A proposition?

[Harry12345]

I've heard many places that the government should get out of the marriage business, and leave it to the church.

The government can offer legal contracts between two individuals (any gender, family member etc.) which elects one person to be their next of kin, pension/ social security benefactory, and benefactory for all the estates and property without incurring inheritance tax... basically all the legal rights and obligations "civil marriage" incurs now. As for Health Insurance, Obama's getting rid of that so that's a m00t issue.

What do you think?

[zoegirl]

Well, he may TRY to get rid of health indurance....we'll see if it works.

But Harry, how will they be able to limit it to two people? ONce you mess with one part of the definition of marriage, we must open it up on all counts, so they must offer this to three or more people as well.

[Harry12345]

Well, he may TRY to get rid of health indurance....we'll see if it works.

But Harry, how will they be able to limit it to two people? ONce you mess with one part of the definition of marriage, we must open it up on all counts, so they must offer this to three or more people as well.

Actually, I said that marriage should be left to the Church.

As for polygamous marriages, why not? Churches are free to marry a man and more than one woman, if they do so please; it'd be done at the Church's discretion. The Bible seems to support polygamy, as do many Christians and Mormons.

[zoegirl]

I don't think the Bible supports polygamy, I think it shows very well the reasons not to.
And sorry, I shouldn't have said marriage....but the point still is that we cann't then limit who we give these legal privileges to.

[Harry12345]

I don't think the Bible supports polygamy, I think it shows very well the reasons not to.

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com

And sorry, I shouldn't have said marriage....but the point still is that we cann't then limit who we give these legal privileges to.

One contract involving many people: This would require a COMPLETE rehaul of the current partership system we have now, which is built with the assumption that only 2 people are involved.

Think about it, we'd have to change child parenting laws, inheritance and will laws, social security laws... too difficult, expensive and risky.

One person forming multiple contracts with different people: Why not? Nothing wrong with this.

[zoegirl]

I think the website you posted provides (similar to the one you provided about the sex acts) more rationalizations USING scritpure and abusing scripture.

Direct form Genesis, confirmed by CHrist, scritpure points to man and woman.

And I agree that the legalities would cause problems...

[Harry12345]

I think the website you posted provides (similar to the one you provided about the sex acts) more rationalizations USING scritpure and abusing scripture.

Direct form Genesis, confirmed by CHrist, scritpure points to man and woman.

And I agree that the legalities would cause problems...

I gotta watch out for the web sites I visit.

[Harry12345]

I think the website you posted provides (similar to the one you provided about the sex acts) more rationalizations USING scritpure and abusing scripture.

Direct form Genesis, confirmed by CHrist, scritpure points to man and woman.

Yes I agree... I think marriage is one man+ one woman, I think that polygamy was a necessary evil at the time, probably to protect women.

And I agree that the legalities would cause problems...

The legalities of what would cause problems?

[zoegirl]

One contract involving many people: This would require a COMPLETE rehaul of the current partership system we have now, which is built with the assumption that only 2 people are involved.

Think about it, we'd have to change child parenting laws, inheritance and will laws, social security laws... too difficult, expensive and risky.

[rodyshusband]

My friend Harry,
Where do you come up with this stuff?
I know we've trolled this road before but it bears repeating in simplistic terms:
God's view of marriage:
1.) Man comes to God through Christ. Man puts God first.
2.) Woman comes to God through Christ. Woman puts God first.
3.) Man and woman join together and both put God first.
Option: man and women create children.
Man's view of marriage:
1.) anything goes.

[Harry12345]

My friend Harry,
Where do you come up with this stuff?
I know we've trolled this road before but it bears repeating in simplistic terms:
God's view of marriage:
1.) Man comes to God through Christ. Man puts God first.
2.) Woman comes to God through Christ. Woman puts God first.
3.) Man and woman join together and both put God first.
Option: man and women create children.
Man's view of marriage:
1.) anything goes.

Which is why the government needs to give marriage back to the Church... and stop messing around with it.

[Harry12345]

My friend Harry,
Where do you come up with this stuff?
I know we've trolled this road before but it bears repeating in simplistic terms:
God's view of marriage:
1.) Man comes to God through Christ. Man puts God first.
2.) Woman comes to God through Christ. Woman puts God first.
3.) Man and woman join together and both put God first.
Option: man and women create children.
Man's view of marriage:
1.) anything goes.

Which is why the government needs to give marriage back to the Church... and stop messing around with it.

EDIT:

Still think marriage should be left as a governmental institution??? I find it funny that you wouldn't trust health care in the hands of the government, but you'd trust marriage, a sacred, God-given institution in the government's hands.

[rodyshusband]

Harry's quote:
"Still think marriage should be left as a governmental institution??? I find it funny that you wouldn't trust health care in the hands of the government, but you'd trust marriage, a sacred, God-given institution in the government's hands."

I'm not sure who this statement is directed toward but it hardly applies to my view.
In a few weeks, I am debating someone who holds a socialistic/utilitarian worldview. Dr. Rodwin will argue that mankind, with the "proper education", is essentially good. Therefore, socialism, if applied correctly will work. He will state that socialism is working in Canada, Great Britain and Australia.
I will answer that, although mankind is created in the image of God and desires to do good, the human factor cannot be ignored.

[Zebulon]

EDIT:

Quickie Divorce...

To many quickies?


Zebulon

[Harry12345]

EDIT:

Quickie Divorce...

To many quickies?


Zebulon

Darn you, I was trying to make a serious point! You ruined the resonating impact I was going for.