First - If the movie is based on a book by Comrade Vonnegut, are they assuming that GWB is president again?
Second - That guy's 'openness to new experiences' involves giving handjobs to cows in a roadside parking lot. That pisses me off. I was in the Army for 20 years. I've seen almost every corner of the planet and I speak six languages and go to museums all the time and I'm still conservative. So what the hell is he talking about? What makes him an authority on how people tick?
What is the function of government in marriage? I see both sides of the discussion and agree with some of both.
Getting the government out of marriage seems like a good solution - the question then is whether or not government has a vested interest.
The family is the basic building block of the family. It has been a goal of the Statists to destroy the family, so that they can replace it with the State as the basic authority. If getting the government out the marriage business strengthens the family, then I'd be "for" it. If it weakens the family, I'm agin it.
Unfortunately, I don't know which effect removal of the government regulations would have.
Blue: "If the movie is based on a book by Comrade Vonnegut, are they assuming that GWB is president again?"
I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know what kind of spin they've put on it. Despite the fact that it's based on a story by Vonnegut, conservatives seem to be generating some buzz about it.
"What makes [J. Haidt] an authority on how people tick?"
The NY Times says he is. Don't you believe everyting they say?
Suek: It's a very interesting question. My conservative instincts tell me it would probably be a good idea to get government out of the marriage business. But there could be a lot of unintended consequences.
>>The family is the basic building block of the family. >>
Brother.
The family is the basic building block of _society_.
But you probably knew I meant that!
>>...there could be a lot of unintended consequences.>>
So. What is the function of government in licensing of marriage? What is the justification?
My guess is that the purpose is to enable the enforceability of the social contract. It provides unquestionable proof that a person did in fact intend to enter into a contract that agrees to certain things. If two people live together without the benefit of marriage, it doesn't matter what they may have said to each other - there is no proof that they really _meant_ to "stay together till death do us part". Or agree to split possessions 50/50. Get a license, get married by a state official...it's a done deal.
So why should the state care? Support of children - but so many are born out of wedlock today.... Designation of governmental benefits...maybe that should be individual instead of dependent on marriage? I don't know...what else? A shorthand for the entire contractual arrangement to minimize disputes when things go wrong?
8 comments:
Wow.
First - If the movie is based on a book by Comrade Vonnegut, are they assuming that GWB is president again?
Second - That guy's 'openness to new experiences' involves giving handjobs to cows in a roadside parking lot. That pisses me off. I was in the Army for 20 years. I've seen almost every corner of the planet and I speak six languages and go to museums all the time and I'm still conservative. So what the hell is he talking about? What makes him an authority on how people tick?
Re the marriage question.
What is the function of government in marriage? I see both sides of the discussion and agree with some of both.
Getting the government out of marriage seems like a good solution - the question then is whether or not government has a vested interest.
The family is the basic building block of the family. It has been a goal of the Statists to destroy the family, so that they can replace it with the State as the basic authority. If getting the government out the marriage business strengthens the family, then I'd be "for" it. If it weakens the family, I'm agin it.
Unfortunately, I don't know which effect removal of the government regulations would have.
Blue: "If the movie is based on a book by Comrade Vonnegut, are they assuming that GWB is president again?"
I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know what kind of spin they've put on it. Despite the fact that it's based on a story by Vonnegut, conservatives seem to be generating some buzz about it.
"What makes [J. Haidt] an authority on how people tick?"
The NY Times says he is. Don't you believe everyting they say?
Suek: It's a very interesting question. My conservative instincts tell me it would probably be a good idea to get government out of the marriage business. But there could be a lot of unintended consequences.
This Ted guy is a weenie.
>>The family is the basic building block of the family. >>
Brother.
The family is the basic building block of _society_.
But you probably knew I meant that!
>>...there could be a lot of unintended consequences.>>
So. What is the function of government in licensing of marriage? What is the justification?
My guess is that the purpose is to enable the enforceability of the social contract. It provides unquestionable proof that a person did in fact intend to enter into a contract that agrees to certain things. If two people live together without the benefit of marriage, it doesn't matter what they may have said to each other - there is no proof that they really _meant_ to "stay together till death do us part". Or agree to split possessions 50/50. Get a license, get married by a state official...it's a done deal.
So why should the state care? Support of children - but so many are born out of wedlock today.... Designation of governmental benefits...maybe that should be individual instead of dependent on marriage? I don't know...what else? A shorthand for the entire contractual arrangement to minimize disputes when things go wrong?
Suek:
"But you probably knew I meant that!"
Yes, I'm like Robert Gibbs...I hear what people meant to say.
"A shorthand for the entire contractual arrangement to minimize disputes when things go wrong?"
That's really what it boils down to, I suppose.
Can a liberal give conservatives a fair shake?..in a word NO!..have a great weekend my friend!:)
I read the short story it was quite good if depressing.
Post a Comment