# marriage



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

marriage should it be to only one person. ? and why ?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I have no problem with 5,10 or 20 people hooking up and calling it whatever they want, but it wouldn't be a marriage.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

For me, yes. Just what works for me, I prefer it.

For others, that's their business, really. I don't care.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Marriage, in all of its possible forms, should be removed from government all together.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

Farmerga said:


> Marriage, in all of its possible forms, should be removed from government all together.


now see that one i understand completely after all it is not a marriage of god it by the state. you need paperwork filed 
i think it is about what makes one happy . old test bible it was common new test bible not so much.. and being a lds i still see no wrong in it.. .. mark


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Because of the history of marriage, there should have been a separation of marriage and government from the get go. The founding fathers errored and underestimated the hedonistic evolution of the country.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> For me, yes. Just what works for me, I prefer it.
> 
> For others, that's their business, really. I don't care.


that is a good way to see it


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Markansas said:


> now see that one i understand completely after all it is not a marriage of god it by the state. you need paperwork filed
> i think it is about what makes one happy . old test bible it was common new test bible not so much.. and being a lds i still see no wrong in it.. .. mark


I'm going to need a decoder ring. Anyone have an Ovaltine?


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

GTX63 said:


> Because of the history of marriage, there should have been a separation of marriage and government from the get go. The founding fathers errored and underestimated the hedonistic evolution of the country.


ya interesting read it will take a while and a nite to let it sink in..








Essay on “Evolutionary Hedonism”


The idealist philosophers have explained moral evolution from the viewpoint of end. They make us of the teleological method. The evolutionary philosophers find the historical method more suitable, their claim being that morality is only the result of a universal evolution. It can be understood...



www.shareyouressays.com


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Marriage is either a legal contract. a spiritual contract or a religious one. Others don't get to decide which one I have or can have. The government contract is the legal one, and an important contract that codifies several different rights under the law.

Better yet spend a week every year for the next 5 and come back and tell us that.

Marriage has not meant the same thing to everyone ever.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

GTX63 said:


> I'm going to need a decoder ring. Anyone have an Ovaltine?


ok maybe this might help its a quote from kansas seems to me marriage is not under god in kansas
Marriage is a legal contract. It affects your rights to own and to sell property, the amount of income tax that you owe, your need for a will and insurance, and your retirement plans.
Before you marry, both parties must go to the district courthouse and apply in person and sign an Application and Affidavit to Obtain Marriage License under oath. There is a three day waiting period before the clerk or judge will issue the license. Blood tests are no longer required. A fee is charged for the license.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

painterswife said:


> Marriage is either a legal contract. a spiritual contract or a religious one. Others don't get to decide which one I have or can have. The government contract is the legal one, and an important contract that codifies several different rights under the law.


yes better said than i could.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Markansas said:


> ok maybe this might help its a quote from kansas seems to me marriage is not under god in kansas
> Marriage is a legal contract. It affects your rights to own and to sell property, the amount of income tax that you owe, your need for a will and insurance, and your retirement plans.
> Before you marry, both parties must go to the district courthouse and apply in person and sign an Application and Affidavit to Obtain Marriage License under oath. There is a three day waiting period before the clerk or judge will issue the license. Blood tests are no longer required. A fee is charged for the license.


Much easier to read, thank you. It appears you just needed to keep your leg raised and bend the foil back a little bit.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

GTX63 said:


> Much easier to read, thank you. It appears you just needed to keep your leg raised and bend the foil back a little bit.


lost me on that one. but ok


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

I have never understood why some people want the government to be in the marriage process.

I have officiated at many weddings. Some people want a government-issued license, for those people I go to the nearest city hall and I fill out the forms. Other people do not want a government-issued license.

In all cases, I get a nice Hallmark certificate [suitable for framing] and I get the couple and their witnesses to sign it. So all the couples will have a nice certificate to hang on their wall, and the couples who want a license can also have a copy of what looks like a dog license.

I am a US Servicemember, most of the weddings I have done have been for other servicemembers. Fortunately, the military does NOT require a license they are good to have a certificate on file.



My church recognizes polygamy.

Marriage is a business contract between two people.

In the Bible there are a great many examples of families where the husband was married to multiple wives. In fact all of the Old Testament prophets were polygamists. The bible gives us rules for marriage, and the only time anyone is restricted to only one wife is in the case of Levitical priests.

In the New Testament, Paul gives suggestions for selecting our ministers. He suggest that a minister be married to a wife, and there are guidelines for that wife. The Greek syntax used is not clear if he meant to suggest that our ministers should be restricted to 'only' one wife, or not.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I believe words have meaning and no person or group has the right to change that meaning to suit their purpose.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

ET1 SS said:


> I have never understood why some people want the government to be in the marriage process.
> 
> I have officiated at many weddings. Some people want a government-issued license, for those people I go to the nearest city hall and I fill out the forms. Other people do not want a government-issued license.
> 
> ...


thank you very much i will look at that.. nice


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Words are not static and never have been. Usage and meanings change. If they use words then they have the right to use them as they wish. No one owns words.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

MoonRiver said:


> I believe words have meaning and no person or group has the right to change that meaning to suit their purpose.


as i read the lets go brandon


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Markansas said:


> as i read the lets go brandon


The perfect response.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

painterswife said:


> Words are not static and never have been. Usage and meanings change. If they use words then they have the right to use them as they wish. No one owns words.


yup you are right on that


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> I believe words have meaning and no person or group has the right to change that meaning to suit their purpose.


