government-free marriage

[AxisMundi]

I guess "morality" isn't the right word in your case, you want gov't to over-legislate quite a few natural activities that people have partaken in for thousands of years, like agriculture, personal relationships (which may or may not be related to morality), medicine, etc.

We're already legislated out the wazoo--and you want more, more, more...until people can't breathe without the state's approval....all in the name of "safety." Didn't Franklin have a good quote about that?

When legislation goes over the top, as you continually promote, nobody will be able or willing to follow said laws. In a round-about way, you're promoting anarchy more than the most militant anarchists, and you don't even know it.

Morality is indeed the wrong word, as is the remainder of your reply as well.

Marriage has always been regulated in this country since our Colonial era.

It is not an example of "new" and certainly not an example of "more" legislation.

And to be frank, I do support "more" legislation, simply because you cannot remove a law from the books without "more" legislation negating that law.

I fully endorse and support less laws, which would, of course, require "more" legislation.

 

[AxisMundi]

Your statism is bizarre! Why are you here again? To try to prove statism to us? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

I don't ever recall seeing a valid argument or atte4mpt to debate from you.

Are you here only to insult those who MIGHT disagree with you?

 

[Sola_Fide]

I didn't need to comment on what you said.

Erowe1 already pretty much destroyed it. Jus sayin...

 

[AxisMundi]

Yes. I admit it.
But I am not out to destroy every marriage.
Just yours.
And also every other marriage that was consecrated by the state-god.
Bow down and worship your master, while you can.
My marriage is defined by a different master, and it will survive the coming crumbling of your master and the resultant destruction of your marriage.
For if the government does collapse, you'll apparently be left with nothing.

1. Whether your desire for "Armageddon" comes to fruition or not, my marriage remains intact.

2. Like my marriage, teh vast majority of humanity, for the past 100,000 years, has never been married in a church.

3. The majority of human beings on the planet today have not been married in a church.

I believe this entire fiasco to end marriage, this "You're not playing right, I'm going home" juvenile mentality, is a result of the efforts of religious zealots in this Nation to eliminate our country as a Constitutional Republic and turn it into a Constitutional Theodemocracy, where the church takes precedence in all matters and the g'ment takes a mere supportive role of the church.

Legally binding or merely socially accepted, marriage would then come under the sole auspices of the Church. Atheists, and all non-Christians, would either be forced to attend church (which would be the law under theodemocracy anyways) and have weddings there, or face having their marriages not recognized legally or socially.

 

[AxisMundi]

I didn't need to comment on what you said.

Erowe1 already pretty much destroyed it. Jus sayin...

In other words you are a troll.

Just sayin'.

Thanks for playing.

 

[AxisMundi]

I use all of those things. I also oppose all of them. The state doesn't give me a choice not to participate in those programs, just as it doesn't give me a choice not to participate in your marriage. All of those things are a violation of my natural rights. The fact that I use the services after I'm already forced into them with violence does not constitute consent on my part.

Sorry if you don't like doing your civic duty like the rest of us.

And there is no natural right to use public services without helping to pay for them, sorry.

The term, natural rights, has become an empty catch-all phrase, and has lost all meaning as well as anything other than an attempt at offering a valid argument to support a premise.

 

[amy31416]

Morality is indeed the wrong word, as is the remainder of your reply as well.

Marriage has always been regulated in this country since our Colonial era.

It is not an example of "new" and certainly not an example of "more" legislation.

And to be frank, I do support "more" legislation, simply because you cannot remove a law from the books without "more" legislation negating that law.

I fully endorse and support less laws, which would, of course, require "more" legislation.

You support bigger government, despite admitting that it is ineffective and inefficient. You must also then support higher taxation, since none of these new regulations require ANY department to get their shit together, it just gives them more police power.

Tell you what? If you don't want to drink raw milk, DON'T. If you don't want to eat something that has the slightest chance in hell of being contaminated--cook it at 115 C for 15 minutes under pressure--anything less and you are at risk. That's a validated and proven way to destroy all bacteria in materials (YMMV in regards to heat penetration, but a few thermocouples can work that out for ya), beyond any doubt. I like sushi, oysters, rare beef, I want to make cheese with raw milk...and you'd support laws that make that impossible because someone ate a bad oyster, right? And I hope you're happy when the Feds crash down someone's door in the middle of the night and start shooting over it...it's almost happened already over MILK.

