An ode to monogamy ... or ... a lullaby for marriage

[plural]

In response to a post
and series of comments
begun by mfluder
in this post discussing infidelity

The odds are not
good

which is why
more than half
of all marriages
in the US fail
in the first three years

Although
infidelity isn't
the only culprit

between
an inbred selfishness
and a belief that
we have a right to it

and our insistence
in clinging to the
misguided concept of
the nuclear family
which by default
forces us to search
for that one person
who can meet all of our needs

in life
no one can meet
all of anyones needs

that's why we
have
and need
friends in addition to
our significant others
but
we still expect
to find that
perfect person.

holding each other
not to mention
ourselves up to
compare against
this idea
only frustrates us
as
neither our
partners nor
ourselves are
able to live up to
this ideal

Marriage
in the USA
is polluted by
government sanction

marriage is
either a legal contract
or
union between
a man and a woman

[homosexuals bear with me]
[for a moment as I will get to you]

to try to enforce
both is folly.

Government has
no authority
nor business
governing interpersonal
relationships

To tell someone
that they cannot
grant someone
certain legal rights
because of gender
is simply discriminatory,
and unethical.

Marriage in my belief
is a lifestyle choice
and for many people
a religious matter

Our government
is founded
on the principle of
separation of church
and for the state
to sanction marriage
of a religious sort
violates this separation.

Marriage is
an act
between two people
[traditionally a man and a woman]
and [traditionally]
their deity.

Personally
I feel that
if two men or
two women wish to

[or three men and]
[five women]

get married
that's between them
and
whatever deity
[or lack there of]
they worship.

However
in this country
there is also the aspect
of a legal/social contract
which the government
takes part in enforcing.

this should be separated.

Let whomever marry
whomever they want
and call that Marriage

and
ignore any legal
aspects of it.

consider it
simply a
religous cerimony
as one would
a baptism

Why set a specific
list of contractual
right, obligations and
compensation for such a
union.

I would like
to change the concept
name to be
referred to as
a
domestic partnership

this change
albeit primarily semantic
removes the religious aspect
and concentrates simply
on the fact that

you have
people who
form together to
create a corporation
dedicated to providing
both for the wellbeing and
support of its members
but also perhaps for the raising
and governance of
children.

Domestic partnerships
should not have specific laws
but governed by standard
contractual law.

We already have in place
laws and methods for
providing child support
for unwed mothers
so that aspect
is irrelevant.

You can give anyone
power of attorney
which allows them
to make any action
or decision on your behalf

[depending on]
[how much authority]
[you grant them anyway]

I think that
people should be
able to create
domestic partnership
agreements
set the terms and
conditions however they
see fit.

The only restriction
I would put into place
is that said individuals
must live share the
same primary residence

[children would]
[be excluded from]
[this restriction]

Personally
I do not care
whom you give
these rights too

I do not think
it is the governments right
to determine who you
grant liberties too
nor who you sign contracts
with.

If you want to
enter such a contract
with someone of the
same sex or
a dozen people
of the same sex
or of the opposite
for that matter.

legally that shouldn't
matter in the least.

morally well

one mans immorality
is another mans
moral obligation

[to rape the]
[words of another.]

Government has
no obligation nor
authority to regulate
morality but inherently
morals are based from
religion and
by sanctioning
one set of morals
they sanction one
religion at the
exclusion of
others.

another rusty nickel

[from me]
[for no real]
[good reason]

Comments

You...

[zaiah.livejournal.com]

are so adorable. :)

Permission to abuse, use, and loose your words into other forums?

as

[plural.livejournal.com]

always dear

[puissance.livejournal.com]

MUCH better than the o'reilly factor

what can I say

[plural.livejournal.com]

I drink
better whiskey
by which to
postulate drunken
ramblings than
o'reilly

you know what they say
put better in
get better
out
*grin*

[9thmoon.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear.
I've wondered who will be the first to write a "domestic partnership" contract and have it all signed and notarized and all legal-like, bestowing the rights and responsibilities of a traditional marriage upon all signing parties, and try to see somebody (ie: HMO, life insurance company etc) try to refuse benefits to one of the parties of that contract that would unquestioningly be granted to a spouse.
Imagine the Supreme Court case it would make.
Imagine the way it would change how people think.
It would be glorious.