----------



## 1032swiss (Nov 24, 2021)

If you stop and think, the world would be a better place if people would keep their promises and not only in marriage.


Also look at the damage it does to kids and family if a partner is unfaithful


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

1032swiss said:


> If you stop and think, the world would be a better place if people would keep their promises and not only in marriage.
> 
> 
> Also look at the damage it does to kids and family if a partner is unfaithful


yup if they are not going to be monogamous would a open marriage be better..


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Words are not static and never have been. Usage and meanings change. If they use words then they have the right to use them as they wish. No one owns words.


Kind of like how the phrase "well regulated" now means something totally different than it did in the 1790's?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Markansas said:


> yup if they are not going to be monogamous would a open marriage be better..


How about no marriage?


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

How can people communicate unless there's an understanding of the definition of the words they are using?


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

Farmerga said:


> How about no marriage?


if both partys agree yes why not..


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

Wolf mom said:


> How can people communicate unless there's an understanding of the definition of the words they are using?


good one yet things and words are in flux .. as time changes the meanings change with time. winners writes the books


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Wolf mom said:


> How can people communicate unless there's an understanding of the definition of the words they are using?


Real changes in language happen slowly over decades to centuries, not on a whim as SOME seem to advocate for.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Real changes in language happen slowly over decades to centuries, not on a whim as SOME seem to advocate for.


Go spend a week in a high-school lunch room and tell us you still believe that. In fact spend a week a year get the next 5 years.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Go spend a week in a high-school lunch room and tell us you still believe that.


Teenage slang usually has little lasting effects on language as a whole. It comes into style and is soon forgotten.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Marriage has never meant the same to everyone ever. For some in meant one man and women under God. For some it meant the man owned the woman. For some it meant one man , many wives. It started a a legal construct not a religious coupling.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

painterswife said:


> Marriage has never meant the same to everyone ever. For some in meant one man and women under God. For some it meant the man owned the woman. For some it meant one man , many wives. It started a a legal construct not a religious coupling.


and i agree with this and might add which god. different religions different ways of living.. what legal in one country may not be legal here or the other way around.. just as a quick example gay marriage is illegal in the Saudi area. personally hope for more freedom and not less by governments or religion.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

painterswife said:


> Go spend a week in a high-school lunch room and tell us you still believe that. In fact spend a week a year get the next 5 years.











Abbreviations | Oxford English Dictionary


This list contains the most common abbreviations used in the OED. Click on a letter to see the abbreviations beginning with that letter. Most of the words listed are only...



public.oed.com


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Markansas said:


> and i agree with this and might add which god. different religions different ways of living.. what legal in one country may not be legal here or the other way around.. just as a quick example gay marriage is illegal in the Saudi area. personally hope for more freedom and not less by governments or religion.


Government doesn't give freedom, it either infringes, or, doesn't infringe on freedom. Government should get out of the marriage game. We can do without having government permission for our relationships.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

[/QUOTE]


Farmerga said:


> Government doesn't give freedom, it either infringes, or, doesn't infringe on freedom. Government should get out of the marriage game. We can do without having government permission for our relationships.


Marriage is not a game, it is a legal contract to many.


----------



## G. Seddon (May 16, 2005)

Markansas said:


> now see that one i understand completely after all it is not a marriage of god it by the state. you need paperwork filed
> i think it is about what makes one happy . old test bible it was common new test bible not so much.. and being a lds i still see no wrong in it.. .. mark


What is "a lds"?


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

G. Seddon said:


> What is "a lds"?


good question latter day saint or mormon


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Marriage is not a game, it is a legal contract to many.
[/QUOTE]
The government should get out of the relationships of consenting adults.


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

Markansas said:


> marriage should it be to only one person. ? and why ?


You want to deal with more than one angry PMS-ing wife whose angry but won’t tell you why? You must like pain.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Farmerga said:


> Marriage is not a game, it is a legal contract to many.


The government should get out of the relationships of consenting adults.
[/QUOTE]
That won't happen, divorce is a lucrative business for the attorneys.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The government should not get out of the business of marriage. Forced underage marriage would rise again.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> The government should not get out of the business of marriage. Forced underage marriage would rise again.


The government not giving permission for adult relationships won't suddenly make pedophilia legal.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

georger said:


> You want to deal with more than one angry PMS-ing wife whose angry but won’t tell you why? You must like pain.


sometimes pain means you are alive.. think of the fun of it tho..


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> The government not giving permission for adult relationships won't suddenly make pedophilia legal.


In certain cultures arranged marriages are normal. In some cultures marriage to people younger than 18 is normal. While removing the legal age restriction won't make pedophilia legal, underage marriages will most likely increase, especially in cultures where child marriages are acceptable. People from those cultural backgrounds do live in the United States.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

Danaus29 said:


> In certain cultures arranged marriages are normal. In some cultures marriage to people younger than 18 is normal. While removing the legal age restriction won't make pedophilia legal, underage marriages will most likely increase, especially in cultures where child marriages are acceptable. People from those cultural backgrounds do live in the United States.


from a lawyers web site all this change is been in the last 100 years it was normal to marry young. and have more children it was your farm work force.. it was a way to get rid of a extra mouth to feed when every one was starving
just a short note.. and here is what the lawyers stated.. 
While 18 is the minimum marriage age in most states, there are exceptions in every state that allow children younger than 18 to marry, typically with *parental consent or judicial approval*. Nine states still allow *pregnancy exceptions* to the marriage age. In fact, 27 states do not specify an age below which a child cannot marry, including California!


