NationStates Jolt Archive

Congratulations, you just proved his point.

You do not sue for divorce.

Oh yes you do. I know that from personal experience.

Oh yes you do. I know that from personal experience.

No, you FILE for divorce. You don't sue another individual for divorce.

My fiance and I view marriage (and even simply dating) as restricting our sexual activities to each other. Other married couples agree to bring other people into the bedroom or have separate other sexual partners. Is one of these not marriage?

My fiance and I will make decisions together, with neither of us taking any special precedence. Smunkeeville has chosen to be more submissive towards her husband. Which version isn't marriage?

Two people can agree to whatever terms of marriage they like personally - and it won't change the legal definitions. Smunkeeville and her husband have decided that he is the final word in the house, but it won't be considered a breach of any legal contract if she does something he does not agree with.

But you're talking about elements that not all marriages share in common. I'm talking about elements that they do. There are certain universal things that can trigger a divorce should one side choose it. In my state, examples include infidelity, abandonment, conviction of a felony. Those aren't usually necessary in marriage vows, yet they are in place once the marriage is performed, regardless.


No, everyone is allowed to believe whatever they like. They can live their lives in any way they please, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. It is when they try to enforce those beliefs on others - denying equal legal protection to others - that they must back them up with a compelling government interest.

Every vote infringes upon others. If you and I lived in the same neighborhood and you voted on a referendum in favor of requiring all houses in that neighborhood to ceem their front yards clear, if I have a project '69 Camaro in my yard you've just infringed upon me. I could even claim you've infringed upon my right to keep my property as I see fit.

If there's an election and I vote for the candidate who supports gun control (yeah right) and you own an assault rifle, I'm voting in such a way as to potentially infringe upon your right to own it.

This is how it is in our society. You vote your conscience. If everybody reached a consesnsus on everything, then there's be no need for it.

No, you FILE for divorce. You don't sue another individual for divorce.

Depends on the jurisdiction. How about this, since I'm recently divorced, I'll tell YOU what's on my paperwork, ok?

Depends on the jurisdiction. How about this, since I'm recently divorced, I'll tell YOU what's on my paperwork, ok?

Fair enough.

"...Government by the people, for the people and of the people..."

I never said free reign, I never said pure democracy. Majority rule is how it works, friends. There is a structure to deal with the issues you just mentioned, yes... but at the end of the day, the point of this Government is to be a Government by the people. AKA majority rule.

Government by the people and majority rule are not equivalent. Majority rule would be equivalent to pure democracy. The fact that there are limits on majority rule makes it exceedingly clear that our government is not based in that principle.

Where I sit, it's a perfectly accurate reason.

And yet the argument has not been repeated. It has gotten more detailed, but nothing has really been repeated.

Which is what I've been saying all day, but for some reason people can't seem to let it go at that.

If that is what you were trying to get at, then it was completely and totally irrelevant to the discussion. Why bring it up at all?

Ok makes sense. Now let me ask you this, (not to challenge, but to discuss.) Suppose there was a wave of research by psychologists, scientists, anthropologists, etc that convinced you that it would be a Government interest to outlaw promiscuity on the basis that it spreads disease, for example. Would it then be deferred to the second category you mentioned?

If that was truly the basis of their vote, I could certainly see people voting for it. I would still disagree with them, however. The possibility of contracting a disease is part of the risk one takes when one engages in sexual activity. So long as all parties are consenting adults, they have agreed to take on that risk.

Actually, I suppose my vote would depend on just how compelling the interest was. If the studies said something like, "A person who has a sexual encounter with a promiscuous partner has a 75% higher chance of dying from an STD," I'd probably consider voting for it. But if it was more like a 2% chance, I wouldn't. After all, the government could try and ban carpentry classes on the basis that people might get tetanus if any old health concern would suffice.

I disagree. Spoken my peace. Can't make that any clearer.

So, you don't actually have to back up anything you say, eh? You can just throw out what is essentially a personal insult, and then when confronted with evidence that it isn't true, you can just say, "I disagree," over and over and over again?

But you're talking about elements that not all marriages share in common. I'm talking about elements that they do.

No, you aren't. You are talking about reasons that, in certain states (those that aren't no-fault divorce in the first place) allow as grounds for divorce.

There are certain universal things that can trigger a divorce should one side choose it. In my state, examples include infidelity, abandonment, conviction of a felony.

If you have to preface it with "in my state," you can pretty much assume that it isn't "universal."

Those aren't usually necessary in marriage vows, yet they are in place once the marriage is performed, regardless.

This statement demonstrates that it has nothing to do with the marriage vows taken at the ceremony. The vows used may not mention fidelity, abandonment, or a conviction of a felony, and they will still be grounds for divorce in your state. You've just proven mine and TCT's point - that the vows themselves do not have legal standing. It is the obligations, rights, and privileges written into marriage law that are used in civil marriage.

Every vote infringes upon others.

But every vote does not infringe upon the rights of others. If a law is voted into place that outlaws fraud, then those who would wish to commit fraud have been infringed upon. But their rights have not been infringed upon. They do not have a right to commit fraud. In fact, in so doing, they are infringing upon the rights of others. As such, it is a perfectly valid action to outlaw fraud.

If you and I lived in the same neighborhood and you voted on a referendum in favor of requiring all houses in that neighborhood to ceem their front yards clear, if I have a project '69 Camaro in my yard you've just infringed upon me. I could even claim you've infringed upon my right to keep my property as I see fit.