Are you insane wanting to give them more license to do such things, and take away any semblance of recourse that people may have to stop it?

Marriage licensing is only 100 years old. You want to have to get the state's blessing on who you love, you want the state to make your children legitimate, fine. Either you're simply a nanny-stater, trying desperately to get us off track, or you're deathly afraid that you might have to do something differently, in order to preserve liberty--for all.

You have no more business pushing that on everyone else than any of the religious people here have pushing their agenda on everyone else. You're a part of the problem.

 

[Sola_Fide]

1. Whether your desire for "armageddon" comes to fruition or not, my marriage remains intact.

2. Like my marriage, teh vast majority of humanity, for the past 100,000 years, has never been married in a church.

3. The majority of human beings on the planet today have not been married in a church.

I believe this entire fiasco to end marriage, this "you're not playing right, i'm going home" juvenile mentality, is a result of the efforts of religious zealots in this nation to eliminate our country as a constitutional republic and turn it into a constitutional theodemocracy, where the church takes precedence in all matters and the g'ment takes a mere supportive role of the church.

Legally binding or merely socially accepted, marriage would then come under the sole auspices of the church. Atheists, and all non-christians, would either be forced to attend church (which would be the law under theodemocracy anyways) and have weddings there, or face having their marriages not recognized legally or socially.

^^^lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol

How can a church - a private institution that people voluntarily associate in and can voluntarily leave - compel someone to do anything?



That was one of the most ridiculous posts on RPF that I have seen...

 

[Sola_Fide]

AxisMundi is not rational. There is no use to debate him.

Even when he is shown he is wrong over and over again, he just keeps on going

Fun to watch though!

 

[MelissaWV]

You don't have to get married in a church. You can have someone you really care about, respect, and who you feel has some sort of real meaning to you as a couple... read some of your favorite quotes about love, then pledge your undying devotion to one another, then exchange rings (or tie a rope around your joined hands, or jump over a broom, etc.), and you can do that in front of friends, family, or a stadium full of strangers.

How rocky is your relationship if you don't feel it's really a marriage until the State gets involved?

It only becomes an issue when taxes, benefits, and other things come into play. There are also matters of custody and compensation which, with the current absurdities that pass for laws, often depend upon the marital status of those involved. All of those issues can be resolved without Government marriage, if Government allows (for instance) insurance companies to provide policies for whatever sort of couple/family it wants, and if hospitals can set their policies on the matter of visitors or medical decisions (living wills are very, very good things, but they are sometimes ignored, which is a problem).

I have yet to hear someone explain to me why they had to be licensed by the Government before getting married, in any way that made sense to me. I'd rather be married by the Captain of a boat I happen to be on, or the Mayor of the city we're going to reside in, or even some random co-worker who has an awesome speaking voice.

 

[AxisMundi]

^^^lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol

How can a church - a private institution that people voluntarily associate in and can voluntarily leave - compel someone to do anything?



That was one of the most ridiculous posts on RPF that I have seen...

I wouldn't expect you to take any criticism of your church seriously.

Sheeple tend not to criticize.

 

[AxisMundi]

You don't have to get married in a church. You can have someone you really care about, respect, and who you feel has some sort of real meaning to you as a couple... read some of your favorite quotes about love, then pledge your undying devotion to one another, then exchange rings (or tie a rope around your joined hands, or jump over a broom, etc.), and you can do that in front of friends, family, or a stadium full of strangers.

How rocky is your relationship if you don't feel it's really a marriage until the State gets involved?

It only becomes an issue when taxes, benefits, and other things come into play. There are also matters of custody and compensation which, with the current absurdities that pass for laws, often depend upon the marital status of those involved. All of those issues can be resolved without Government marriage, if Government allows (for instance) insurance companies to provide policies for whatever sort of couple/family it wants, and if hospitals can set their policies on the matter of visitors or medical decisions (living wills are very, very good things, but they are sometimes ignored, which is a problem).

I have yet to hear someone explain to me why they had to be licensed by the Government before getting married, in any way that made sense to me. I'd rather be married by the Captain of a boat I happen to be on, or the Mayor of the city we're going to reside in, or even some random co-worker who has an awesome speaking voice.

Marriage is voluntary.

So is involving the g'ment in your marriage as well.