[zaiah.livejournal.com]

This is an interesting place to start?

[9thmoon.livejournal.com]

This is very interesting. But this part bothers me:

"Relationship LLCs , by definition, cannot be created in an attempt to "legitimize" or obtain "state recognition of" a sexual arrangement (Gay or Straight)..."

It says sexual arrangement, but does that mean domestic arrangement, too?
Very interesting.

blah

[lonelytulip.livejournal.com]

so there should be a separation of church and state in a persons marriage (or ceremony)... yeah, so what? i'd like to see this petitioned at state capitals and at the nations capital sometime, i'm sure it would garner much press attention......

eh, sometimes i think you just ramble.

on the contrary my dear

[plural.livejournal.com]

often times
[if not most]
I just ramble.

but I hardly think
it diminishes my
accuracy.

and actually yes there
should be separation
of church and state
with regard to wedding
ceremonies.

as currently a
judge or member
of the clergy are required
to get permission from the
government to perform
the marriage ceremony

permission is granted
in the form of a marriage
license without which
clergy and judicial figures
are prevented from performing
the marriage rites.

what authority does government
have to "license" marriage
and through that means
license or legitimatize
one lifestyle above another,
simply upon religious grounds?

marriage ceremonies would continue
as they do today
and
as they do today
they would have zero legal authority
without a binding legal contract

[the marriage license]

any wedding
you have ever been to
was performed after the
happy couple was legal married.
The wedding is
simple pomp and ceremony.

[an affair to remember]
[quite literally]

Re: on the contrary my dear

[lonelytulip.livejournal.com]

i hate you... youre just like every othe rman... just typing to see what he can say. just does it for himself.

please do not take this as being rude as it is not intended as such

[plural.livejournal.com]

as I am simply
presenting my opinion
plainly and directly.

I write
for many reasons
here
in my journal
you are correct
I write primarily
for myself

in form
as well as function
my journal is
mine and
I use it for
many purposes
to expunge
my inner demons
from my soul and
to extract ideas
from my head
and formulate them
into ideas.

if you think
this is an
inappropriate use
of my journal,
I welcome you
to explain your thoughts.

As for babbling
I babble
especially in my journal
because by letting
my thoughts flow
babble, brook onto
the virtual page
I gain sanity.

I am deeply
sorry that you
hate me
however I think
you are misguided

I am just a man
as alike and as different
as any other man
in most parts
I am even
a poor example of
a man

but I think
your anger
and hatred comes
from something else
I would suggest
though far be it
from my right to do so
that you examine what
in the words I wrote
exposed such anger
within yourself
and why you have
been carrying that
anger around with you

and finally

I do not
type just to see
what I can say
it is an exercise
is constructive thinking

who do you want
me to write for?

I am just a
poor weary soul
I have little
if anything worth
writing for another
so
perhaps unlike
great authors
as I am
so far removed from
such
I have no story
to write for the
sake of others.

I hope you
will forgive
my many inadequacies

with regret

p

Such...

[rachelks.livejournal.com]

fascinating insights. Merci, merci.

always

[plural.livejournal.com]

a pleasure
I am glad you
appreciated them
and
allow me to apologize
in advance
for
while I may not
have
yet
[which I do find unlikely]
I am sure
to offend you
in the near
future
so
when that moment arrives
I
beg your parden

with regards

[mfluder.livejournal.com]

i guess it made sense all along to want to take out the government's role a marraige because all it suceeds in doing it to restrict.

a domestic partnership could work as a basic contractual agreement between parties that could be reviewed over time. it's all really a matter of changing our mindsets i guess.

