Post Reply
Page 9 of 27  •  Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 27 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Marriage as a legal contract
2 years ago  ::  May 26, 2012 - 8:43AM #81
Ed.W
Posts: 9,444

May 26, 2012 -- 8:42AM, amcolph wrote:


May 26, 2012 -- 8:39AM, Ed.W wrote:


Okay, why "non-consanginous"    (non-blood related)




Because kin constitute a statutory household already, and don't need a certificate.




No but they don't necessarily constitute a marriage.  Exactly WHY can't I marry my consenting adult daughter.



OK, here it is:



I (Amcolph) define marriage as a Sacrament, which may be administered to any consenting adults who meet the requirements of that church by which the ceremony will be performed.



I abolish civil 'marriage' altogether.   Any two (for the time being) non-consanginous adults who wish to form a statutory household may apply to the state for a certificate of civil union.




‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 26, 2012 - 8:54AM #82
amcolph
Posts: 17,944

May 26, 2012 -- 8:43AM, Ed.W wrote:


May 26, 2012 -- 8:42AM, amcolph wrote:


May 26, 2012 -- 8:39AM, Ed.W wrote:


Okay, why "non-consanginous"    (non-blood related)




Because kin constitute a statutory household already, and don't need a certificate.




No but they don't necessarily constitute a marriage.  Exactly WHY can't I marry my consenting adult daughter.




You could, I suppose, if you could find a church which would do it.  Try Anton Levay, maybe.


From the legal standpoint, you and your daughter would already have the right to form a household and thus would not need nor be eligible for a certificate of civil union.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 26, 2012 - 8:56AM #83
Ed.W
Posts: 9,444

May 26, 2012 -- 8:54AM, amcolph wrote:


May 26, 2012 -- 8:43AM, Ed.W wrote:


May 26, 2012 -- 8:42AM, amcolph wrote:


May 26, 2012 -- 8:39AM, Ed.W wrote:


Okay, why "non-consanginous"    (non-blood related)




Because kin constitute a statutory household already, and don't need a certificate.




No but they don't necessarily constitute a marriage.  Exactly WHY can't I marry my consenting adult daughter.




You could, I suppose, if you could find a church which would do it.  Try Anton Levay, maybe.


From the legal standpoint, you and your daughter would already have the right to form a household and thus would not need nor be eligible for a certificate of civil union.




But in the latter part (civil houshold part) of YOUR definition you barred me from marrying my consenting adult daughter and we want all those alleged benefits....WHY Amcolph?


Will my daughter be forced to testify against me in court?  I don't want that.  I want her to not be forced to testify against me.  WHY can't I marry my consenting adult daughter, Amcolph?

‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 26, 2012 - 9:02AM #84
drawout
Posts: 5,910

please,let be serious. Incest is outlawed because of the severe birth defects of the offspring. Not to mention its just sick.

'When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.' - Mark Twain
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 26, 2012 - 9:03AM #85
Ed.W
Posts: 9,444

May 26, 2012 -- 9:02AM, drawout wrote:


please,let be serious. Incest is outlawed because of the severe birth defects of the offspring. Not to mention its just sick.




Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You have just admitted that Marriage is about and only pertains to biological children.



So, yes let's do be serious and end this talk of "Marriage" of same sex persons.



That is one of the two fatal flaws in Amcolph's definition: 



‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 26, 2012 - 9:07AM #86
drawout
Posts: 5,910

You keep using a logical fallacy called the slippery slope. www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

'When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.' - Mark Twain
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 26, 2012 - 9:12AM #87
drawout
Posts: 5,910

May 26, 2012 -- 9:03AM, Ed.W wrote:


May 26, 2012 -- 9:02AM, drawout wrote:


please,let be serious. Incest is outlawed because of the severe birth defects of the offspring. Not to mention its just sick.




Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You have just admitted that Marriage is about and only pertains to biological children.



So, yes let's do be serious and end this talk of "Marriage" of same sex persons.



I never said ONLY. I think childless couples are legal but unions that could produce mutations are prohibited.(Please no tasteless butt baby jokes)




'When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.' - Mark Twain
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 26, 2012 - 9:16AM #88
Ed.W
Posts: 9,444

Whether you said "only" yourself is irrelevant.  Marriage and its provisions are only about the possibility of a couple creating a child.


If no child can possibly be created by the couple, Marriage is unnecessary.



You keep using a logical fallacy called the slippery slope.



While I'm sure we'd go down that slope, I only brought up the father/daughter for an entirely different reason.

‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 26, 2012 - 9:18AM #89
amcolph
Posts: 17,944

May 26, 2012 -- 8:56AM, Ed.W wrote:


 


But in the latter part (civil houshold part) of YOUR definition you barred me from marrying my consenting adult daughter and we want all those alleged benefits....WHY Amcolph?


Will my daughter be forced to testify against me in court?  I don't want that.  I want her to not be forced to testify against me.  WHY can't I marry my consenting adult daughter, Amcolph?




Under my definition "marriage" and "civil household" are distinct.  So the civil household part of my definition has nothing to do with your marrying your adult daughter.


Under my definition, the state cannot marry anybody.  If marriage is a Sacrament, the state is not competent nor allowed by the Constitution to administer Sacraments.


All the state can do is certify the formation of statutory households by those who do not have the automatic right to do so based on existing kinship--like you and your daughter.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 26, 2012 - 9:24AM #90
TENAC
Posts: 27,227

May 26, 2012 -- 8:17AM, amcolph wrote:


May 25, 2012 -- 7:58PM, TENAC wrote:


 


I vote YOU get to make the decision on that definition.


Please go right ahead......


Or anyone for that matter, define union and/or marriage or dissolve one or the other.




OK, here it is:


I define marriage as a Sacrament, which may be administered to any consenting adults who meet the requirements of that church by which the ceremony will be performed.


I abolish civil 'marriage' altogether.   Any two (for the time being) non-consanginous adults who wish to form a statutory household may apply to the state for a certificate of civil union.




 




Thanks for the post.


You realize lgbt will oppose that, but I am with you (dont adjust your eye wear).  I can live with those definitions, I think.


Any two (for the time being) non-consanginous adults



Why for the time being?  Do you see a point in time where relatives may intermarry?

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 9 of 27  •  Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 27 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook