posted
I've posted a very clear and concise quotation as to why caling a marriage a contract is an incomplete description. There's a lot in it - the fact that the contractual aspect of marriage is simply the inception of the legal status, the fact that consent is the only significant point of similarity, the special status of the marital relationship, the state interest in every marriage, the fact that the entire body of commercial contract law is inapplicable to marriage, and the exemption of marriage from the contracts clause in the Constitution.
You've yet to respond to any of that point by point.
posted
"I really don't care what any of you think."
I find this fascinating. If you really feel that way, why are you talking to us?
-----
Just as a side note, BTW, it's worth noting that many dictionaries do not include "between a man and a woman" in their definition of marriage. And while you can insist that you believe it SHOULD be there, and say that you believe this to be the commonly accepted definition, there's actually a huge technical difference between an argument based on definitions and an argument based on facts. Which would you like to have?
quote: I've posted a very clear and concise quotation as to why caling a marriage a contract is an incomplete description. There's a lot in it - the fact that the contractual aspect of marriage is simply the inception of the legal status, the fact that consent is the only significant point of similarity, the special status of the marital relationship, the state interest in every marriage, the fact that the entire body of commercial contract law is inapplicable to marriage, and the exemption of marriage from the contracts clause in the Constitution.
You've yet to respond to any of that point by point.
I did, your response was to ignore everything minue "Parolees".
Not suprised.
But here goes.
quote: I've posted a very clear and concise quotation as to why caling a marriage a contract is an incomplete description.
Your quote did no such thing. Nowhere does it say that a "contract of marriage" is an incomplete description. It states that it is INDEED a contract, but of a different sort than others.
But a CONTRACT none the less.
quote: the fact that the contractual aspect of marriage is simply the inception of the legal status,
The Inception and CONTINUATION of that status. It is a contract that is not renewed every day, etc. It is entered into and AGREED by the two parties involved as the BEGINNING of a marriage process. No one that is married one day is not unmarried the next unless action is taken by the state, OR a DEATH occurs. (which again is NOT an action of the state, but does affect the Marriage Contract's Validity) You cannot continue to claim Married Status after one party has DIED. In fact it is AGAINST the law to do so.
Also, you are comparing Marriage to Commercial Contracts, which are two very different things and do NOT cover all contracts entered into and do NOT represent all CONTRACTS with a Legal Binding.
There are contracts in Religion (promises or covenants). You promise one thing, you fail to do so, you forfeit the benefits of that contract. You are ex-communicated.
Commerce has nothing to do with it.
There is the BINDING NON-Consensual contract between a citizen and the law. You disobey the law, you lose the priviledges it affords. Nothing written but very binding.
No commerce involved there either.
The Parolee who promises to make his appointments with his officer is a CONTRACT as well. Not commercial to say the least.
Perhaps we are debating what a contract is, which is an agreement entered into by two parties.
That covers marriage.
The fact that that contract goes through a legal process for it's dissolution reinforces the fact that it is indeed a CONTRACT.
There are many other governing factors regarding contracts that also cover marriage. But not every contract is the same.
Not every contract is legal. Not every contract is written and not every contract is agreed upon but is still binding.
Marriage is just ONE type of contract.
Is it a special contract? You bet. Well at lease it once was to most people. Does it differ from alot of other contracts? Yes, but nothing in which it differes DISQUALIFIES it from being a contract.
What the contract entails is what is at stake.
I think in reality we are on the same page, we both agree that Marriage is a contract. Just that it has some properties that distinguish it from other contracts.
Lots of contracts have such distinguishing properties.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just as a side note, BTW, it's worth noting that many dictionaries do not include "between a man and a woman" in their definition of marriage. And while you can insist that you believe it SHOULD be there, and say that you believe this to be the commonly accepted definition, there's actually a huge technical difference between an argument based on definitions and an argument based on facts. Which would you like to have?
Really? There's a dictionary that DOESN'T have it? Well that makes it the law then.
How about the LAW and it's definition of it.
Oh Wait! Liberals want to CHANGE the laws to INCLUDE others other than man and wife.
I can't believe anyone would actually DENY or ARGUE that Marriage is NOT defined as the Union/agreement/contract/promise/etc. between a Man and a Woman.
But with liberals, CBS has proven they'll invent what they want and try to pass it off as truth.
I know this is a sci-fi based form, but lay off the fantasy a bit ok?
