sangh0
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-05-04 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #41 |
| 45. Well, that's the first time you've said that |
|
I daresay my version of marriage makes this bit of legal chicanery that you seem so fond of called "covenant marriage" look asinine in how it really supports and defends what should be important in marriage
I don't see how this concern justifies calling it "slavery" or "legal chicanery".
I think being pressured into signing your legal rights away if you find the person you married is going to make your life miserable just another form of slavery and I will not apologize for that characterization of it.
"I think" is not a very strong argument to support your claim that this is "slavery" and "legal chicanery". People are coerced into signing non-disclosure agreements in order to get a job, effectively signing a legal right away, and there's nothing illegal or immoral about that. In a free society, people are free to NOT exercise their rights as well as being free to exercise their rights. The right to free speech includes the right to remain silent.
By defending this form of marriage and making half-hearted excuses you are defending the subjugation of the spirit of what marriage should really be about.
That assumes that a convenant marriage is a form of slavery. I like the way you try to impose your opinion on others and pressure them (with name calling) into agreeing with your opinion.
|
| -"Covenant" Marriage-Good or Bad? |
classicfilmfan |
Dec-05-04 12:14 PM |
#0 |
 -
Let's go back to the bad old days |
ayeshahaqqiqa |
Dec-05-04 12:17 PM |
#1 |
  -
That's what I thought too |
classicfilmfan |
Dec-05-04 12:19 PM |
#4 |
| -
No, they need low paid workers |
ayeshahaqqiqa |
Dec-05-04 12:21 PM |
#6 |
| -
Stupid idea...... |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 12:18 PM |
#2 |
| -
I think Louisiana |
varun |
Dec-05-04 12:19 PM |
#3 |
| -
The word "mandatory" in this context is misleading |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 12:20 PM |
#5 |
| -
Personally, I think anyone stupid enough to get one of these.... |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 12:24 PM |
#7 |
| -
I can imagine certain churches pressuring their member to get one |
DBoon |
Dec-05-04 12:35 PM |
#10 |
| -
In other words, it's slavery, not marriage. |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 12:42 PM |
#14 |
| -
You are right |
DBoon |
Dec-05-04 01:11 PM |
#19 |
| -
In that case, most if not all marriages are "slavery" |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 01:11 PM |
#20 |
| -
If you don't like what I said, feel free to ignore me. |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 01:32 PM |
#28 |
| -
Fat chance |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 01:38 PM |
#32 |
| -
I am hostile to the notion because I feel it would detrimental... |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 01:52 PM |
#37 |
| -
And so you called it "slavery"??? |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 02:13 PM |
#43 |
| -
A person is able to extricate themselves from a "normal" marriage... |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 02:47 PM |
#53 |
| -
And people can extricate themselves from convenant marriages too |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 03:25 PM |
#60 |
| -
Leave it alone. I disagree with your position wholeheartedly |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 03:38 PM |
#66 |
| -
Do you really think there's any chance I will obey your orders? |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 04:15 PM |
#69 |
| -
That's what the article said |
classicfilmfan |
Dec-05-04 01:00 PM |
#16 |
| -
Which underscores the point that if you can be pressured into... |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 01:04 PM |
#17 |
| -
Yes, and we know no one has EVER been pressured into getting married |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 01:12 PM |
#22 |
| -
I didn't say that they hadn't.... |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 01:20 PM |
#24 |
| -
True, you just criticized one for something that applies to the other also |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 01:23 PM |
#25 |
| -
Um, did you even read where I replied exactly to someone... |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 01:26 PM |
#26 |
| -
Of course they would be pressured |
DBoon |
Dec-05-04 01:32 PM |
#29 |
| -
I don't think pressure is ALWAYS going to be a factor. |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 01:38 PM |
#33 |
| -
Pressure is a factor in traditional marriages also |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 01:40 PM |
#34 |
| -
It is easier to get a divorce than it is for a slave to buy their freedom |
DBoon |
Dec-05-04 01:55 PM |
#38 |
| -
I agree with most of that |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 02:16 PM |
#44 |
| -
Of course you totally leave out the factor of pressure... |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 02:53 PM |
#55 |
| -
That's because the law takes coercion into account |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 03:22 PM |
#59 |
| -
Yeah, imagine trying to prove social coercion? |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 03:32 PM |
#64 |
| -
You'd have to define it first |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 03:37 PM |
#65 |
| -
Perhaps it's because "non-covenant" marriages... |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 02:00 PM |
#41 |
| -
Well, that's the first time you've said that |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 02:21 PM |
