Forums | MacLife

Hank Rearden wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

A question often asked by folks like me, but rarely answered by those on either end of the spectrum on this matter.

Maybe I should make this my Futile Political Cause. Just for fun.

Go for it.  I, actually, don't think that it's all that futile.  Getting the government out of the marriage business would, actually, allow groups opposed to gay marriage to continue on their merry way and would allow basically anyone to get married under the contract (and religion, I guess) of their own choosing.  A trip to the church (or no church) of one's choice, followed by a trip to the lawyer to sign a contract... and viola!  You're married.

The sole role of the government would be to enforce the contracts.

There would have to be some simultaneous changes in tax law, etc.  But that's about it.

That's basically how I view my marriage, anyway. What happened in the church was important. What happened at the county clerk's office was just a simplified contract form (and some extra money from Uncle Sam).

StaticAge wrote:

Well, thats a good point. But then again, I suppose it could be argued that a strong community is made up by families, and that family may be an integral part of the stablity of a nation. I dont know if that is true or not, but I remember that the decline of Rome and/or Greece was sometimes explained in part by weak families according to some historians.

Are these Family Research Historians by any change?

Tallgeese wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

Well, thats a good point. But then again, I suppose it could be argued that a strong community is made up by families, and that family may be an integral part of the stablity of a nation. I dont know if that is true or not, but I remember that the decline of Rome and/or Greece was sometimes explained in part by weak families according to some historians.

Are these Family Research Historians by any change?

I really dont know. I think I remember learning it or reading it or whatever back when I was still in high school. Like I said, it may be bunk for all I really know.

Hank Rearden wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

A question often asked by folks like me, but rarely answered by those on either end of the spectrum on this matter.

Maybe I should make this my Futile Political Cause. Just for fun.

Go for it.  I, actually, don't think that it's all that futile.  Getting the government out of the marriage business would, actually, allow groups opposed to gay marriage to continue on their merry way and would allow basically anyone to get married under the contract (and religion, I guess) of their own choosing.  A trip to the church (or no church) of one's choice, followed by a trip to the lawyer to sign a contract... and viola!  You're married.

The sole role of the government would be to enforce the contracts.

There would have to be some simultaneous changes in tax law, etc.  But that's about it.

The basic precondition for that view, however, is a live-and-let-live attitude.

The debate doesn't center about what people do themselves; it's about what the other fellows are doing.

Tallgeese wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Maybe I should make this my Futile Political Cause. Just for fun.

Go for it.  I, actually, don't think that it's all that futile.  Getting the government out of the marriage business would, actually, allow groups opposed to gay marriage to continue on their merry way and would allow basically anyone to get married under the contract (and religion, I guess) of their own choosing.  A trip to the church (or no church) of one's choice, followed by a trip to the lawyer to sign a contract... and viola!  You're married.

The sole role of the government would be to enforce the contracts.

There would have to be some simultaneous changes in tax law, etc.  But that's about it.

That's basically how I view my marriage, anyway. What happened in the church was important. What happened at the county clerk's office was just a simplified contract form (and some extra money from Uncle Sam).

It seems that that is the view that more and more people are taking... including a lot of Christians.  That is why I don't think that that Political Cause is all that Futile.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

The basic precondition for that view, however, is a live-and-let-live attitude.

The debate doesn't center about what people do themselves; it's about what the other fellows are doing.

That is the major hurdle. But it is not one that won't be overcome.  I have a feeling that it is, to a great extent, a generational issue.  And the generation with that attitude is slowly fading away from the halls of influence.

Hank Rearden wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

The basic precondition for that view, however, is a live-and-let-live attitude.

The debate doesn't center about what people do themselves; it's about what the other fellows are doing.

That is the major hurdle. But it is not one that won't be overcome.  I have a feeling that it is, to a great extent, a generational issue.  And the generation with that attitude is slowly fading away from the halls of influence.

Or "dying out," as it were.

StaticAge wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

Well, thats a good point. But then again, I suppose it could be argued that a strong community is made up by families, and that family may be an integral part of the stablity of a nation. I dont know if that is true or not, but I remember that the decline of Rome and/or Greece was sometimes explained in part by weak families according to some historians.

Are these Family Research Historians by any change?

