What Should Marriage Be?

[numinus]

I never said you were an American, I merely commented that your obvious lack of familiarity with literature is indicative of "the dumbing down of America". There is some comfort in the fact that that "dumbing down" isn't limited to America.

You must be befuddled by your own nonsense by now.

What makes you think my unfamiliarity with american literature, myself being a non-american and have never lived in america, be indicative at all of american society, hmmm?

And what makes you think that familiarity with american literature is the standard for intelligence for the rest of the world, eh?

After all your pretend liberal posturing, you are living under the illusion of a perverse version of a 'white man's burden'. And you are still wondering why peoples of the world resent you?

It certainly won't be YOU.

I have no intentions of belaboring fact. And the fact is -- you know nothing of the philosophical basis of YOUR OWN political system. How huckleberry fin can help you in that regard, well, I simply do not know.

DUMMY, Locke was a hypocritical imbecile who was largely responsible for many of the problems we've had in the country. Lest we forget, it was HE who wrote the original treatise on guaranteeing a Masters absolute power over his slaves, which oddly enough tied in very nicely with his own self serving heavy investment and participation in the slave trade here in America! Of course, he tried to obfuscate his involvement in that "peculiar institution" in some of his writings, mainly so that he wouldn't be run out of town "on a rail", but that doesn't detract from the facts of what he DID. A primary example of liberalism where you say one thing and do another.

In fact it was people like Locke that Thomas Jefferson was referencing in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence when he wrote;

Locke was also very instrumental in the horrific treatment of Native Americans by the British Crown, and was highly instrumental in the outright theft of their lands, especially in New England, which led to the French and Indian War. If you're going to try to hold someone up as an paragon of virtue, you really should try to do better that Locke.

And yet, the framers of your constitution had no problems copying the treatise of a 'hypocritical imbecile', eh?

The idea that government derives its power to govern from the governed, the three separate but co-equal branches of government and their functions, the nature of civil liberty and private property, etc -- all were thoroughly explained in the 2nd treatise of civil government. The american constitution reads like an outline of it.

Whether locke humps his manservant has nothing to do with the ideas in the treatise. In the same way that your craving for homosexual a$$ has nothing to do with the institution of marriage.

Do you finally understand or is that skull of yours simply impervious to rudimentary reason?

I should pray to GOD ALMIGHTY that my understanding of the Constitution IS AS FAR from Locke as is humanly possible! I prefer to derive my understanding of the Constitution from men such a James Madison, Thomas Jefferson (who, while not a participant in the Convention, was represented there nonetheless through his correspondence with Madison), George Mason, George Washington, Elbridge Gerry, and the many, many Anti-Federalists, whose objections resulted in the Bill of Rights.

LMAO

However formidable the thoughts of these people are, they are still nothing BUT AFTER-THOUGHTS on the political philosophy of locke. And locke's version of the social contract, itself, is merely an offshoot of modern constitutionalism sweeping europe at that time. You have the social contract of rousseau, the precursor of the parliamentary form of government, and the social contract of hobbes, the basis of a constitutional monarchy.

What these people wrote, when divorced from their philosophical basis, ARE MEANINGLESS -- as meaningless as the drivel you pretend to argue in this forum.

Frankly, the absolute LAST person who needs to be even attempting to council me on the Constitution is someone who is still a DISARMED SUBJECT, and not a CITIZEN!

And what, may I ask, has firearms and citizenship have to do with a political discussion, hmmm? I have studied social and political philosophy in college and, I assume, so have you. Comprehension is the ONLY thing that matters here. Sadly, you are big on guns and citizenship, NOT in the gray-matter between your ears.

As is obviously your problem.

Perhaps you can direct me to that part of the Debates in the Federal Convention where these were discussed, or played any part in the drafting of OUR Constitution that supports any of your specious assertions? As they are not contained therein, at least not in the context you are trying so vainly to argue, they have NO BEARING on the substance of the discussion.

Are you suggesting that the american constitution was not the result of the political philosophy expounded in locke's 2nd treatise? You are dumber than I thought.

 

[numinus]

Again, ONLY if the condition was known PRIOR to the marriage, and INTENTIONALLY concealed. If sterility WAS known about, discussed, and both parties were still agreeable, IT IS NOT!

What a ninny you are.

Can a marriage be annuled for concealing a malignant growth in your ass? It never occured to you that concealment bears on marriage ONLY in certain aspects - FERTILITY BEING ONE OF THEM.

Duh?

Furthermore, in order for there to BE an annulment, there must first be a marriage.

Good god, you are indeed stupid.

Annulment means that there WAS NO MARRIAGE TO BEGIN WITH.

It is legally different from a divorce since rights obtained during the alleged marriage are null as well -- particularly parental rights of the father. Furthermore, the aggreived party in an annulment has compensatory claims on the party from which the defect in the marriage originated.

Duh?