Homeowner's Associations are not the government. Certain neighborhoods have set up covenants and these things are generally voted upon. However, those within the neighborhood must freely agree to be a part of the association before said covenants might be legally binding. And quite a few such rules have been overturned by the courts when homeowner's associations attempted to enforce them.

If there's an election and I vote for the candidate who supports gun control (yeah right) and you own an assault rifle, I'm voting in such a way as to potentially infringe upon your right to own it.

Indeed. But, if you can present a compelling government interest in banning that particular assault rifle, then you are not infringing upon my rights. You are protecting the rights of the citizens.


This is how it is in our society. You vote your conscience. If everybody reached a consesnsus on everything, then there's be no need for it.

Voting your conscience is not equivalent to voting your religion into law. Many of us can tell the difference.

Hrm. Something about that doesn't gel. If it is possible to love God, it must be possible to do so without exposure to history or literature of any sort, right? A love with necessary basis in the works of the past is not much of a love, really.

Yeah, sorry.. I skipped a step.

It follows that if there is a God it's possible to believe in that existance without written words. However, having the belief there is a God, and that he's a supreme being responsible for your creation (and should you choose to "love" him), the logical next step is to get "closer" to God (as presumably enjoy closeness with all the ones and things that you love. For that you'd have to communicate with him. If your God choses to communicate to you through written words...

So, yes, it is possible to love God with without reference to history or literature - but it's a bit of an insincere love, as I see it. The new Testament is I think unique in this respect in that it does support the view that it's possible to "know" God (and even obtain salvation/redemption) without exposure to his words - a claim that other religious texts do not make. However, it also outlines that if knowledge of such text (or other sources of information about God and his communication are known, avoidance is not smiled upon.

I'm really sorry for chucking a pebble in the middle of this thread, but why does no one attack Christianity from the argument of master-slave morality, a la Nietzsche? Or is this not suited to Western man?

Just something that occurred to me leafing through this thread.

I'm really sorry for chucking a pebble in the middle of this thread, but why does no one attack Christianity from the argument of master-slave morality, a la Nietzsche? Or is this not suited to Western man?

Just something that occurred to me leafing through this thread.

because it's generally been done to death, the stock response is "well god made us so we should worship him, we owe him" etc etc etc.

I'm really sorry for chucking a pebble in the middle of this thread, but why does no one attack Christianity from the argument of master-slave morality, a la Nietzsche? Or is this not suited to Western man?

Just something that occurred to me leafing through this thread.

Its been done but in the end why make such an argument when canned thoughtless retorts come back

Yeah, sorry.. I skipped a step.

It follows that if there is a God it's possible to believe in that existance without written words. However, having the belief there is a God, and that he's a supreme being responsible for your creation (and should you choose to "love" him), the logical next step is to get "closer" to God (as presumably enjoy closeness with all the ones and things that you love. For that you'd have to communicate with him. If your God choses to communicate to you through written words...

So, yes, it is possible to love God with without reference to history or literature - but it's a bit of an insincere love, as I see it. The new Testament is I think unique in this respect in that it does support the view that it's possible to "know" God (and even obtain salvation/redemption) without exposure to his words - a claim that other religious texts do not make. However, it also outlines that if knowledge of such text (or other sources of information about God and his communication are known, avoidance is not smiled upon.

That is, largely, due to the fact that the Abrahmic Religions are the only religions that come to mind where the "Redemption" of a personal nature is a reward for faith, and "Damnation" a penalty.

In Hinduism, for instance, the entire purpose of life is to experience multiple lives so that one might better themselves by following their dharma (which, iirc is basically just "what you're supposed to do in this particular life") then you end up in a better life during your next incarnation. It's a cyclical setup, the ultimate goal of which is to attain a form of unity with the underlying Spirit of the universe. Whether that spirit is an immanent god in the Abrahmic sense, or a more impersonal, transcendent figure, is the subject of some debate.
However, the point isn't "Redemption" from sin, but in fact to lead a good life and therefore attain a oneness with "God". The Hindu texts explicitly state that one can attain this oneness without being Hindu, and without worshipping the Hindu gods. One must merely be a good person, and follow their dharma.
One can, even, openly defy the gods, and yet if that person leads a good life they can still end up in a better situation in the next life.
One of the things that still attracts me to Hinduism is the belief that regardless of faith and belief, you are always punished for the bad, sinful things you did in your past lives, and rewarded for the good things you did. You're always held accountable regardless of how inherently sinful humanity may be.

For anyone more versed in this than I, feel free to correct me.

One can, even, openly defy the gods, and yet if that person leads a good life they can still end up in a better situation in the next life.
Heretical Orthodoxy. Neat.

The more I hear about Hinduism the more impressed I get. =)

Heretical Orthodoxy. Neat.

The more I hear about Hinduism the more impressed I get. =)

Don't be. Regardless of the nature of the Hindu faith, it's support of xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, and a rigid and oppressive Caste hierarchy make it...most unappealing.

Take it on the word of a lapsed Hindu.

because it's generally been done to death, the stock response is "well god made us so we should worship him, we owe him" etc etc etc. To which a good response would be something along the lines of "Yes, worshipping God we can accept as a premise, but not the slave morality. *insert example of other religion that worships God yet does not have slave morality*.

Par example.