Submitted by justin kruger (not verified) on Fri, 2008-12-12 00:10.
if marriage == happiness, then my parents would be happy, but marriage has nothing to do with happiness. love does not even equal happiness.
love should be a journey of self sacrifice and humility, neither of which make you happy. happiness comes from something else, it comes from the joy that is created when magical moment of love, freedom and self expression come together to make us feel like there is something beyond just living, beyond just being a machine.
giving someone a legal right to marry or not to marry has nothing to do with any of this, and in fact, I would be happier if we separated church and state. marriage, a promise between a man, a woman, and god has nothing to do with justice, or with state function.
if marriage is something that makes you happy, should the state have permission to control your happiness? no, the state should have no such power over an individual to grant or destroy happiness. in fact the only just purpose of a state, is to protect a citizen from an individual of local or external nature from disrupting their happiness, and in fact, as part of faith and religion we are all granted the freedom to practice our religion and our faith as we see fit so long as it does not disrupt others.
the whole reason we are in this mess is because this was a nation founded on Christian values, and we assumed that only Christians would live here, and we assumed a sufficient set of separation between church and state. however, after 200 years we are a much different country and we now have many different faiths here. faiths that may be wrong or right based on our personal beliefs, but, when you really think about it; the most powerful being in the universe still gave us the chance to choose and to explore our own personal journey of faith and that happens to take us all in a great many different paths.
I personally do not want a state regulating what religious practices I can and can not do, and that is the dangerous category we are getting into.
I propose that if we want to have a framework for personal stability, and financing, then all people who wish to reside together for long periods of time can form civil unions. there are so many goofy things that happen because people date for 7 years now, buy houses, and muck up the system. on the flip side, marriages are no longer till death do us part, and in reality many only last a few years.
i propose that civil unions are contracted in real lengths of time like 1 year, 2 years, 3, 4, or 5 years, and with longer contracts come different options and permanence. think of them like leases or cellphone agreements. some of these contracts might be for the length of time to raise children (an important state function). where by each one of these standard civil contracts gives people listed within the unit options.
we can then leave the marriages in the church, and the promises are made between the laws of that church, and not the government.
Comments
marriage = happieness?
if marriage == happiness, then my parents would be happy, but marriage has nothing to do with happiness. love does not even equal happiness.
love should be a journey of self sacrifice and humility, neither of which make you happy. happiness comes from something else, it comes from the joy that is created when magical moment of love, freedom and self expression come together to make us feel like there is something beyond just living, beyond just being a machine.
giving someone a legal right to marry or not to marry has nothing to do with any of this, and in fact, I would be happier if we separated church and state. marriage, a promise between a man, a woman, and god has nothing to do with justice, or with state function.
if marriage is something that makes you happy, should the state have permission to control your happiness? no, the state should have no such power over an individual to grant or destroy happiness. in fact the only just purpose of a state, is to protect a citizen from an individual of local or external nature from disrupting their happiness, and in fact, as part of faith and religion we are all granted the freedom to practice our religion and our faith as we see fit so long as it does not disrupt others.
the whole reason we are in this mess is because this was a nation founded on Christian values, and we assumed that only Christians would live here, and we assumed a sufficient set of separation between church and state. however, after 200 years we are a much different country and we now have many different faiths here. faiths that may be wrong or right based on our personal beliefs, but, when you really think about it; the most powerful being in the universe still gave us the chance to choose and to explore our own personal journey of faith and that happens to take us all in a great many different paths.
I personally do not want a state regulating what religious practices I can and can not do, and that is the dangerous category we are getting into.
I propose that if we want to have a framework for personal stability, and financing, then all people who wish to reside together for long periods of time can form civil unions. there are so many goofy things that happen because people date for 7 years now, buy houses, and muck up the system. on the flip side, marriages are no longer till death do us part, and in reality many only last a few years.
i propose that civil unions are contracted in real lengths of time like 1 year, 2 years, 3, 4, or 5 years, and with longer contracts come different options and permanence. think of them like leases or cellphone agreements. some of these contracts might be for the length of time to raise children (an important state function). where by each one of these standard civil contracts gives people listed within the unit options.
we can then leave the marriages in the church, and the promises are made between the laws of that church, and not the government.
Post new comment