----------



## starrynights (Oct 7, 2021)

Markansas said:


> marriage should it be to only one person. ? and why ?





Markansas said:


> marriage should it be to only one person. ? and why ?


----------



## starrynights (Oct 7, 2021)

Markansas said:


> marriage should it be to only one person. ? and why ?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

@Markansas, I am aware there are exceptions for marriage for people under the age of 18. I am also aware that getting pregnant before being married no longer carries the stigma it once did.

Even your site indicates that some of those lax laws can facilitate forced marriages.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

starrynights said:


>


so nice thanks


----------



## starrynights (Oct 7, 2021)

Markansas said:


> so nice thanks


Ya'll can return to your regular evening....This was a test.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Danaus29 said:


> In certain cultures arranged marriages are normal. In some cultures marriage to people younger than 18 is normal. While removing the legal age restriction won't make pedophilia legal, underage marriages will most likely increase, especially in cultures where child marriages are acceptable. People from those cultural backgrounds do live in the United States.


And, if they are so inclined, won't worry about a "legal" marriage and simply have a religious one in whatever faith they hold. Nothing will change on that front.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> And, if they are so inclined, won't worry about a "legal" marriage and simply have a religious one in whatever faith they hold. Nothing will change on that front.


I don't know if a religious marriage would be a legal defense in cases of statutory rape. But there probably aren't very many people, mostly young girls, who would charge a "husband" with rape when their culture or religion accepts child marriage.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

Markansas said:


> marriage should it be to only one person. ? and why ?


Yes. Only one person . . . FOREVER. 

(Divorce is OK, but subsequent marriages and step children create problems for all involved.)


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Non religious marriages can be called partnerships, unions, mergers, whatever, and made up as contracts for 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, etc.
As each contract expires, spouses can renegotiate their contracts. They could opt out or seek better offers in the open market.
As a result, there may be less religious ceremonies where neither mate is religious, and rather than ugly divorces and broken vows, just simple contract nullifications and notices of non renewal.
This would increase the market for more attorneys versed in contract law and fewer lawyers specializing in fleecing.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

NRA_guy said:


> Yes. Only one person . . . FOREVER.
> 
> (Divorce is OK, but subsequent marriages and step children create problems for all involved.)


just a odd thought.. kinda bent. marriages under god you will be with your soulmate.. most would say yes
now what if a person dies and the other remarries .. will that person have two soul mate in heaven at the same time
and what if they dont like each other. sorry crazy thought..


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> Non religious marriages can be called partnerships, unions, mergers, whatever, and made up as contracts for 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, etc.
> As each contract expires, spouses can renegotiate their contracts. They could opt out or seek better offers in the open market.
> As a result, there may be less religious ceremonies where neither mate is religious, and rather than ugly divorces and broken vows, just simple contract nullifications and notices of non renewal.
> This would increase the market for more attorneys versed in contract law and fewer lawyers specializing in fleecing.


Or they can remain being called marriages. Religion co-opted marriages as a way to control their followers. The followers of religion don't get to tell others what their union is called.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

painterswife said:


> Or they can remain being called marriages. Religion co-opted marriages as a way to control their followers. The followers of religion don't get to tell others what their union is called.


ya for the most part i see your point its spot on


----------



## 1032swiss (Nov 24, 2021)

Markansas said:


> just a odd thought.. kinda bent. marriages under god you will be with your soulmate.. most would say yes
> now what if a person dies and the other remarries .. will that person have two soul mate in heaven at the same time
> and what if they dont like each other. sorry crazy thought..


The way I understand it there will be neither male or female in heaven. All will be like as angels.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Or they can remain being called marriages. Religion co-opted marriages as a way to control their followers. The followers of religion don't get to tell others what their union is called.


You seem to have control issues.
People can be free to do as they please, and that ok.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Markansas said:


> ya for the most part i see your point its spot on


Trying to own the word marriage is just another way for religion to try to control people.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Irrational fear is an odd thing amongst some folks.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

1032swiss said:


> The way I understand it there will be neither male or female in heaven. All will be like as angels.


now that sounds like a buzz kill for the best place ever . no sex and all are not male or female . am i missing something
wow thank you .. i have still more to learn.. heaven is it a good place to go if you lose your male or female parts?
no please dont get me wrong.. kinda a interesting talk.. so i might go out there a bit..


