Borders * Language * Culture
- Thread starter Curly
- Start date
Matt- Yep, many an ancient Greek/Roman boy learned about sex from another man. Like you said, that has changed and I'm guessing that same change has led to our current 'definition' of traditional marriage, which I'm fine with. Just wanted others to understand that 'traditional' can mean different things; just depends on definition.
Yes, I do propose boundaries. I don't think states should grant marriage licenses to those that aren't adults, which in most places that I'm aware of is 18yrs old. Also, the person should be alive. I agree that marriage should mean something, but that is up to you not the law makers IMO. One thing about the 'traditional' marriage laws that irks me is that it doesn't just affect gays. What if a man and a woman are completely devoted to eachother, but don't feel that they need the stated/church to affirm that devotion? Under UT law (which I'm guessing is similar to many states?) these folks are not entitled to benefits from eachother's employment. That's not right.
I'm happily married, but don't feel that it's my position to tell others they can/can't marry. To me that is akin to outlawing divorce! Divorce isn't a good thing (my parents are), but no one should have to stay in a relationship that is not healthy for them or the kids either. It's a fine line and tough one to draw.
Yes, I do propose boundaries. I don't think states should grant marriage licenses to those that aren't adults, which in most places that I'm aware of is 18yrs old. Also, the person should be alive. I agree that marriage should mean something, but that is up to you not the law makers IMO. One thing about the 'traditional' marriage laws that irks me is that it doesn't just affect gays. What if a man and a woman are completely devoted to eachother, but don't feel that they need the stated/church to affirm that devotion? Under UT law (which I'm guessing is similar to many states?) these folks are not entitled to benefits from eachother's employment. That's not right.
I'm happily married, but don't feel that it's my position to tell others they can/can't marry. To me that is akin to outlawing divorce! Divorce isn't a good thing (my parents are), but no one should have to stay in a relationship that is not healthy for them or the kids either. It's a fine line and tough one to draw.
1-pointer: In Montana you can be married by the Justice of the Peace. It can be a civil ceremony (not a church ceremony). A civil ceremony is just as legal and binding as any church marriage. There are blood tests that have to be taken but that's about it. In Idaho, I believe you don't need the blood tests and it can still be a civil ceremony. It sounds like Utah is more strict than other states when it comes to marriage.
I understand your point. Thanks.
I understand your point. Thanks.
Yeah UT is pretty strict (separation of church & state is at best gray in UT), except on certain religious sects. There are well-known polygamous towns/camps but no real effort is taken to prosecute them. One reason is the proof can be tough, as their just 'married' in their church and not by the state. Thus, the spiritual wives can claim welfare and social security. It's kinda whacked out. I guess TX is getting to deal with a glut of them now! 
Similar threads
