?!?!?!?  (Liberty wise)
Logged
It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. – Charles A. Beard

Tracer Tong

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #82 on: February 16, 2009, 05:40:20 pm »

Doug Stanhope: "If marriage didn't exist, would you invent it? Would you go 'Baby, this shit we got together? It's so good we gotta get the government in on this shit. We can't just share this commitment 'tweenst us. We need judges and lawyers involved in this shit, baby. It's hot!'"

And just for the sake of one more data point, the best word I know of to describe me in this context is agnostic.
Logged
Good.  We begin to operate from a position of strength.
We will start manufacturing the swords and distributing them to our allies.

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #83 on: February 16, 2009, 08:41:30 pm »

But should there be any governmental sanctioning of any personal relationship?  I mean, isn't that an area that the government is the least necessary?!?!?!?  (Liberty wise)

If we’re going to have an authoritarian government, it does make a small modicum of sense to have the government recognize these kinds of relationships for purposes of contract enforcement, &c.. But that’s the extent they should be involved: Recognition, not regulation.

There’s a bill up this year in New Hampshire to replace “marriage license” in the RSAs with “certificate of notice of intent to marry.” That can serve as a nice first step toward deregulation of marriage, hopefully.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #84 on: February 16, 2009, 09:25:40 pm »

Legally, I view such unions as personal companies (producing offspring and owning properties), so yes, only view law has is in helping protect both parties' rights in case such company breaks up and assets disputed.

Agree agree!  Thanks for keeping me sharp!

If only it were... the number of federal tax deductions that would open up...
Logged

TacyTraverso

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #85 on: February 16, 2009, 10:00:40 pm »

I disagree with any use of any derivative of "marry" in law.  I still think other words should be used as too many have religious considerations of "to marry" and it's conjugations. 

Under the Constitution, we are entitled to property law protection and thus, government does hold some voice in protecting the property rights of individuals at the cessation of a personal joint property agreement (i.e. you and your wife or 5 wives or 3 husbands, whatever).

I'm not a law student, but I think I'm making sense.  I look forward to being more educated so I can speak to this with a stronger voice.
Logged
"Never regret yesterday. Life is in you today and you can make your tomorrow." - L. Ron Hubbard

"Do or do not, there is no try." - Yoda

"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." - Robert A. Heinlein

Philip Nolan

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #86 on: February 18, 2009, 08:51:11 pm »

See my intro (after yours) titled interested

Phil
I'm not out of step, everyone else is.
Logged
Utopia is not an option.

BagOfEyebrows

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1577
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #87 on: February 19, 2009, 03:30:49 am »

I have no political or religious designation, but respect all political and religious designations as long as they are not imposed on state or federal levels  (although I am currently a registered Republican, former Libertarian,  and some friends have cited me as Christian even back when I was declaring myself an atheist or atheist-leaning agnostic.) 

I have a tremendous respect for God's Laws and the philosophy of Jesus Christ - I do not subscribe to any bible or church, though.  I have my own theory on the origin of mankind, which, because it's based on personal knowledge/experiences, conflicts with biblical/religious takes on the origin of mankind, but... does not conflict with God's Laws or the philosophy of Jesus.

I work towards New Hampshire being a state where liberty is better understood, the role of government and legislation better defined, and a complete overthrowing/removal of defacto law from our communities (unless desired by a community) - the NH Constitution has all the laws you need in it to form a civilized community/state, and liberty would allow for quite a variety of different philosophies to co-exist. 

 
Logged

hynniman

  • Guest
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #88 on: February 19, 2009, 10:23:29 am »

I believe religion gets in the way of God/Goddess/Creator.

This.

I don't care what religion people are or what they believe, as long as they keep it out of my face. 
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2908
Re: The Make up of FSP
« Reply #89 on: February 27, 2009, 12:54:10 am »

* I'm speaking as a potential unofficial FSPer, because I hope to move to NH, but not sign a statement.
* The Bible says everyone will be saved: http://www.jesusreligion.com/restoreall.html
http://www.tentmaker.org/FAQ/WhyLiveAGoodLife.html
* Salvation means being sinless, like Jesus, I think.
* Sin means selfishness. So everyone will become unselfish, emotionally mature, caring about everyone else, which means loving everyone, instead of being hedonistic (caring mainly about one's own pleasure).
* When the Bible mentions fornication, it mainly refers to being intimate with or submissive to false governments or rulers. The First Commandment is to have only one God, the Creator, which means the ideal model or standard for ourselves. False gods means false governments or other rulers or models or standards.
* The Beast means authoritarianism, or behaving abusively of others, like a wild beast. The Beast is authoritarian government or rule, a false god. http://bilib.webs.com - That's why I say the Bible is Libertarian, since Libertarian means non-authoritarian.
* The Israelites under Moses had non-authoritarian government under the Judges for four hundred years, similar to Native American government, till the people asked for a king like other peoples had. They didn't like having to go fight battles themselves every time foreign nations invaded their land. They wanted a standing army instead, with a king to lead it.
* Jesus taught the Apostles to restore Moses' type of government and for over 300 years Jesus' followers lived that type of government within the Roman Empire. England inherited this type of government from about 600 AD till after 1100 AD.
* The Renaissance then started a trend in Europe toward government for the people, based on better understanding of the Bible's message of love for all, which led to the founding of English colonies in America. The founders of the U.S. learned about non-authoritarian government from the Iroquois Indians and from the medieval history of England. The Articles of Confederation were based on unanimous rule to insure non-authoritarian cooperation, but the states had too little experience with unanimous rule, so it seemed too impractical at the time.
* Quakers were a major non-authoritarian movement since 1652, who used unanimous rule. Mennonites and Anabaptists were also non-authoritarian from even earlier, but the Quakers were political activists, and the others weren't.
* The Bible says at Rev. 11:15 that the kingdoms of man are to become kingdoms of God, so that's one way that will help everyone to be saved, I believe. It says the governments of man will become non-authoritarian.
* The Old Testament was greatly mistranslated and the history of the Israelites was probably not so bloody as it seems. The New Testament is much better translated, but still has plenty of errors. In Matthew 20: 25-28 Jesus told the Apostles that their society was not to be authoritarian like that of the Gentiles. Jesus' mission was partly to teach God's Law correctly, because the Pharisees and Sadducees taught it poorly, so most of the Jews didn't understand it correctly.
* I only know of one condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament. Paul said it's an abomination for a man to sleep with a man, or a woman to sleep with a woman. But then, the same is true for a man with a woman, if they're not married. For those who believe in following the exact words in the Bible, if that passage is translated correctly, then it's not a problem to engage in homosexual sex as long as they don't go to sleep next to each other. Because those are the exact words "it's an abomination ... to SLEEP with...".
* I personally think lots of forms of sexual activity are unhealthful and gross and the Pottenger's cats experiment suggests that too much cooked and processed food can cause homosexuality, apparently by producing insufficient hormones, enzymes, or other nutrients. Early trauma has a lot of effect too on hormones etc. My Dad was very authoritarian, so I was traumatized and when I was about 4 and didn't know better, since I didn't want to be like him, I wanted to grow up to be a woman like Mom.
* Hey, I don't mind if anyone doesn't feel guilty about being homosexual, or perverse, and I don't know that it's really wrong. We'll all be saved somehow, so apparently we'll obtain wisdom on such matters at our own pace/s.
* The main thing for now is, let's get liberty, starting with NH!
* James called the Scriptures the perfect Law of Liberty.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2009, 01:02:00 am by Luck »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up