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

No one fears those trying to control the word marriage for their religion.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You are down to talking points and it is barely past breakfast already? Gee whiz.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

GTX63 said:


> You are down to talking points and it is barely past breakfast already? Gee whiz.


been a long time alone and i get up early by habit. coffee helps and for the most part seems nice. some like me and some dont that is to be expected.. started a few post that seem to take off. one nice one not so nice looking at the results.. its all in the math.. wait till it snows and i am house bound.. grin thanks mark


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I can barely read your posts and you make more sense.
Honesty is always appreciated, even when one may not be agreeable.
For those with a dull understanding, I recommend beet juice. It tends to help with comprehension and alertness when presenting a point.
I also believe aligning trust in a news source equivalent to how attractive their talking heads are to be risky. Even Chris Cuomo will admit to his fan boys he gets it wrong sometimes.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Markansas said:


> started a few post that seem to take off. one nice one not so nice looking at the results.. its all in the math.. wait till it snows and i am house bound.. grin thanks mark


I'd suggest you mingle in a few of the hog threads, maybe macrame, firearms, cooking, or post about your garden a bit. It helps with the locals here.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

GTX63 said:


> I can barely read your posts and you make more sense.
> Honesty is always appreciated, even when one may not be agreeable.
> For those with a dull understanding, I recommend beet juice. It tends to help with comprehension and alertness when presenting a point.
> I also believe aligning trust in a new source equivalent to how attractive their talking heads are to be risky. Even Chris Cuomo will admit to his fan boys he gets it wrong sometimes.


I can barely read your posts and you make more sense. that is almost a sad statement when you have a hard time with my way of wording things. and yet i make more sense .. kinda like that tho..grin thank you for understanding.. mark
i might be one of your more interesting people ya meet..


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Once I adjust to your accent I'll be fine.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

Wolf mom said:


> How can people communicate unless there's an understanding of the definition of the words they are using?


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

GTX63 said:


> I'd suggest you mingle in a few of the hog threads, maybe macrame, firearms, cooking, or post about your garden a bit. It helps with the locals here.


will do thanks and i yes i do a garden and have a cherry tree apple tree mullberry tree and just planted blackberries they was good last year. and going solar. so i do have other things to divert me. and the sun is comeing out so its time to do chores.. not much tho retired.. grin oh ya and a prepper


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Ah yes, a prepper. 
We should share trip wire techniques for zombies in the garden sometime.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

@Markansas , MULBERRIES????? You weed farmer! 

Just kidding. Mulberries taste great. I was very sad to have to remove a good mulberry tree a couple years ago. But it was in the middle of my garden.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Markansas said:


> just a odd thought.. kinda bent. marriages under god you will be with your soulmate.. most would say yes
> now what if a person dies and the other remarries .. will that person have two soul mate in heaven at the same time
> and what if they dont like each other. sorry crazy thought..


Mark 12:25 For when they shall arise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels which are in Heaven.

But back in Genesis it talks about how the sons of God took wives of men, Genesis 6:2 to be precise. The whole thing gets pretty confusing, IMO. Then in John, Jesus talks about many mansions. What do I need a mansion for if it's all just for me?


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

Danaus29 said:


> Mark 12:25 For when they shall arise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels which are in Heaven.
> 
> But back in Genesis it talks about how the sons of God took wives of men, Genesis 6:2 to be precise. The whole thing gets pretty confusing, IMO. Then in John, Jesus talks about many mansions. What do I need a mansion for if it's all just for me?


love those ceilings in the mansions.. and i could see why you would want one first wife that side of the house and second wife the other.. bigger better. keeps peace in heaven..


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

GTX63 said:


> Ah yes, a prepper.
> We should share trip wire techniques for zombies in the garden sometime.


fan of caltrop works to slow down living and dead..


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

Danaus29 said:


> @Markansas , MULBERRIES????? You weed farmer!
> 
> Just kidding. Mulberries taste great. I was very sad to have to remove a good mulberry tree a couple years ago. But it was in the middle of my garden.


now a fan of mulberries as much when it comes down to it if you are hungry enough you will eat what ya dont like 
should try them in a pie .. i might like them better big big tree.. 
its by the shed i put up a few years ago..


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I used mulberries in a marble cake my grandma used to make. The recipe called for blueberries but mulberries worked just as well. I like mulberries very much. It's the wild black rasberries I don't like to eat. They are good for jelly, but I don't like the taste.


----------



## Markansas (Nov 24, 2021)

Danaus29 said:


> I used mulberries in a marble cake my grandma used to make. The recipe called for blueberries but mulberries worked just as well. I like mulberries very much. It's the wild black rasberries I don't like to eat. They are good for jelly, but I don't like the taste.


love the garden


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

@Markansas, that is similar to what I am going to do under the sycamore tree in my back yard. I got a bunch of those tubs at a swap meet for that purpose. There is a problem with tunneling critters, rain run-off, gravel and tree roots in the area. Plus it is on a slope. I had set up terraces and put flower pots there but the pots had small bases and the tunneling critters tore up the loose soil in the terraced part causing the pots to tip over. I tried setting paver blocks down but still have the same problem. I plan on digging out part of the slope to level the tubs, but only in spots where the tree roots are located. I will try putting bricks on the hard clay under the pavers to keep the tunnelers from digging them out again. I know several people use hardware cloth to keep tunneling critters out of an area but I don't think it will work on that slope.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

There is far more to the question than first appears.

1) We can look to the marriage licenses, keeping in mind a license is a permission to do what, without it, SOME laws indicate to be illegal. For example, our agents claim you need a license to travel using a motor vehicle, a license to feed, cloth and shelter yourself by way of self employment (running a business).