Anyone who argues that Marriage is NOT between a man and a woman just crack me up.
posted
So, to clarify, you're using a different definition of "contract" than Dagonee is. By his definition, it's not possible for marriage to be a contract; by yours, which is a more liberal definition, marriage is obviously a contract. The definition that Dagonee is using for "contract" is in fact the legal one, the one recognized by the laws of this country; the one you are using is listed in a few dictionaries, but is not binding.
posted
From my previous post: "[Marriage] is not a contract resembling others in any but the slightest degree, except as to the element of consent."
quote: The Inception and CONTINUATION of that status. It is a contract that is not renewed every day, etc. It is entered into and AGREED by the two parties involved as the BEGINNING of a marriage process. No one that is married one day is not unmarried the next unless action is taken by the state,
Exactly. Contracts can be terminated by consent of the parties. So either marriage is not just a contract, or the state is a party. Your definition is consistent with neither possibility.
quote:OR a DEATH occurs. (which again is NOT an action of the state, but does affect the Marriage Contract's Validity) You cannot continue to claim Married Status after one party has DIED. In fact it is AGAINST the law to do so.
Funny, most contracts extend past death. Yet another difference.
quote:Also, you are comparing Marriage to Commercial Contracts, which are two very different things and do NOT cover all contracts entered into and do NOT represent all CONTRACTS with a Legal Binding.
There are contracts in Religion (promises or covenants). You promise one thing, you fail to do so, you forfeit the benefits of that contract. You are ex-communicated.
Commerce has nothing to do with it.
You’re the one who restricted this discussion to marriage being a “civil contract,” so religious contracts are inapplicable.
quote:There is the BINDING NON-Consensual contract between a citizen and the law. You disobey the law, you lose the priviledges it affords. Nothing written but very binding.
No commerce involved there either.
WRONG! The one universal aspect of contracts is consent. There are no non-consensual contracts.
quote:The Parolee who promises to make his appointments with his officer is a CONTRACT as well. Not commercial to say the least.
There’s not a contract. That’s a condition of release. Again, no consent.
quote:Perhaps we are debating what a contract is, which is an agreement entered into by two parties.
"A contract is a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty." Restatement (Second) of Contracts.
A marriage has duty attached to it. It also has hundreds of other things attached to it.
quote:That covers marriage.
The fact that that contract goes through a legal process for it's dissolution reinforces the fact that it is indeed a CONTRACT.
No. Contracts can be dissolved by consent of the parties. Marriages can’t – it requires consent of the state.
quote:There are many other governing factors regarding contracts that also cover marriage. But not every contract is the same.
Not every contract is legal. Not every contract is written and not every contract is agreed upon but is still binding.
Again, you insisted it was a civil contract – this means you are claiming marriage is a legal contract.
quote:Marriage is just ONE type of contract.
Is it a special contract? You bet. Well at lease it once was to most people. Does it differ from alot of other contracts? Yes, but nothing in which it differes DISQUALIFIES it from being a contract.
What the contract entails is what is at stake.
I think in reality we are on the same page, we both agree that Marriage is a contract. Just that it has some properties that distinguish it from other contracts.
No, we don’t. Marriage is a complex institution which has one property (consent) in common with contracts. One element of a marriage is contract.
quote:Lots of contracts have such distinguishing properties.
True. And lots of legal entities have contracts and something else. Just like the sale of a house is not “a contract.” It involves the execution of a contract (usually more than one) and the giving and acceptance of a deed, at minimum.
posted
Regardless, as always, I feel the need to insert my logic in -- particulary, because I feel it is utterly perfect ^^. (Not really, but I am proud of this idea because it's simple and effective.)
By the way, you may quote me on this. However, make sure to attribute it to "Phanto." Thanks . (Waits for the coming deconstruction of my arguement.)
quote: Gods, you're all arguing in a vacum.
We're speaking about state policy. As state policy, the truth is that there shouldn't be any mention of marriage at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Let all denominations have their own little marriages.
And yes, if a gay club wants to have their own marriage club, it should be as valid as a Church's marriage. (Read: both should be meaningless in terms of law.)
The point is that both hetrosexual couples and gay couples should be given Civil Unions.
posted
Also, I like the Balboa quote about them killing "sodomites" which could be TRUE that they were practicing it or it could be FALSE and that that was used as an excuse for their genocide. Especially seeing as there's no other mention of it being blessed on a large scale ANYWHERE.
This is called the "grasping at straws" technique. Again, it's used by people who are pro-homosexual marriage (instead of Pro-Civil Union) to attempt to "ligitimize" their current lifestyle.
It's another form of "rewritting history to make me feel good about myself" technique.
