Giacomo525 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Yes, it should be very regulated, like all things, like marriage, we should also regulate that, and birth, and abortion, and cars (cars can be very dangerous, make the tests stricter). I'm all for that! cweb255 (and not being sarcastic) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I know this is off-topic, but why would you want to regulate marriage? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomo525 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 purpose? what purpose? Do you want women to constantly get themselves into abusive relations or allow women to be deceived by an abusive husband who wasn't forthcoming about the last three women he beat or how about the man who was unaware that his new wife had about 7 other divorces with each of the men losing large portions of their money because she was scheming. Should we allow mentally and financially incompetent parents raise children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 The situations you are describing have nothing to do with "marriage", they have to do with "people". Marriage is a formal declaration of love between two people - the only people who are qualified to quantify that love (which is what you are proposing by advocating regulation of marriage) are the ones getting married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultallica Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I know this is off-topic, but why would you want to regulate marriage? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? i think marriges are pointless anyways. they only serve as a legal contract between a couple. you dont need a marrige liscense to profess your love. the only upside of a marrige is to benifit from government programs. unless of course youre female at which point the upside is endless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 i think marriges are pointless anyways. they only serve as a legal contract between a couple. you dont need a marrige liscense to profess your love. the only upside of a marrige is to benifit from government programs. unless of course youre female at which point the upside is endless. it is a religious contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultallica Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 it is a religious contract. oh yeah, forgot about that one. isnt it actually a religous obligation in christianity? same as not living with yer parents after a while? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 it is a religious contract. Not always. While the tradition of marriage is religious in origin, the meaning of any particular marriage is primarily up to the couple in question. Some do indeed see it as a religious contract, but others view it as merely an expresssion of love, devotion and desire to build a life together. The latter is the view of my GF and myself, and given that we're both atheists, it can be pretty well assured to be devoid of religious content. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artorius Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 i think marriges are pointless anyways. they only serve as a legal contract between a couple. you dont need a marrige liscense to profess your love. the only upside of a marrige is to benifit from government programs. unless of course youre female at which point the upside is endless. I hope you are not married.I would be dissapointed if i was your spouse.Its only my opinion but your failing to see the big picture.Marriage isnt professing your love,its a covernent you enter into before GOD.So if your spouse has dementia and you decide to take the next bus out of town.Morally and in the eyes of your peers you deserve to be shot!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomo525 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 The situations you are describing have nothing to do with "marriage"' date=' they have to do with "people". Marriage is a formal declaration of love between two people - the only people who are qualified to [u']quantify[/u] that love (which is what you are proposing by advocating regulation of marriage) are the ones getting married. Marriage is a legal contract that two people enter into to recognize them as a family. You can love someone and not marry them, and you can marry someone you don't love. The latter is often the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomo525 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I hope you are not married.I would be dissapointed if i was your spouse.Its only my opinion but your failing to see the big picture.Marriage isnt professing your love,its a covernent you enter into before GOD.So if your spouse has dementia and you decide to take the next bus out of town.Morally and in the eyes of your peers you deserve to be shot!!!! Marriage was around before man invented God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Marriage is a legal contract that two people enter into to recognize them as a family. You can love someone and not marry them, and you can marry someone you don't love. The latter is often the case. This is true (as I have mentioned myself in previous threads - look for the Sanctity of Marriage thread), but then "love" in the post you quoted is interchangeable with any number of other factors. The point is that marriage takes place between two individuals; not between individuals and the state. Society has neither the right nor the need to police which of its citizens can or cannot marry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 What is extremely curious is how you got to "MARRIAGE" in this kind of topic ... Anyways, I vote a complete "NO" (appearantly from the poll results, unlike most of you), for several reasons: 1. Suicide is never the answer, and is never the preffered result. When a physician does that, he encourages that result. Like it or not. 2. It can't be defined. It just can't. Different people make different "suicide" decisions, and so where do you draw the line? This guy actually DESERVED help dying because he was suffering.. the other guy didn't 'cause the cure is soon to come.. and this guy is just a whimp, his pain treshhold's a joke. Know what I mean? 3. It's also almost imposible to order and control. Someone dies, that person was in a deadly desease: now go prove that he wanted to die, or that the doctor just killed him for the sake of it, or that his family was the one who asked for the million dollar insurance policy and so on. It's just openning too many doors to too many bad bad moral things. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 1. Suicide is never the answer, and is never the preffered result. When a physician does that, he encourages that result. Like it or not. Prove it. You assume that suicide is never the answer, but where's the justification for that assertion? Merely because our society is anti-suicide? If you just *assume* it's wrong as one of the premises for why it shouldn't be done, that's begging the question, in some ways. 2. It can't be defined. It just can't. Different people make different "suicide" decisions, and so where do you draw the line? This guy actually DESERVED help dying because he was suffering.. the other guy didn't 'cause the cure is soon to come.. and this guy is just a whimp, his pain treshhold's a joke. Know what I mean? So what? It should be up to the individual. If they're a wimp, so what? It's their life, why shouldn't the be able to do with it as they see fit, including ending it? 3. It's also almost imposible to order and control. Someone dies, that person was in a deadly desease: now go prove that he wanted to die, or that the doctor just killed him for the sake of it, or that his family was the one who asked for the million dollar insurance policy and so on. That it'd be complicated to implement does not mean it's morally or ethically wrong, merely that it may not be practical. Furthermore, in a prior post I can't be bothered to find, someone posted a very well-thought-out, reasonable system that would minimize any sort of risk of the problems you describe. It's just openning too many doors to too many bad bad moral things. By whose definition of bad? Why should your definitions of good and bad, or your morals, have anything to do with whether or not I can end my life if I'm suffering from an agonizing terminal disease? Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MolecularMan14 Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Mooeypoo, please read post #46 and #49 if you want to some good answers to your positions...If you require more evidence, I'm fairly sure I've got it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ehlana Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 If I want badly enough to die right now, I will damn well die right now. It doesn't matter what age... It doesn't matter if it involves logic or not. Is there logic in eating one too many cheeseburgers? As much as logic as the victim says there is. That is your right to doing something "bad" to your body. It doesn't even matter if living for 12 hours longer would have changed Joe into a happy guy... because then you start talking about a person that could have existed and not a person who did exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kleptin Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Yeah, defining what is "bad" for your body is also a controversial issue, who gets to make the call? In terms of intervening on suicide, I think that rights aren't being bypassed. The state can alsways say that they are stepping on your rights because you are mentally ill, and say that they aren't intervening with your rights to do whatever with yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now