2) The first marriage license to be issued was a permission to do an act considered illegal at the time - a white man marrying a black woman. If one reviews a printed, 4th edition Black's Law Dictionary and looks up marriage license, they will be directed to "miscegenation," which is intermarrying. That is, a marriage between two people of different races.

3) Every one of our fifty-one constitutions protect our right to establish and exercise religion. On that, many, if not most, who exercise that liberty right believe God ordained marriage. As such, the laws of men cannot make marrying illegal.

Consider, for example, that our agents cannot tax a liberty right, least they have the ability to tax the right out of reach or existence. No license is free, and a tax by any other name is still a duck.

SIDE NOTE ON PERMITS: The money from permit fees must go back to that for which the permit was charged, or it becomes a tax. Taxes are enacted by specific rules. As such, a permit that become a tax because of mismanagement, including co-mingling funds, is an illegal use of country or state police powers. (Ref. Thurston County Rental Owners Association v. Thurston County, 931 P.2d 208, 85 Wash.App. 171 (Wash.App.Div.2 02/21/1997) ; Samis Land Company v. City of Soap Lake, 96 Wn.App. 819 (7/27/99)).

4) One might say a marriage between two people of the same sex is better described as a civil union than as a marriage.

5) Under the laws of men, marriage does not mean just shacking up with someone. However, some states recognize living together for a specific number of years to qualify as common law marriage. Generally, a couple must hold themselves out to be married. Too, it is indicated they must perform some act signifying they intend to be considered and treated as married.

6) It should be noted though some states claim to not recognize common law marriages, they must recognize them when the couple qualified in a state that did recognize such marriages. Were it otherwise, the other state would not be obligated to recognize laws and ruling of courts of other states.

7) Though many states claim to not recognize common law marriages, the federal government does, or at least has not laws prohibiting them.

8) Even state where it is claimed common law marriages are not formed, it is recognized, if a couple believes themselves lawfully married by someone officiating at a ceremony for them, the state cannot damage them by refusing to recognize their marriage as valid.

. . . .


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

But, but, but how would the family law business stay afloat? 

Think of all the illegal (unlicensed) contractors we call guardians ad litem [GAL] who would see their businesses destroyed. And little kingdoms posing as minor temples of just-us would disappear, taking jobs and agendas with them.



Farmerga said:


> Marriage, in all of its possible forms, should be removed from government all together.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

I used to work with a guy who had been married and divorced four times. He finally decided that it would be cheaper to pick out a woman he didn't like, every two years, and buy her a house.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

GTX63 said:


> Because of the history of marriage, there should have been a separation of marriage and government from the get go. The founding fathers errored and underestimated the hedonistic evolution of the country.


I’m not sure the founders addressed the subject. They were creating a government for the states not the people.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

I'm not against it but being divorced over 25 years I'm immune to it so far. Never without a prenup!!! The last one only cost $175...


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Kelly Craig said:


> There is far more to the question than first appears.
> 
> 1) We can look to the marriage licenses, keeping in mind a license is a permission to do what, without it, SOME laws indicate to be illegal. For example, our agents claim you need a license to travel using a motor vehicle, a license to feed, cloth and shelter yourself by way of self employment (running a business).
> 
> ...


Wow that's a lot.
No to marriage.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Why are social security on your spouses benefits tied to the 10 year mark in marriage ? 9 years 11 months 28 days zip zero


----------



## 67drake (May 6, 2020)

Forcast said:


> Why are social security on your spouses benefits tied to the 10 year mark in marriage ? 9 years 11 months 28 days zip zero


As an incentive not to kill each other right off the bat.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Some philosplophy....

It is fun to visit the edge. Drink a little too much and do something edgy. Wife gets a little drunk and is dirty dancing with another girl. A friend who is in the swinger lifestyle. Smoking some pot/snorting cocaine/a little ecstasy on vacation. Going to a strip club. A little lust for the same sex. Seeing a prostitute. A little bondage or occasional visit to a bondage queen. The list of behaviors that are on the edge of society is a long list, and most of us have visited parts of that list. Others, for whatever reason, feel the need to constantly LIVE on that edge. We don't need to demonize the people who visit/live on that edge, but we should recognize those behaviors as anti-social (defined as against the good of society)

But do we want to NORMALIZE living on the edge? If we normalize these behaviors, then what behaviors become edgy? Many of those people who live on the edge WILL live on the edge, no matter where that edge is. How will THAT work for society?

We should have kept marriage between one man and one woman. If one wanted to live on that edge of society as a homosexual we had legal means to ensure rights if inheritance, et,c, without normalizing this edgy behavior.

So, by normalizing such previously edgy behavior, what NOW becomes edgy? Hollywood, always on the edge, plies us with "sister-wives" and other shows about polyamorous relationships. What is next? Why can't three people get married? Why can't kids get married? And I know one nurse who really loves her cat. And on that note I saw a very weird headline about a woman (or, maybe a leftist can help me here....what is the right term for a milk-producing human?) who was breastfeeding a CAT on an airline. ***oc£? Should we normalize that next??

People on the edge of society are children of God, whether they know/accept it or not, and therefore they deserve to be treated with respect. Whether they are methhead zombies, triple-transexual queers who dress as aliens, or breastfeeding people who self-identify as mommy-cats, society should treat the PERSON with respect while objecting (and not accepting)such behaviors which are anti-social.

