![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
An ode to monogamy ... or ... a lullaby for marriage
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]
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]
no subject
ah then allow me to prompt you some more
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
[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*
get a gold star
but
you have
inspired a rant
long enough
to warrant its
own post
*smirk*
Re: *grin*
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