tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post115072793180506262..comments2024-03-07T15:32:53.014+02:00Comments on Yehuda: It's Time to End Civil MarriageYehuda Berlingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16038826060312027387noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-1151397514830448872006-06-27T11:38:00.000+03:002006-06-27T11:38:00.000+03:00The last but one line neatly expresses what is in ...The last but one line neatly expresses what is in my eyes the fundamental error in this discourse: marriage is <B>not</B> a religious issue. Marriage is a personal issue, a commitment between two people - only if these two people (or even one of them) are religious and percieve that commitment in a religious way does it become so, but religion is certainly not an essential aspect of marriage. <BR/><BR/>Civil marriage is a non-religious alternative for people who want to officialize their commitment to each other in some way. And there are reasons why anyone might want to do so: tradition, for one. That alone should be enough not to abolish it. <BR/><BR/>That doesn't mean I approve of all the aspects and consequences of civil marriage (I don't), but I can make the distinction between a good idea and its flawed execution.<BR/><BR/>Which brings me to my second point: I agree with many of Yehuda's sentiments but they are not arguments against civil marriage, as they are expressed here. It's not a good idea to abolish civil marriage because there are (many) aspects of it you disapprove of. It's a good idea to address those aspects themselves. Civil marriage, in essence, connects two people in a legally binding way. This can make many issues a lot easier to deal with, just as it might make that harder - I simply prefer to look at it from a glass-half-full point of view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-1150886905478885462006-06-21T13:48:00.000+03:002006-06-21T13:48:00.000+03:00Wow. I agree entirely. I was going to ask whether ...Wow. I agree entirely. I was going to ask whether you're a radical libertarian until I got to the update. Of course, you don't have to wait for the state to change its the laws in order to ignore its marriage laws, whether you're religious or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-1150861697393356412006-06-21T06:48:00.000+03:002006-06-21T06:48:00.000+03:00Wow, curious. I am against marriage partially beca...Wow, curious. I am against marriage partially because of the religious overtones :-). My first long-term relationship involved a civil marriage, and the wedding part was a complete waste of time and money. My second long-term relationship didn't involve marriage at all and was a whole lot more convenient and successful. Your idea has merit.Friendlesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05302241085168424095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-1150787122312253242006-06-20T10:05:00.000+03:002006-06-20T10:05:00.000+03:00Coldfoot,I agree that my position is somewhat radi...Coldfoot,<BR/><BR/>I agree that my position is somewhat radical, but I think it is inevitable.<BR/><BR/>1. Marriage - I am not against marriage; in fact I am all for it. But I am against a secular body sticking its nose into my marriage: how it is performed, with whom it is performed, whether it is peformed, and how it ends.<BR/><BR/>If goverment want to encourage family units, that is a different matter.<BR/><BR/>2. Better off for society - There are all sorts of things that are better off for society, better off for individuals, and better off for kids, that I don't want the goverment prescribing or proscribing.<BR/><BR/>We don't need laws ensuring the parent make their kids exercize or eat healthy foods, either.<BR/><BR/>3. Mother and father - Let's say that children need two, not one or three committed loving parents, and that these parents should be of opposite sex. That's hardly a given, but let's say.<BR/><BR/>This doesn't mean that these parents are better off married or not married. Only together.<BR/><BR/>If you want goverment to encourage parents to stay together for the welfare of the children, give them a child subsidy every year that they are together. Divorce it from the idea of marriage. It is parents that need help, married or not married, and not only those who have undergone a religious ceremony.<BR/><BR/>However, if some evidence points to children being better adjusted in the traditional family model, these measurements are being made in the context of a society that condemns non-traditional relationships. The families involved are treated as outcasts to begin with; of course the children are going to be less well adjusted. That is hardly a fair measurement.<BR/><BR/>In societies where non-traditional families were also a norm, such as indigenous cultures and kibbutzim in Israel, the children were also well adjusted.<BR/><BR/>YehudaYehuda Berlingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16038826060312027387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-1150765061011451212006-06-20T03:57:00.000+03:002006-06-20T03:57:00.000+03:00Omayn, Chaver!Shalom,Maksim-Smelchak.Omayn, Chaver!<BR/><BR/>Shalom,<BR/>Maksim-Smelchak.MaksimSmelchakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04844818181545002517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-1150764865780336972006-06-20T03:54:00.000+03:002006-06-20T03:54:00.000+03:00Might I suggest that separation of Church and Stat...Might I suggest that separation of Church and State, and a State policy on marriage are not mutually exclusive.<BR/><BR/>Even secular societies are better off in the long run if children are raised by a mother and a father. Children from traditional families are not always well adjusted, but they tend to commit less crime, both petty and violent crime, than children from traditional families.<BR/><BR/>There are other social advantages to promoting traditional marriages.<BR/><BR/>Society, and hence the State, does have an interest in creating incentives, such as tax breaks, to promote traditional families. <BR/><BR/>I would venture a guess that most atheists would agree that children raised in traditional mother/father families are better off for it and would further agree that children are worse off in societies where the institution of marriage has broken down.<BR/><BR/>Where this view breaks down is when there are no children involved. Yes, adults do have a right to privacy and a right to non-interference by the State. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, States have the obligation to treat everyone the same under the law. It would be near impossible, as well as unfair, to start making distinctions between couples without children and couples with children.<BR/><BR/>If the State has a policy that the marriage ceremony can only be conducted by a religious figure, that small portion of the law might be tinkered with, the entire law should not be scrapped.<BR/><BR/>It does not stand that because some people do not want to live within the confines of a traditional marriage that the institution should be redefined.<BR/><BR/>As part of a broad policy to keep society from breaking down the State should take steps to generally ensure the stability of the traditional family.<BR/><BR/>If two people want to live together as if they were married, but not be married, let them. They don't need to bring down a very successful institution because they don't want to feel different from their married friends.Coldfoothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11636345146138362966noreply@blogger.com