Marriage is between one man and one woman.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Markansas said:


> just a odd thought.. kinda bent. marriages under god you will be with your soulmate.. most would say yes
> now what if a person dies and the other remarries .. will that person have two soul mate in heaven at the same time
> and what if they dont like each other. sorry crazy thought..


Pretty sure Jesus himself answered that exact question posed to him by a pharisee.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> Or they can remain being called marriages. Religion co-opted marriages as a way to control their followers. The followers of religion don't get to tell others what their union is called.


The Christan (and others) concept of marriage predates any governmental body on the planet.. Thus it was government that "co-opted marriage as a way to control".


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

boatswain2PA said:


> The Christan (and others) concept of marriage predates any governmental body on the planet.. Thus it was government that "co-opted marriage as a way to control".


So not true. Marriage was a legal contract before Christians existed. 3250 years before. The church did not make marriage religious until close to 5000 years after that.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Please expound on this. Code of Hammourabi? (Spelling is off I'm sure).


painterswife said:


> So not true. Marriage was a legal contract before Christians existed. 3250 years before. The church did not make marriage religious until close to 5000 years after that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

boatswain2PA said:


> Please expound on this. Code of Hammourabi? (Spelling is off I'm sure).


Why? You know of it so you know, you previous statements about marriage are incorrect.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Why? You know of it so you know, you previous statements about marriage are incorrect.


Why? Because of your habit of not supplying anything other than your own opinion. 
Quotes without links, statements without fact to back it up.

Typically the pattern of someone who is underinformed but over opinionated.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> Why? Because of your habit of not supplying anything other than your own opinion.
> Quotes without links, statements without fact to back it up.
> 
> Typically the pattern of someone who is underinformed but over opinionated.


Typical personal attack instead talking about the topic of the thread.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You have what are called "tells".


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> You have what are called "tells".


You attack me instead of discussing the topic at hand.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

See post #97.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> Why? You know of it so you know, you previous statements about marriage are incorrect.


Because in a courteous discussion when you bring up a point like you did, and someone asks for clarification, most people do it. It is part of a discussion. For example if I told you that YOU were wrong, religion defined marriage 50,000 years ago, you would probably wonder where I got that. It would be rude for me to throw that out and then tell you to "go look it up yourself".

You do have a tendency of throwing out points like this without ever explaining what you are talking about, and it is irritating. You may get insulted by me saying this, but it is not my intent. 

About Hammourabi - legal systems have always generally followed after religious laws. While I am relatively ignorant on the religious beliefs of Babylonians, good chance they defined marriage as one man and one woman.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

boatswain2PA said:


> Because in a courteous discussion when you bring up a point like you did, and someone asks for clarification, most people do it. It is part of a discussion. For example if I told you that YOU were wrong, religion defined marriage 50,000 years ago, you would probably wonder where I got that. It would be rude for me to throw that out and then tell you to "go look it up yourself".
> 
> You do have a tendency of throwing out points like this without ever explaining what you are talking about, and it is irritating. You may get insulted by me saying this, but it is not my intent.
> 
> About Hammourabi - legal systems have always generally followed after religious laws. While I am relatively ignorant on the religious beliefs of Babylonians, good chance they defined marriage as one man and one woman.


You posted about marriage contracts for in Mesopotamia. Why do I need to expound on that? It speaks for itself. It proves my statements and invalidates yours. You can see that for yourself if you do the work.

Telling me to prove something when you responded to me with a statement you did not prove then trying to school me on on proof does not back you up.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

painterswife said:


> So not true. Marriage was a legal contract before Christians existed. 3250 years before. The church did not make marriage religious until close to 5000 years after that.





boatswain2PA said:


> Please expound on this. Code of Hammourabi? (Spelling is off I'm sure).


The code of Hammurabi predates Christianity which did not exist until several years after the ressurection of Christ.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Quick review of Hammourabi code it looks like it is more about legal rules about a marriage (which translations indicate always refer to as a man and his wife), such as when the man gets the dowry, his rights over her, etc.

Laws have always followed culture, and culture is tied to religion. While I am not aware of Babylonian religious constructs of marriage, one can presume that it was one man and one woman (or one wealthy man and >1 women) due to the Hammourabi code.


----------



## starrynights (Oct 7, 2021)

GTX63 said:


> You seem to have control issues.
> People can be free to do as they please, and that ok.


so where does bigamy fit in to all this? What if a man and woman "fall in love" and marry, the a few years later he does it again without telling anybody??? Who is the "real" wife and what does she get? Can she sue him or brings charges?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

starrynights said:


> so where does bigamy fit in to all this? What if a man and woman "fall in love" and marry, the a few years later he does it again without telling anybody??? Who is the "real" wife and what does she get? Can she sue him or brings charges?


Bigamy is fraud, among other things.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

starrynights said:


> so where does bigamy fit in to all this? What if a man and woman "fall in love" and marry, the a few years later he does it again without telling anybody??? Who is the "real" wife and what does she get? Can she sue him or brings charges?