I really dont know. I think I remember learning it or reading it or whatever back when I was still in high school. Like I said, it may be bunk for all I really know.

I've yet to see that show on the History Channel... and all they do it repeat crap about Rome, Greece, WWII, and things that are big.

Most people tend to agree that Rome fell as a result of failed policy, some nutty leaders, and persistent conflict. Death by a 1000 cuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of … man_Empire

A lot less is known about what happened to Ancient Greece:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece#Chronology

StaticAge wrote:

Found this at http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777121908/, where it speaks about the histories written by ancient Romans, but then contests how true this "breakdown" was:

…In short, the earliest Latin authors were already writing of the breakdown of the good, orderly family in which the paterfamilias maintained authority over his wife and children. If there was ever a better age before the decline, it must have been in the prehistoric era. An alternative interpretation--one that I lean toward--is that the golden age before the moral decline never existed in reality but was a later invention by Roman authors who certainly had no reliable historical evidence for moral trends. That is to say, the narrative of moral decline of the family was based on a historical mirage of a better past, and it was no more than a mirage.…

Wow. The more things change...

bedstuy wrote:

Whoa... read this!  The conservative pro-life wackos think the election was lost because the GOP isn't FAR ENOUGH RIGHT and that the "Guiliani-McCain-Romney" wing is responsible for the overwhelming defeat.  Guess they missed that ballot initiative in South Dakota.

From their perspective, not surprising.  The moderates are likely saying the same thing about the GOP being too extreme...

Last edited by gas huffer (2006-11-08 5:49 pm)

NAG wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

NAG wrote:

I'm talking about really early christianity.

No, that isnt true. Peter was married and had kids, for instance.

There was some tension between the disciples if I'm not mistaken. This doesn't really prove much, besides I was just pointing out that there were a body of christians after Jesus died (and before) that were somewhat outcasts of society (including those that do not wish to marry). It was really only around Constantine when there was the dramatic shift to today's interpretation of marriage (and marriage in the christian faith).

Um, no.
You probably heard some "scholar" give some suggestion to that effect, but no.
Now - John the Baptist (not one of Jesus' disciples) was an Essene, and quite possibly a member of the Qumran (dead sea scroll) community. At one point, Qumran did not believe they should be having children. Some of the disciples of Jesus had been disciples of John the Baptist (IE Peter, who was married btw).

The Qumran community though was not as far as we know ever a christian community. They did understand a "suffering servant" Messiah, even before Jesus was here, but AFAIK any members of the community who recognized Christ left the community - because there is no indication of christianity at Qumran.

resedit wrote:

NAG wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

No, that isnt true. Peter was married and had kids, for instance.

There was some tension between the disciples if I'm not mistaken. This doesn't really prove much, besides I was just pointing out that there were a body of christians after Jesus died (and before) that were somewhat outcasts of society (including those that do not wish to marry). It was really only around Constantine when there was the dramatic shift to today's interpretation of marriage (and marriage in the christian faith).

Um, no.
You probably heard some "scholar" give some suggestion to that effect, but no.
Now - John the Baptist (not one of Jesus' disciples) was an Essene, and quite possibly a member of the Qumran (dead sea scroll) community. At one point, Qumran did not believe they should be having children. Some of the disciples of Jesus had been disciples of John the Baptist (IE Peter, who was married btw).

The Qumran community though was not as far as we know ever a christian community. They did understand a "suffering servant" Messiah, even before Jesus was here, but AFAIK any members of the community who recognized Christ left the community - because there is no indication of christianity at Qumran.

I've actually read many interpretations. Please drop the smugness as in the post that started this all I was asking a question and all I've gotten from you is elitist bullcrap. Explain your reasoning, don't just off it as "some 'scholar'" give your reasons.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

Whoa... read this!  The conservative pro-life wackos think the election was lost because the GOP isn't FAR ENOUGH RIGHT and that the "Guiliani-McCain-Romney" wing is responsible for the overwhelming defeat.  Guess they missed that ballot initiative in South Dakota.

...and thus the bloodbath begins.

::plops down in the easy chair with popcorn and sody-pop::

Yeah, babeh!

:: orders keg of beer and a wheelbarrow full of chips ::