Subject:
|
Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 Dec 1998 00:25:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1142 times
|
| |
|
|
Beaker wrote:
>
> Also sprach Matt Hanson:
> : That's really a pity. I think that if somebody has an affair, they
> : should be punished, according to the oath they took at the altar. (or
> : wherever)
>
> Out of curiosity, what punishment do you have in mind? And on what
> constitutional authority would you base it? Note also that the oath has
> a 'til death' clause ... would you make divorce illegal as well?
Divorce, in my opinion, ought to entail some sort of punishment on both
sides, to discourage the practice, or to make people think harder about
marriage. (another abused institution)
>
> What I think you fail to understand, Matt, is that the institution of
> marriage, from a legal standpoint, is merely a change-in-status under
> various tax and shared-asset laws. The oath you take at the altar has
> no legal significance and the government has no business enforcing it.
> It is properly between you, your spouse, and your god.
Well, you seem to have overlooked the part I wrote about considerations
of others... I think that dishonesty, of any kind, should be able to be
punished by law. I don't really care whose business it is. You take a
vow to *anyone,* you are entering a contract agreement, and it doesn't
matter what perspective you look at it from. A promise, is a promise.
That's one of the liberal spins that has been put on promises in other
cases... implied, or word of mouth contracts... so why not uphold them
all by law?
>
> : I think it's pretty safe to assume that the majority of people would
> : have to honestly admit that having an extramarital affair is wrong. I
> : don't suggest regulating morality, but holding people to their
> : obligations... Get the idea?
>
> How can you 'hold someone to their obligations' without 'regulating
> morality'? These are not distinct policies ... they are in fact one in
> the same.
I dont' like to think of it as regulating morality. To me, trying to
regulate morality is telling someone how to think, not actually
punishing them for breaking promises.
>
> For what it is worth, I agree with you that most people would agree that
> cheating on a spouse is wrong. But I think they would disagree that it
> is criminal.
It doesn't have to be a felony that carries the death sentence. (which
interestingly enough, it use to, in some cultures) But it should be at
least a minor criminal offense. It is considered bad enough to warrant
civil action, so I really don't see why it shouldn't be illegal... It
*is* a violation of a contract...
>
> / _ _ / _ _ Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.
> ()(-(//((-/
> ============= Jim Baker -- Weather Weasel Extraordinaire ==============
--
=======================================================================
"What would you do with a brain if you had one?"
- Dorothy (from The Wizard of OZ)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove "NO SPAM" when replying.
ICQ #11674715
=======================================================================
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
| Also sprach Matt Hanson: : Divorce, in my opinion, ought to entail some sort of punishment on both : sides, to discourage the practice, or to make people think harder about : marriage. (another abused institution) Yeek. What you are asking for has a (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
| (...) But a promise to do what? I agree, people should be held to promises they make of their free will. But the government has a monopoly on granting marriage and constrains who can be married and under what terms. I will not hold a group of people (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
| Also sprach Matt Hanson: : That's really a pity. I think that if somebody has an affair, they : should be punished, according to the oath they took at the altar. (or : wherever) Out of curiosity, what punishment do you have in mind? And on what (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
