MisterLogical
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2015
- Messages
- 913
- Reaction score
- 97
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Why or why not?
Marriage has always been regulated by governments. It has been regulated by feudal governments, theocratic governments, modern governments etc. Today, it is regulated by mostly secularized governments. That has pissed off many religious folks but c'est la vie.
Why or why not?
True. But people had always died of appendicitis. But there is no need for it anymore. It most probably made sense as a societal tool in societies as it was once defined. It looks as though as now defined it no longer does.
What a long winded to say that if the religious don't get to control marriage then it shouldn't exist. It's not happening, joG. Marriage is not going away. It's certainly not going away now.
Why or why not?
Well no. You are jumping to conclusions. There has been a low level discussion about marriage as a societal tool is failing for some time. As it is rather expensive the discussion goes, it would be better to use the money in better ways. I didn't realize you don't follow these things.
In my own opinion, secular governments have no business in the morality department.
Marriage as defined by religious institutions is really a morality contract.
Beyond morality, Government does have an interest in having stable taxpayer units (Families).
Such legal unions could be regulated to encourage stability for the future taxpayers.
Well no. You are jumping to conclusions. There has been a low level discussion about marriage as a societal tool is failing for some time. As it is rather expensive the discussion goes, it would be better to use the money in better ways. I didn't realize you don't follow these things.
There are both religious and legal aspects to marriage. The legal aspects require government involvement, such as property rights, community debts, contract formation, etc. The present furor exists because government has now invaded the religious aspects of the institution, which have been the traditional purview of religion.
There are both religious and legal aspects to marriage. The legal aspects require government involvement, such as property rights, community debts, contract formation, etc. The present furor exists because government has now invaded the religious aspects of the institution, which have been the traditional purview of religion.
Why or why not?
Religious marriage has nothing to do with legal/civil marriage. They are separated, just as most personal aspects of marriage are separated from the legal aspects.
There are both religious and legal aspects to marriage. The legal aspects require government involvement, such as property rights, community debts, contract formation, etc. The present furor exists because government has now invaded the religious aspects of the institution, which have been the traditional purview of religion.
In my own opinion, secular governments have no business in the morality department.
Marriage as defined by religious institutions is really a morality contract.
Beyond morality, Government does have an interest in having stable taxpayer units (Families).
Such legal unions could be regulated to encourage stability for the future taxpayers.
There are both religious and legal aspects to marriage. The legal aspects require government involvement, such as property rights, community debts, contract formation, etc. The present furor exists because government has now invaded the religious aspects of the institution, which have been the traditional purview of religion.
Marriage has always been regulated by governments. It has been regulated by feudal governments, theocratic governments, modern governments etc. Today, it is regulated by mostly secularized governments. That has pissed off many religious folks but c'est la vie.
True. But people had always died of appendicitis. But there is no need for it anymore. It most probably made sense as a societal tool in societies as it was once defined. It looks as though as now defined it no longer does.
Well no. You are jumping to conclusions. There has been a low level discussion about marriage as a societal tool is failing for some time. As it is rather expensive the discussion goes, it would be better to use the money in better ways. I didn't realize you don't follow these things.
If marriage (or any other form of union) is to be recognised in law, government must regulate that aspect of it. Marriage is relevant to things like inheritance, parental status and court testimony so there has to be a formal legal definition and observation of that concept. That will inevitably involve some related regulation and legislation.
That doesn't mean individuals are prevented from having relationships they consider marriage, be they defined personally, religiously or socially. It's just that they won't encompass any of the legal rights or responsibilities unless they also follow the formal legal process.
Silly question as govt is NEVER going to get out of mairrage.
The anti-SSM crowd will just have to acceept the fact.