It's used ALOT now days.
Also, it's fair to note they also practiced ritual human sacrifices as well as animal sacrifices.
So those should be re-instituted as well.
Sorry, but I'm a little too well educated to believe what he has written. Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if we can activate his sense of humor and the realization that we are real people, he might be a good Hatracker.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Added: Course, it could have been directed at someone else in this brief conversation, in which case I'll just politely step out of the way.
That depends on how you look. If you are more pleasing to the eye than the view you obstructed, I have no qualms. Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I agree with everything OSC said in his article.
I think he hit the nail completely on the head, but he was very nice about it.
So you agree that we have:
quote:a generation of children with no trust in marriage who are mating in, at best, merely "marriage-like" patterns
Should they also be denied marriage? I mean, they're just going get divorced and if they do have kids, there's no way they'll be raised in a loving home.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does his out of context quote have to do with Gays. He's talking about the destruction of Marriage on the whole in society.
He's talking about Brittney Spears, J.Lo, Pamela Anderson type hook ups. (Although I hear PA is now teaching Sunday School) Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The quote you used didn't have anything to do with Gays. It had to do with the current state of marriage in our society. The degradation from the 50's until today. Which in my opinion is very hard to dispute against. (although there's always someone who thinks marriages are stronger, better and less prone to Divorce, but I'm not seeing it)
He's not saying Gays shouldn't be allowed to be married because of the deterioration of marriage.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oooh! Let's talk about marriages in the 50s! Depressed housewives! Emotionally stunted husbands! I'm not certain the 50s are something we want to emulate.
posted
Really? Because my grandparents were all married then and happy then and now. And still married.
They were doing something right that is not being done today.
Oh and that's my opinion, but maybe high divorce rates are a sign of strong marriages to some people.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really would love to discuss 50s marriages. There is an excellant book called (I think) "The Way We Were" that's very interesting in that it compares how the structure of the family has changed since the 50s.
As far as divorce rates go - I don't know. Divorce wasn't as acceptable in the 50s, and single women with children didn't have as many options then. I don't know if we can attribute the rise in divorce rates since the 50s by blaming it on the fact that we don't have "strong marriages" now.
posted
Eh...wait. Perhaps I have my books confused. The book I read had a great breakdown about marriages/families in the 50s and why marriages/families are different today. It proposed that instead of looking dreamily back into the 50s as the epitome of marriage and the family that we realize that societal changes have changed the state of marriage and the family. I wonder which book it was now!
Do you agree with the assertion that children of divorce are only mating in marriage-like patterns? Because that is one of the things Card has said in this article. One of your statements on this thread is that you agree with everything he said in the article.
A yes or no would be sufficient for this particular question.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you agree with the assertion that children of divorce are only mating in marriage-like patterns? Because that is one of the things Card has said in this article. One of your statements on this thread is that you agree with everything he said in the article.
Every one? No. Because there are other factors that can lead to divorce. However, aren't the studies pretty overwhelming that state that children who come from broken homes have an astronomically higher chance of being stewards over broken homes themselves?
I haven't seen any studies anywhere that state that children who are the product of broken homes are more likely to stay married and have strong marriages.
Is that what you are disagreeing with? If so I would like to know what leads you to believe such.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oooh! Let's talk about marriages in the 50s! Depressed housewives! Emotionally stunted husbands! I'm not certain the 50s are something we want to emulate.
Between you and me, SO, we don't agree on this. But the truth is that neither one of us was in the fifties and neither one of us has any experience with being married back then. All we know is what we've heard or thought about it. I'd be really interested to know what people who were actually married in the fifties have to say about it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have I stated agreement or disagreement with that statement?
Your answer is agreement with a statement different from that which was made. That is, that statistically, children of divorce are more likely to get divorced. I'm certainly not going to disagree with that. However, Card's phrasing is unambiguous in it's cause-effect relationship: If your parents got divorced, you cannot have a real marriage.
Do you understand that there is a difference between the two? Do you understand that when you say you agree with everything he has said, you are agreeing with everything he has actually said?
Do you agree with his statement?
Posts: 157 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Do you feel you have gone under my radar? If so, it wasn't at all on purpose. I am partial to funny. Hobbes is funny, and Hobbes is more often very sweet and extremely principled, and that gets attention from me, too, but there's no denying that the best way to my heart and mind is through the Funny.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And while you can insist that you believe it SHOULD be there, and say that you believe this to be the commonly accepted definition, there's actually a huge technical difference between an argument based on definitions and an argument based on facts. Which would you like to have?![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