BTW, given that until recently, full medical evaluations were required prior to marriage, any undiscovered sterility has not been sufficient grounds for divorce in any State I've lived in, and from what little time I've dedicated to researching it, it has NOT been sufficient grounds for divorce or annulment in America since the mid 18th Century. I therefore challenge you to produce any existing law, in America, that allows for annulment based on anything other than intentionally concealed sterility.

Even now, you still do not comprehend. A divorce is different from an annulment.

Irreconcilable difference is a ground for divorce and may be invoked on a wide array of subjects. Prior to the divorce, the marriage was legal. The father retains parental rights over his children born within the marriage. Property acquired by the spouses within the marriage, are conjugal, hence the disposition is equal.

In an annulment, there was no marriage in the first place. The father has no parental rights over the children while the mother is still alive. Properties obtained within the alleged marriage are not conjugal.

Capice?

 

[numinus]

I can't respond to gibberish.

I am not at all surprised. Let me spell it out to you:

All family relations come from the right to motherhood and extends to other people by marriage. This right covers the decision to get pregnant up to the care of the child during the age of minority. This right, being a human right, is indefeasible, even by the state.

When you insist on marrying homosexuals, you are ascribing this right to homosexual men -- one of the most absurd notions I have had the misfortune of encountering. The result of this absurd notion is the gay communities clamor over alleged 'discrimination' in state adoption policies -- as if people, gay or straight, have the RIGHT TO ADOPT in the first place.

A couple living together monogamously possibly raising children... yep that's a family

.

That is NOT A FAMILY in the eyes of the state. While couples may do so without the benefit of marriage, the state cannot arbitrate on contentions arising within this 'family' if the couple never bothered to get married.

Probably for the same reason you're just making stuff up. Sterility can be grounds for nullifying a marriage NOT DISALLOWING ONE. Just open mouth insert foot.

Correct. A null marriage is a void marriage means there is no marriage. You can have as many ceremonies as you wish and the state wouldn't 'disallow' you to do it.

Duh?

In America your rights end when they imposes on someone else in a harmfully way. Two adult people (straight or gay) married in a monogamous loving relationship hurts absolutely no one.

Eh?

If the conjugal relationships of people do not hurt anyone, then there is no need for marriage and family laws, no? After all, contentions within loving, conjugal partners cannot possibly exist.

But in the real world, completely remote from that fantasy existence you seem to be living in, contentions between 'loving' partners do come about. And in this real world, these partners have a recourse in the law.

You're just making yourself look so darn hompophobic...

I have no intentions of making myself look stupid like you.

 

[Federal Farmer]

What a ninny you are.

Can a marriage be annuled for concealing a malignant growth in your ass? It never occured to you that concealment bears on marriage ONLY in certain aspects - FERTILITY BEING ONE OF THEM.

Duh?

Read and learn you fuzzy little foreigner, in AMERICA, you know, the country we're talking about, fertility is NOT grounds for annulment UNLESS it was INTENTIONALLY concealed. Even then, it's usually much easier to simply divorce than to get an annulment.

Good god, you are indeed stupid.

Annulment means that there WAS NO MARRIAGE TO BEGIN WITH.

Numinus, you're a ****ing *****! YOU CANNOT GET AN ANNULMENT IF YOU AREN'T MARRIED. Once the annulment is granted, THEN there was "no marriage", but UNTIL the annulment, there IS a marriage.

It is legally different from a divorce since rights obtained during the alleged marriage are null as well -- particularly parental rights of the father. Furthermore, the aggreived party in an annulment has compensatory claims on the party from which the defect in the marriage originated.

Duh?

I don't know what AFU country you're from, but you've just contradicted the crap out of yourself. How can there be "compensatory damages" for a marriage that didn't exist?

Even now, you still do not comprehend. A divorce is different from an annulment.

Dip****ski, I know EXACTLY what the difference is, because I've had BOTH. My first marriage ended in a DIVORCE, but it had to be ANNULED through the Church.

Irreconcilable difference is a ground for divorce and may be invoked on a wide array of subjects. Prior to the divorce, the marriage was legal. The father retains parental rights over his children born within the marriage. Property acquired by the spouses within the marriage, are conjugal, hence the disposition is equal.

In an annulment, there was no marriage in the first place. The father has no parental rights over the children while the mother is still alive. Properties obtained within the alleged marriage are not conjugal.

Capice?

Again, I'm quite familiar with the concept, but you still haven't answered the salient question, and that is to produce any current US Law that supports your position.

 

[n0spam4me]

I'd like to suggest that this whole argument could be avoided by making a LEGAL deffinition for CIVIL UNION, and couples homo/herto, could get their documentation of civil union from the STATE, and if they insist on calling what they have MARRIAGE, who can challeng that?

Its all in the words, and the ONLY thing that the state does, is administer the contract between two people.

So what is the big deal?