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.
People have already stopped getting married. Marriage rates are at an all-time low in this country. The more liberal our marriage laws become, the fewer people actually care enough to marry. It's simple human psychology. Divorce cheapens marriage, and cheaper things are less desirable.
That is not accurate, many people still get married.
Whatever this might amount to, it would be more than offset by a reduction of violence against women and children, the majority of which occurs in cohabitating households.
Any statistics to back up that claim?
Government belongs where it does more good than harm, and does not belong where it does more harm than good. That's my philosophy. Is that liberal or conservative? You tell me.
So, who decides where it does harm and where not? Usually cause and effect are not easy to identify...
Well;there have also been studies that children of people in a bad marriage are also harmed ;sometimes for life. I guess its like anyhting else in life one goes thru. Some it effects positively( bad marriage) and others it effects not so much(just decided to split for whatever reason).I have seen both types but have to say more rare to see a bad marriage child come out well when they stayed together.
You're absolutely right. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
But let's suppose that a country like Thailand had a divorce problem, and one of the nation's leaders made this statement:
"It's long past time for a return to social, legal and political support for indissoluable Buddhist marriage."
Would you have a problem with that? Should Thai citizens have a problem with that?
Marriage needs a religious and cultural framework. In the United States that framework is Christianity. Secularism just doesn't cut it.
Yes, I'd still have a problem with that. The government has NO BUSINESS prmoting ANY kind of religious framework for marriage. What part of separation of Church and State don't you understand?
I'm not deying the power of relligious belief to strengthen marriage, but things get ugly when the government gets involved in religion.
Furthermore, honest secularists, like Judith Wallerstein, who I mentioned in a pervious post, DO say similar things and promote somewhat similar values. The problem isn't secularism, but those who use it with a hidden agenda for power and control. Religion is also misused in the same way.
Yes, I'd still have a problem with that. The government has NO BUSINESS prmoting ANY kind of religious framework for marriage. What part of separation of Church and State don't you understand?
The government has ALWAYS promoted a religious framework for marriage. There is no other framework available. Obviously, this has nothing to do with establishing a compulsory state religion, and the courts (until our own decadent time) have never viewed it as such.
Certainly our marriage laws, with their Christian origins, curtail the "free exercise" of religion for some - Mormons and others, for example, who practice polygamy. The 1st Amendment does have its limits. Apart from a specific religious and cultural context, the 1st amendment would devour itself.
Last edited by WesternPilgrim; 02-13-2012 at 07:02 PM..
Here's what I'm proposing: that all legal marriages include the vow "'til death do us part", and that the same vow be legally binding. Please note that I am not proposing that anyone be forced to get married.
This won't solve everything, of course. There's lots more work to do. But it would be a good start, instantly creating a situation whereby marriage would be taken more seriously by the general public.
Sure, make 'til death do you part' legally binding. But don't be surprised when virtually no one gets married after. Marriage rates are ready declining and your proposition would be the final nail in the coffin.
Furthermore, honest secularists, like Judith Wallerstein, who I mentioned in a pervious post, DO say similar things and promote somewhat similar values.
I respect honest secularists like Judith Wallerstein, Nat Hentoff, and others. The problem with secularism, though, is that its view of marriage is purely uitilitarian. If some other means could be found to attain the desired ends, then marriage is dispensible for the secularist. Furthermore, secularists don't really have a commitment to those "desired ends" apart from their own likes and dislikes. So marriage doesn't have any foundational support from secularism.
Secularism can analyze a culture, but it can't build a culture. That takes religion.
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.
