tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post1418619317820625063..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: 30 Years from NowAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-34555699808911090382011-09-08T20:14:51.337-06:002011-09-08T20:14:51.337-06:00the whole "sanctity of marriage" argumen...the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument doesnt hold water. the state should not be involved in protecting "sanctity" which is a religous term. <br />marriage as, deifined by christians, is only a religous institution. fine let them have that word and their ceremonies.<br />the state should no longer regulate "marriage" at all. the state can regulate individuals committing to a contract to share resources and responsibly raise children. these contracts could take many forms, beholdent only to the individuals making the contracts. and include clauses for what happens when one person wants to break the contract. these contracts would then have legal rights such as insurance and tax beneficiaries. <br />and any company that used "marraige" instead of the secular social contracts as a criteria for hospital admitance or insurance coverage could be sued for religous descrimination.<br />they are arguing about the arbitrary sounds made when uttering a word, let them have it, but dont let them use it to affect the laws. different religons can preside over what they mean by "marriage" in a myraid of differing ways with different levels of acceptance, marriage should have now legal standing. the secular government should preside only over socail contracts between individuals. then society could shift away from the idiocy we find ourselves in. <br /><br />let no law or regulation mention "marriage" it is a religous institution that was useful for definig family units for the purpose of taxation and legal rights when a person is unconcious. but we could just as easily tranfer those rights and tax rules to a non religous system of socal contracts. when every male turns 18 he is legally required to sign up for the draft. why not when every person reaches the age of 18 they must name a person who make decisions for them when they are unconcios? that would end of lot of confusion (terry schiavo for example) a decision they could change at any time the same way we handle a will.Kristopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08544209777124068097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-21181923106569828862007-01-03T16:50:00.000-07:002007-01-03T16:50:00.000-07:00I don't understand the fuss made over homosexualit...I don't understand the fuss made over homosexuality but then I am not religious, so that doesn't factor into my thinking.<br /><br />But surely it makes social sense to encourage individuals to form stable, loving, long term relationships?<br /><br />Frankly, I can't see how homosexuals can stuff up marriage anymore than heterosexuals have. The divorce rate is already approximately 50% probably more and that is entirely the fault of the individuals who were willing participants in heterosexual marriage ceremonies.<br /><br />If religions have a problem with sanctioning a marriage between 2 people of the same sex, it is their right to say no if it conflicts with the religious tenets of their specific religion or church.<br /><br />But it should be individual churches which decide who they will marry.<br /><br />The state should still provide a legal framework for marriage between consenting adults, regardless of their sexual orientation.<br /><br />So, my thoughts would be - let the churches decide who, how and when they allow people to marry within their church, but these rights of religion should not flow over into civil marriage which should be offered by the state regardless of how churches feel about it.beepbeepitsmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931640447011071849noreply@blogger.com