At this very moment, people can get married without ANY government intervention at all.

No government enforced rights either, but that's beside the point.

Look, it comes down to a few vital point.

We who seek equal access to a civil right for the gay minority seek to provide simple Equality. "Gay marriage" simply does not effect anyone else but gays.

Those who seek (as opposed to merely expressing opinions) to remove g'ment from marriage seek to destroy the institution thus effecting EVERYONE.

We seek to create, they seek to destroy.

 

[Vessol]

I think the fact that you base your entire marriage on the basis of the government recognizing it or not, is incredibly depressing.

 

[AxisMundi]

I think the fact that you base your entire marriage on the basis of the government recognizing it or not, is incredibly depressing.

Might make a great opening line.

"Hey baby, want to share some gub'mint"?

I define my marriage by the wealth it has provided me in a loving spouse, three great sons, and the most beautiful, brightest grand-daughter on the planet.

What rights and privileges bestowed upon us within the institution is secondary, even if we have had occasion to utilize those rights and privileges countless times.

 

[Swmorgan77]

See, this is what I was talking about initially - if you eliminate state defined marriage, you end up with state-worshipers who currently define their marriage strictly by its being defined by the state, and won't know how to handle their own lives or partners otherwise.
It's essentially the same argument as why we can't get rid of medicare or social security overnight - there are too many people like Axis out there who simply wouldn't be able to cope with having his institution cut out from under him. It's just not politically feasible.

For other programs, there are transitional ideas, where we could let other people opt out - but in the case of medicare and SS, they're opting out of getting royally screwed later in life, or screwing their grandkids. In the case of state-defined marriage, if they opt out, they're only losing benefits - there's no down side to using state-defined marriage for the vast majority. So I don't see a transitional idea, and for once, Axis has a point that there are a lot of benefits that the non-state-married would lose, be they thousands or merely the dozens that I suspect.

That's very true. I've actually had people respond to this idea of marriage independent of government as if I was a "Free Love" hippie and act as if without government licensing the marriage agreement that it doesn't exist at all. How sad is that? People just presume that the current conditions have always prevailed and don't realize that for most of human history government had no involvement in permitting marriage and yet it still existed.

 

[Swmorgan77]

Maybe we can get the state to go half-in on the engagement ring and wedding costs, since their a compulsive third party involved in the contract.

 

[AxisMundi]

Maybe we can get the state to go half-in on the engagement ring and wedding costs, since their a compulsive third party involved in the contract.

People can opt out of legally binding marriages and not include the g'ment.

 

[Promontorium]

I'll tolerate TraditionalConservative's nonsene about homosexuality if he accepts no married couple, no matter how Christian, deserves anything from the government, ever, for being married. No tax breaks. No spousal benefits to federal/military employees. Not one thing different between a married couple, and two people who never met.

Get your God out of our government, or you are nothing but a fag-bashing hypocrite and deserve nothing of liberty's ample bosom.

 

[JohnEngland]

As a Catholic and a libertarian, I'm totally supportive of government-free marriage.

I don't want the government distorting and "making official" that homosexual unions are the same as heterosexual unions and privatisation will help prevent that. Furthermore, Marriage is about procreation. You don't need to get married just because you love each other. Many people get married for the wrong reasons - I don't want people getting married for tax benefits or any other goodies from the state.

 

[AxisMundi]

As a Catholic and a libertarian, I'm totally supportive of government-free marriage.

I don't want the government distorting and "making official" that homosexual unions are the same as heterosexual unions and privatisation will help prevent that. Furthermore, Marriage is about procreation. You don't need to get married just because you love each other. Many people get married for the wrong reasons - I don't want people getting married for tax benefits or any other goodies from the state.

Firstly, marriage is about two adults, not making babies. Whatever their reason for marrying each other, that is their business. Not yours, not mine, not the g'ments.

Secondly, Marriage is not "about procreation". By that standard sterile people, people who have no intentions of having kids, or elderly widows past child bearing ages cannot get (re)married.

Lastly, there is absolutely no difference between same-gendered married couples and opposite gendered married couples. Each type of couple desires the same thing from their spouse. A committed relationship, friendship, companionship, mutual respect and support, et cetera ad nauseam. Gays wish to marry for the same reasons you or I did (or you will).

Marriage is much more about property rights than procreation.