In reality the first wife will usually divorce the bum and take everything he’s got, just like any other divorce settlement.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

boatswain2PA said:


> Quick review of Hammourabi code it looks like it is more about legal rules about a marriage (which translations indicate always refer to as a man and his wife), such as when the man gets the dowry, his rights over her, etc.
> 
> Laws have always followed culture, and culture is tied to religion. *While I am not aware of Babylonian religious constructs of marriage, one can presume that it was one man and one woman (or one wealthy man and >1 women) due to the Hammourabi code.*


You need to do more research. It was a legal contract. The husband could take on more spouses if there were no children from the first wife and could have concubines. If the husband died the wife was the property of the fIL and could be married off to who he chose. All legal ramifications from the marriage contract. Marriage contracts were for economic and political reasons. It came about as a legal way to handle property rites.


Christian Religious marriages did not become the norm until the 1500's when the Catholic church wanted more control. Monogamy was not the norm until somewhere between the 6th and 9th centuries. The Christain religion did not start to have religious ceremonies until around 5AD.

Marriage originated as a civil institution for legal reasons.

Hinduism is the oldest religion and had religious marriages before Christianity did. Several hundred years before Christianity even existed.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Thats your opinion, thanks for sharing.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Just a question, kind of religious. How long do you think the Christian religion has existed? Anyone can answer. I was just wondering what other people think about it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

1st century


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I read somewhere once that a truly uninformed person called it the world's oldest religion.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I guess Markansas was banned after less than 2 weeks in. What happened?

Let's go banning.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I had noticed that but expected it. When he said he was living in and remodeling a church I knew he was a previous member. Just could not remember who.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> I had noticed that but expected it. When he said he was living in and remodeling a church I knew he was a previous member. Just could not remember who.


I kinda thought he was too but didn't care really one way or the other. I just wonder what he did?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> I kinda thought he was too but didn't care really one way or the other. I just wonder what he did?


Some other posters mentioned that they thought he was a previous poster. I guess he was banned then and rebanned now.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Danaus29 said:


> Just a question, kind of religious. How long do you think the Christian religion has existed? Anyone can answer. I was just wondering what other people think about it.


Depends on how you define Christianity and "the Christian religion".


Christ, of course, born about 2000 years ago. When did "His" religion start? Was it when Elizabeth met her cousin Mary and Elizabeth's baby lept for joy in her womb? (Good thing Elizabeth wasn't into "screaming her abortion!") Was it when He was born? Magi and all?? Or when He started performing miracles? Teaching at the Temple? His death and resurrection?

I don't think it really matters.

Then, of course, there is he realization that Christianity is just the extension of the Jewish religion, the culmination of it's prophecies and teachings. No longer would one have to make sacrifices to God, because God sent His Son to BE the sacrifice for us all. No longer would one have to ritualistically cleans before eating, etc, but instead spiritually cleans by seeking forgiveness/repentance.

And that takes us all the way back to "the beginning" where God made Eve from Adam so he could have a wife.

And that trumps (he he he) the idea that government created the idea of marriage as a contract.

Leftists, go take your keppra so you dont' start seizing with the exposure to both Genesis and the word "trump".


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It is difficult to have a religious marriage based on a book that was not written yet. Your belief that Christian marriage ceremony set the norm is just not backed up with history. It does not diminish your marriage but it can't be used to define what marriage is to others. Civil marriage predates Christian marriage and even other religious marriages predates Christian marriage.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

boatswain2PA said:


> Depends on how you define Christianity and "the Christian religion".


My definition, which may not be what others believe, is that the Christian religion (Christian meaning Christ based) didn't start until after the day of Pentecost when the disciples were given the gifts of the Spirit.

I don't accept Christianity as an extension of Judaism. The Jews never accepted that God sent his Son to be the final blood sacrifice. 

And now that we have thoroughly led this subject off topic, I won't discuss religion in it anymore.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> It is difficult to have a religious marriage based on a book that was not written yet. Your belief that Christian marriage ceremony set the norm is just not backed up with history. It does not diminish your marriage but it can't be used to define what marriage is to others. Civil marriage predates Christian marriage and even other religious marriages predates Christian marriage.


I don't believe I ever said marriage started out with the Christian marriage ceremony and ideals. It obviously didn't as the Jewish religion clearly predates Christianity.

What I said was marriage = one man and one woman. In history there have been other religions/cultures that allowed one man to have many "wives", as many as he could pay for and control, and this continues to day in some religions but it is generally frowned upon.

The development of the Judaic definition of marriage, with Eve being created from Adam and to compliment each other in every way, led the way for marital equality. The wife was no longer a possession of the husband, but they belonged to each OTHER. No longer could the husband just disown the wife and leave her with kids and without resources. It was a great development for humankind.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Danaus29 said:


> My definition, which may not be what others believe, is that the Christian religion (Christian meaning Christ based) didn't start until after the day of Pentecost when the disciples were given the gifts of the Spirit.
> 
> I don't accept Christianity as an extension of Judaism. The Jews never accepted that God sent his Son to be the final blood sacrifice.
> 
> And now that we have thoroughly led this subject off topic, I won't discuss religion in it anymore.


I think that is a perfectly reasonable definition of the start of the Christian religion.

As to Christianity being an extension of Judaism...I guess it is all about the semantics of "extension". Christianity clearly came FROM Judaism, as did Islam. Is it a split? A progression where some people didn't keep up? All, of course, subjective to the viewers beliefs.

