Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't understand why the government is in the business of regulating marriages between consenting adults. Marriage is a private and religious institution, not a public one. The government's role in marriage should only be to keep track of marriage records and contracts.
Because people under the age of 18 cannot enter into any legally binding contracts, it makes sense that the government does not allow them to marry. Children/minors cannot legally enter into binding contracts with one another OR with adults so I completely understand why they can't get married from a legal standpoint ( I don't want to see children getting married anyway).
But when the issue is between consenting adults, why is there an interest in controlling what relationships these people involve themselves in? It's not like they're marrying the state or the public; they're marrying each other so their marriage life should be their business, not ours.
Remember, the key words here are CONSENTING ADULTS. If someone is FORCED to enter into a marriage against his or her will, the government has the right to intervene because such a situation violates that person's individual rights and liberties.
Your state chooses to regulate it because it's good for society for a kid to have married parents. Time and time again it's been proven stable marriages produce happy, healthy kids.
On a secondary level, our legal system has always been based on a Christian tradition.
Your state chooses to regulate it because it's good for society for a kid to have married parents. Time and time again it's been proven stable marriages produce happy, healthy kids.
So those not having any interest in having children should be ineligible for marriage then?
Don't know if it's true, but I read that marriage was at one time strictly a religious matter in the US, not a civil matter. It was changed in order to prevent intermarriage between blacks and whites. Without marriage falling under the law, there was no way to prevent that.
Any lawyers or historians out there who can confirm or deny this for me?
I've noticed that many things I consider 'statist' 'big government' or whatever you wish to term it, can be traced back to racism. Gun control for example began as a way to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. The war on drugs had a big race angle when started in 1913. Prostitution was largely tolerated, and often outright legal, in the 19th century US. The Mann Act was passed in 1910, and the first prosecution/conviction was boxer Jack Johnson, a black man who had a white girlfriend.
Your state chooses to regulate it because it's good for society for a kid to have married parents. Time and time again it's been proven stable marriages produce happy, healthy kids.
Only 2 parent households produce good people? Got any proof for that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoGeek
On a secondary level, our legal system has always been based on a Christian tradition.
Actually at least 5 of the commandments violate the constitution (like worshiping other gods, blasphemy/free speech, forced Sabbath, complete ownership by parents, death for adulterers, jealous thoughts of envy).
If you get into the list of things prohibited by the bible, it gets more bizarre.
*Can't consume raw, or rare/near rare, meat.
*Eat fat, at all.
*Eat pork, or shellfish (makes those after service Red Lobster trips hilarious).
*Plant more then one seed in a field.
*Wearing clothing woven of more than one kind of cloth (I bet you are violating that now).
*Cutting the hair on the sides of your head or clipping of the edges of your beard.
*Tattoos.
*Speaking in church if you are a woman.
*Apostasy - If most people in a town come to believe in a different god. (Kill everybody, including animals, and burn the town.)
I don't understand why the government is in the business of regulating marriages between consenting adults. Marriage is a private and religious institution, not a public one. The government's role in marriage should only be to keep track of marriage records and contracts.
Because people under the age of 18 cannot enter into any legally binding contracts, it makes sense that the government does not allow them to marry. Children/minors cannot legally enter into binding contracts with one another OR with adults so I completely understand why they can't get married from a legal standpoint ( I don't want to see children getting married anyway).
But when the issue is between consenting adults, why is there an interest in controlling what relationships these people involve themselves in? It's not like they're marrying the state or the public; they're marrying each other so their marriage life should be their business, not ours.
Remember, the key words here are CONSENTING ADULTS. If someone is FORCED to enter into a marriage against his or her will, the government has the right to intervene because such a situation violates that person's individual rights and liberties.
In my state that control is done because a majority of the voters don't want same sex marriage. Maybe we are stupid but maybe those people could move to states where what they want is allowed. Is that at all possible?
Has the government of the nation failed to allow that ind of marriage?
I don't understand why the government is in the business of regulating marriages between consenting adults. Marriage is a private and religious institution, not a public one. The government's role in marriage should only be to keep track of marriage records and contracts.
Because people under the age of 18 cannot enter into any legally binding contracts, it makes sense that the government does not allow them to marry. Children/minors cannot legally enter into binding contracts with one another OR with adults so I completely understand why they can't get married from a legal standpoint ( I don't want to see children getting married anyway).
But when the issue is between consenting adults, why is there an interest in controlling what relationships these people involve themselves in? It's not like they're marrying the state or the public; they're marrying each other so their marriage life should be their business, not ours.
Remember, the key words here are CONSENTING ADULTS. If someone is FORCED to enter into a marriage against his or her will, the government has the right to intervene because such a situation violates that person's individual rights and liberties.
Because during the Reformation, Martin Luther and other Protestants strongly opposed marriage and Christianity being in anyway associated, so he gave the power over to the State.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
