This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
California Ban on Gay Marriage deemed unconstitutional - overturned
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
416570
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Protection of child's rights has to come under legislation that doesn't deal with marriage, because it needs to cover non-married / non-unioned people raising children. So that's not a reasonable argument. This is what I was trying to get across before, but then you slammed down the "is, not should be" card on a strawman. Do you have any others?
No it doesn't need to cover that (with regards to marriage) because there is only 1 care-taking party involved. When you introduce two parties with responsibilities over the same child, you need to set up a system to assign and manage those responsibilities. In this system having a child even from a one night stand, you'd still be secularly "married". The very fact that child-support laws exist hints at the fact that people do realize that both parents have a responsibility. That responsibility needs to be enforced.
The counterargument which I've been feeding MyTie and Hyper is that secular and religious marriage are two completely different things, and the Government is perfectly entitled to regulate secular marriage. Hyper disagrees on the principle that Government shouldn't be regulating marriage at all in the first place (it being a social thing), and MyTie has moreorless come around to mutual agreement.
There are two different meanings of marriage..."religious"... secular....Private religious or social organizations should provide the former, while the government provides the latter.
I was one of the very first people in this thread to make that distinction.
Post by
Squishalot
No it doesn't need to cover that (with regards to marriage) because there is only 1 care-taking party involved. When you introduce two parties with responsibilities over the same child, you need to set up a system to assign and manage those responsibilities. In this system having a child even from a one night stand, you'd still be secularly "married". The very fact that child-support laws exist hints at the fact that people do realize that both parents have a responsibility. That responsibility needs to be enforced.
Again, that's not regulation of marriage, it's regulation of child raising. Why do you need a separate system for multiple child carers? Do people in charge of orphanages in your system count as secularly married?
The fact that child-support laws hint at that is a 'currently is' argument, not a 'should be' argument =P
I was one of the very first people in this thread to make that distinction.
I know, but we still disagree on whether the Government should be regulating secular marriage to the extent that it does, which is my point.
Post by
637189
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I know, but we still disagree on whether the Government should be regulating secular marriage to the extent that it does, which is my point.
I didn't know there were degrees of regulation. Either a specific function is regulated or it's not. It's more a problem of
what
secular marriage is.
The fact that child-support laws hint at that is a 'currently is' argument, not a 'should be' argument =P
"X, because Y" is an argument
"Y hints at X" is not an argument, it's an observation.
Again, that's not regulation of marriage, it's regulation of child raising.
That makes absolutely no sense if you actually understood what I've said. I defined secular marriage as oriented towards child-raising. So yes it is the regulation of marriage, and yes it is the regulation of child raising.
Why do you need a separate system for multiple child carers?
Because as I clearly stated, an extra variable exists: ie, now two people are responsible for the same individual. Can one parent take the child somewhere without the consent of the other? Do both parents have to sign legal release forms or just one? Marriage regulations would deal with issues like this.
Do people in charge of orphanages in your system count as secularly married?Foster parents (if there is more than one) would. Orphans (who haven't been adopted or are not in foster care) have no legal guardian, and thus the government takes care of them (I believe the legal phrase is "ward of the state"). The government may assign certain individuals or institutions to take care of the child, but the individuals only act as guardians under the government. So, long story short, no.
Post by
Dragoonman
Its simple.
This is America, Land of the
FREE
and home of the brave.
Equality is held (or should be) above ALL ELSE. That includes religion!
Edit: A spelling error that.... caused confusion.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Dragoonman
Its simple.
This is America, Land of the
FREE
and home of the brave.
Equality is withheld (or should be) above ALL ELSE. That includes religion!
Do you really mean withheld? It's the opposite of held.
If you do, why shouldn't there be equality?
What we've got here... is failure... to communicate.
I was thinking of the word withheld at the same time and there I went, I put down withheld instead of held XD
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I think equality is a shaky slope. Communism is about equality too. That's why I'm more a proponent of freedom.
Post by
Dragoonman
I think equality is a shaky slope. Communism is about equality too. That's why I'm more a proponent of freedom.
No no, not that sort of equality. That sort of equality lowers the standard of actually equality, and instead makes individuals a group.
Equality of individuals sound better?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.