#45 |
| -
I wouldn't have had to had you not jumped to rash conclusions... |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 02:49 PM |
#54 |
| -
So now I imagined you calling it "slavery"?? |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 03:26 PM |
#61 |
| -
No you imagined me calling ALL marriage slavery... |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 03:30 PM |
#63 |
| -
Exactly, what's wrong with all those red staters*... |
Salviati |
Dec-05-04 01:16 PM |
#23 |
| -
The Repugs want to keep gov't out of business |
classicfilmfan |
Dec-05-04 01:43 PM |
#36 |
| -
That has to be the stupidest thing I ever heard of. |
coloradodem2005 |
Dec-05-04 12:25 PM |
#8 |
| -
Why would anyone enter into this contract? |
BattyDem |
Dec-05-04 12:32 PM |
#9 |
| -
On the flip side, it would be a good sign.... |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 12:37 PM |
#12 |
| -
Exactly! If a guy suggests this contract ... |
BattyDem |
Dec-05-04 12:58 PM |
#15 |
| -
To protect marriage, just outlaw divorce and be done with it. |
SharonAnn |
Dec-05-04 12:36 PM |
#11 |
| -
Well, I suppose if they're going to create a special class of people |
neebob |
Dec-05-04 12:41 PM |
#13 |
| -
I can't beleive they are going to monkey around with Marriage |
BR_Parkway |
Dec-05-04 01:06 PM |
#18 |
| -
Tell your daughter that getting married is NOT a good thing. |
cornermouse |
Dec-05-04 01:12 PM |
#21 |
| -
What's the point of "convenant" marriages? |
Solly Mack |
Dec-05-04 01:29 PM |
#27 |
| -
To make it more difficult to get a divorce |
classicfilmfan |
Dec-05-04 01:37 PM |
#31 |
| -
But it's not mandatory..per the info given |
Solly Mack |
Dec-05-04 01:41 PM |
#35 |
| -
No more pointless than banning something that doesn't exist |
classicfilmfan |
Dec-05-04 02:34 PM |
#49 |
| -
Exactly...is there any NEED for this kind of variation? |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 03:06 PM |
#58 |
| -
so it's a standard of measure as well as being pointless |
Solly Mack |
Dec-05-04 05:40 PM |
#91 |
| -
It's super-duper marriage. For Mormons, it extends beyond death, etc. |
elehhhhna |
Dec-05-04 01:58 PM |
#40 |
| -
James Dobson, Don Wildmon, et al have been endorsing these |
doni_georgia |
Dec-05-04 01:35 PM |
#30 |
| -
And this is exactly the sort of coercion I meant |
DBoon |
Dec-05-04 01:57 PM |
#39 |
| -
That's misleading |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 02:23 PM |
#47 |
| -
It's another instance of religion |
BrewerJohn |
Dec-05-04 02:09 PM |
#42 |
| -
The main problem I have with these |
fnottr |
Dec-05-04 02:21 PM |
#46 |
| -
If marriage is simply a contract |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 02:41 PM |
#50 |
| -
the problem with interjecting a religious view |
fnottr |
Dec-05-04 02:56 PM |
#56 |
| -
I think we mean different things by the "public domain" |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 03:30 PM |
#62 |
| -
Does the "why" of this law have any bearing on its merit? |
Kingshakabobo |
Dec-05-04 04:14 PM |
#68 |
| -
Very good question |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 04:17 PM |
#70 |
| -
Though I don't wish to limit the freedoms of consenting adults |
fnottr |
Dec-05-04 04:24 PM |
#73 |
| -
I still am wary of coercion and social/religious/emotional pressure... |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 04:44 PM |
#77 |
| -
Oh I completely agree |
fnottr |
Dec-05-04 04:57 PM |
#80 |
| -
And I share those concerns, particularly your 2nd point |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 04:54 PM |
#79 |
| -
No, these will not cause a sudden merging of state and church |
fnottr |
Dec-05-04 05:06 PM |
#81 |
| -
My thoughts on possible constitutional objections |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 05:13 PM |
#82 |
| -
Well, I'm certainly no legal or constitutional expert |
fnottr |
Dec-05-04 05:19 PM |
#83 |
| -
Then we're at basically the same point |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 05:25 PM |
#87 |
| -
Let's hope so! n/t |
fnottr |
Dec-05-04 05:29 PM |
#88 |
| -
This was true in NY ....... |
serryjw |
Dec-05-04 02:24 PM |
#48 |
| -
painfully stupid |
Lexingtonian |
Dec-05-04 02:42 PM |
#51 |
| -
Both Lynne Cheney and Laura Bush had to threaten their husbands |
barbaraann |
Dec-05-04 02:45 PM |
#52 |
| -
Here's an idea |
NicoleM |
Dec-05-04 03:05 PM |
#57 |
| -
what the fuck is wrong with the fundies? |
enki23 |
Dec-05-04 03:52 PM |
#67 |
| -
To put it crudely, they can't stop their daughters from fucking |
sangh0 |
Dec-05-04 04:21 PM |
#71 |
| -
I think it's a GREAT idea... |
regnaD kciN |
Dec-05-04 04:24 PM |
#72 |
| -
Another good argument for getting the state OUT of marriage. |
SmokingJacket |
Dec-05-04 04:27 PM |
#74 |
| -
Petition to outlaw divorce. |
Kingshakabobo |
Dec-05-04 04:27 PM |
#75 |
| -
yeah, I heard those ideas too |
fnottr |
Dec-05-04 05:22 PM |
#84 |
| -
I think all Republicans should be required to get these marriages |
jmowreader |
Dec-05-04 04:38 PM |
#76 |
| -
Speaking of full faith and credit clauses.... |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 04:46 PM |
#78 |
| -
Not at all. |
jmowreader |
Dec-05-04 05:24 PM |
#86 |
| -
Exactly, so would we be able to make their divorces unbinding... |
Liberal Veteran |
Dec-05-04 05:35 PM |
#90 |
| -
While I think plain marriage is enough |
supernova |
Dec-05-04 05:23 PM |
#85 |
| -
Jeez - no freaking way! |
Delphinus |
Dec-05-04 05:32 PM |
#89 |
| -
Ok, this is a good thing in a backward way. |
progressoid |
Dec-05-04 06:07 PM |
#92 |
| -
Huckabee and his ilk |
oneighty |
Dec-05-04 06:45 PM |
#93 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread