Text 11028, 110 rader
Skriven 2007-01-29 10:05:32 av lizardgirl (14465.babylon5)
  Kommentar till text 10918 av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (14355.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================


On Jan 27, 9:52 pm, "Carl" <cengm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "lizardgirl" <gab...@comcast.net> wrote in

> > I don't buy the argument that marriage is a 'privilege' determinable
> > by the government.  What was marriage before government?

>A religious ceremony that through history guaranteed the birthright
> of children.  I don't think you wish to move the dictating authority
> for marriage to the church, do you?

i sure don't.  :^)

it's important to note that church and state have been running/
evolving in parallel for a months worth of centuries (if not longer.)  
it should come as no surprise that the moral values of the church 
(whichever one that happens to be) are reflected in the laws of the 
state.

for example, its best to be a virgin on your wedding day and to remain 
'faithful' to your spouse throughout your life.  this garuntees that 
your offspring are indeed your offspring.  which makes determining the 
succession to the throne a lot easier.

in this way church and state compliment and reinforce each others 
influence on the behavior/expectations of the general population.

in a homogenous cultures this works really well.  in a culture as 
diverse and secular as ours, not so much.

>
> The simple fact that states feel they may not have to recognize a marriage
> from another state would also indicate fairly clearly that marriage
> is a priviledge.
>

to me this simply implies that people have differing opionions on the 
matter.


> Marriage is official recognition of a a union, and it is up to the "official
> body"
> to determine the requirements that it grants that recognition under.
>

couldn't disagree more.  book/record keeping does not eqaul 
priviledge.  it encourages responsible behavior.


> Depends.  You can't just walk away and disolve the marriage without
> government (and depending on your faith, religious) approval.
>

correct.   that would be an example of protection against fraud/
abuse.  no parent can simply walk away from their financial 
obligations to a child.  no spouse can leave the other hanging with 
all the debt/obligations accured jointly during the marriage.

what you see as priviledge i see as a set of guidelines for good 
behavior - rules of engagement amd detanglement.

> >Governments are little
> > more then record keepers after the fact.  They serve the legal
> > interests of the individuals material processions/obligations not the
> > marriage.

>And hopefully they serve the interests of any children of the marriage.

chidren, first and foremost, i agree.   and if not, there's this 
wonder thing called family court.


> > As someone else already mentioned they protect each party
> > there in against fraud (polygamy) and/or abuse (40 year old men
> > marrying 12 year old girls and vies versa)  I do not see how this
> > entitles a government to restrict legal marriage between two
> > individuals contracting in good faith.

>How does polygamy among consenting adults differ?

in many way it doesn't.  if two or more consenting adults wish to keep 
house, thats their business.  many religions have little or no taboos 
about MEN having more then one wife/lover.  in my opion if it works 
for the women and together with the husband they provide for their 
children, fine.  but more often then not the children are not well 
taken are of and become wards of the state in the sense that they, and 
their mother, recieve public aid.  the group is married according to 
their religion but not according to the laws of the land.  so all but 
the 'primary' wife are single mothers with children.  most of the time 
the state turns a blind eye (freedom of religion) until some young 
girl get's married off to some old fart.


> > The reason 'outing' folks has fallen out of fashion is because it is no
> > longer 'necessary.'

> I had hoped it was because it was recognized as a crappy thing to do.
> If someone else's sexuality is none of my business (which it clearly is
> not),
> then it's also not the business of anyone wanting to exploit someone
> else's sexuality to push an agenda.

i total agree,  the outed are being exploited to push an agenda.  
nasty as it was (is)it got the attention folks were after


lg
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)