Text 11079, 134 rader
Skriven 2007-01-29 19:57:04 av Carl (14516.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================

"lizardgirl" <gabiks@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:1170093932.914044.269530@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> 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 privilege.
>>
>
> 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.

Let's try this another way... Two men (or two women) can currently
call themselves married any time they want to.  However, it is
the legal and/or religious ("Official") recognition that legitimizes that
union to the rest of society.

The couple can't force the legal/religious authority to recognize
the union, nor is that authority obligated to.  Therefore, it's a
privilege, not a right.

How do you define the distinction between a "right" and a "privilege?"

>
>> 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 and detanglement.

Guidelines don't require recognition by an authority.  The state
permits you to become legally married or to legally divorce.

>> >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 opinion 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.

Hmmm.  I'm just curious, but do you have any statistics indicating
the increased likelyhood of the breakdown and/or harm of polygamous
unions or of children being worse off?

I'm not disagreeing with you. Just wondering.

>>> 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

It's sad when a group that's arguing for their rights decide to
trample on someone else's.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)