exactly

[plural.livejournal.com]

my thought
of course
I rambled on
so guess what mon ami
you got another post
although this time
you will just have to
suffice with
getting credit here


*Grin*

Re: exactly

[mfluder.livejournal.com]

credit's not really necessary. getting to read about your ideas more than make up for it. *grin*

[kingnixon.livejournal.com]

i will skip over the majority of what you said, and point out "inherently morals are based from religion". i strongly disagree (unless you have a much more spacious definition of religion than avg). morality can be based just as easily, if not moreso, on one's personal philosophy or spirituality, whether it be religious or not. i could rant further, but without prompting i would quickly start talking in circles

ah then allow me to prompt you some more

[plural.livejournal.com]

See what I think we have
here is a difference in semantics

Morals are inherently a code of conduct
imposed by a higher power

As laws are imposed by government,
moral are imposed by our spiritual beliefs
primarily those which relate to a supreme being.

Ethics are developed
and enforced individually
each person creates and follows their own
ethos based on their spiritual, emotional
and material needs.

Morals are static set in stone.

Ethics are flexible as we are.

Now most people deep inside themselves
are devoid of a strong set of morals.

Just like we speed down the freeway
even though it is technically wrong
we often bend the corners of our morals
because of our distance and inability to relate
to the governing power

If god came and talked to you

if the heavens opened up and
he said

"since you have been a womanizer and
have debased women you will be impotent
until you change your ways."

not only would you damn well
change your ways, but you would
most likely take another gander at the rule book
to avoid some other more hideous punishment.

Laws are more obvious which is why for the most
part we only break the indirect ones such as speeding

Most people wouldn't rob a bank
not because they aren't greedy enough
nor covetous enough but because
the enforcing power of the law is
very obvious and clear in a bank

you have a guy with a gun standing there,
there are alarms, and video cameras

with human beings when it comes to
laws and morals we follow laws
primarily because we feel the hand
of punishment and wish to avoid that.

Ethics however, are a personal limit
where you set your own boundaries.

from a personal view,
one of my ethics is

"don't boink your friend's woman"

I don't do it because
I fear the wrath of my friend
but
because I have decided
that
it is not an act
congruous with
the image of a person
that I strive for

Re: ah then allow me to prompt you some more

[kingnixon.livejournal.com]

from dictionary.com:
[moral and ethical] mean in accord with right or good conduct. Moral applies to personal character and behavior, especially sexual conduct: ?Our moral sense dictates a clearcut preference for these societies which share with us an abiding respect for individual human rights? (Jimmy Carter). Ethical stresses idealistic standards of right and wrong: ?Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants? (Omar N. Bradley).
also, from reading the definitions, it seems ethics can be characterized as one's system of morals.
your reason for not messing with a friend's woman - "not an act congruous with the image of a person that I strive for" - do you want to project this image to others or to yourself?
my personal use of the words (i often use words with shades of meaning which are probably only clear to myself) is that morals are more instinctual/emotional while ethics are intellectual. i can say i think murder is wrong without much thought - so morally wrong - whereas if i answered the same question in regards to napster, i would have to think about it awhile, and the answer would be an ethical judgement. in practice, these are basically the same thing however.
in any case, i think if an action is done or avoided simply to avoid punishment/recieve reward, that is not a very moral/ethical (i'll just say moral now, to be lazy) way to act, not because of hte action itself but because you're not doing it based on any belief, but because of what you personally want to result from it. i don't think a bankrobber is any morally worse than someone whose only reason not to is they're afraid to be caught and punished.

*grin*

[plural.livejournal.com]

you not only
get a gold star
but
you have
inspired a rant
long enough
to warrant its
own post

*smirk*

Re: *grin*

[kingnixon.livejournal.com]

yay i got a gold star! [feels special]
oh, and cuz this just occurred to me, i'll say it here, even tho it should probly be in a reponse to your post which was the response to my last comment.. i think morals, to fit your use, could come from one's culture and upbringing just as much as some 'higher power'. being brought up with some idea hammered into you will often make things as static as any religious law