Thank you for the discussion Danaeus.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

boatswain2PA said:


> I don't believe I ever said marriage started out with the Christian marriage ceremony and ideals. It obviously didn't as the Jewish religion clearly predates Christianity.
> 
> What I said was marriage = one man and one woman. In history there have been other religions/cultures that allowed one man to have many "wives", as many as he could pay for and control, and this continues to day in some religions but it is generally frowned upon.
> 
> The development of the Judaic definition of marriage, with Eve being created from Adam and to compliment each other in every way, led the way for marital equality. The wife was no longer a possession of the husband, but they belonged to each OTHER. No longer could the husband just disown the wife and leave her with kids and without resources. It was a great development for humankind.





boatswain2PA said:


> The Christan (and others) concept of marriage predates any governmental body on the planet.. Thus it was government that "co-opted marriage as a way to control".





The Christain concept of marriage does not predate governmental bodies of marriage. Civil marriage existed before there was any Christian religion at all.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

AAre you


painterswife said:


> The Christain concept of marriage does not predate governmental bodies of marriage. Civil marriage existed before there was any Christian religion at all.


Suggesting that christians don't read Genesis?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

barnbilder said:


> AAre you
> 
> Suggesting that christians don't read Genesis?


 How would you get that from my post?


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> The Christain concept of marriage does not predate governmental bodies of marriage. Civil marriage existed before there was any Christian religion at all.


The Christian CONCEPT of marriage is a cultural thing that is likely around since beginning of humanity. Once we became capable of the emotion of love, we likely left our parental units and bound ourselves to someone of the opposite sex (of course, this is back when there were only 2 genders). Thus marriage, wrapped in love, between 2 people, with the focus of caring for their offspring who would grow up, leave the parental family when they found someone of the opposite sex and started their own family....

Yes, civil recognition of marriage predates Christianity.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

boatswain2PA said:


> And the sky is blue.


Why even respond to me originally and continue the conversation if it bothers you that the history does not back you up. It is apparent that you did not really know the history of marriage and just really want it to fit your religious version of its history. It comes off as another attempt to force those of no religion or other religions to live by the rules of yours.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You seem triggered by something you have no belief in. Can you also disprove to a Muslim their tenant and philosophies. Yep, thought not.
Maybe you should try a topic you are a bit more informed about and less threatened by.

BTW rather than just post more opinion with no backing and fumble thru flawed logic, you can just choose to ignore Mr. Swain. He can't hurt you.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> You seem triggered by something you have no belief in. Can you also disprove to a Muslim their tenant and philosophies. Yep, thought not.
> Maybe you should try a topic you are a bit more informed about and less threatened by.
> 
> BTW rather than just post more opinion with no backing and fumble thru flawed logic, you can just choose to ignore Mr. Swain. He can't hurt you.


Curious why you always want to discuss me instead of the topic of the thread? I must be so fascinating to you.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Even Pavlof thought there had to be a variance at some point.


----------



## Digitalis (Aug 20, 2021)

Markansas said:


> marriage should it be to only one person. ? and why ?


But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> Why even respond to me originally and continue the conversation if it bothers you that the history does not back you up. It is apparent that you did not really know the history of marriage and just really want it to fit your religious version of its history. It comes off as another attempt to force those of no religion or other religions to live by the rules of yours.


I misread your post, then I understood where the misunderstanding of my position came from, quickly corrected it, but you captured my initial flippant post.

As to the rest of your paragraph....that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. 

Laws come from culture. Therefore the culture (which has been driven by religion since the dawn of humanity) of marriage came first.

And then there was Eve.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Marriage, what's love got to do with it? 

There are still cultures where arranged marriages are still normal.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Religion co-opted marriages as a way to control their followers.


To which religion do you refer? The first recorded marriage ceremony was in Mesopotamia in about 2350 BC. The word marriage comes from 1300: *mariage*, "action of entering into wedlock;" also "state or condition of being husband and wife, matrimony, wedlock;" also "a union of a man and woman for life by marriage, a particular matrimonial union;" from Old French mariage "marriage; dowry" (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *maritaticum (11c.), from Latin maritatus ... (taken from etmyonline.com ).

The first "civil" marriage laws were in 1836 in England.

Given this information it seems to me that "governments" co-opted religious ceremonies... not the other way around.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Curious why you always want to discuss me instead of the topic of the thread? I must be so fascinating to you.


For me I'd call you more perplexing than fascinating


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> To which religion do you refer? The first recorded marriage ceremony was in Mesopotamia in about 2350 BC. The word marriage comes from 1300: *mariage*, "action of entering into wedlock;" also "state or condition of being husband and wife, matrimony, wedlock;" also "a union of a man and woman for life by marriage, a particular matrimonial union;" from Old French mariage "marriage; dowry" (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *maritaticum (11c.), from Latin maritatus ... (taken from etmyonline.com ).
> 
> The first "civil" marriage laws were in 1836 in England.
> 
> Given this information it seems to me that "governments" co-opted religious ceremonies... not the other way around.


The marriage ceremony took place in Mesopotamia only after the marriage contract which was civil was completed. So yes marriage the word came much later in means the same thing. Two people combining their lives together in a legal and maybe religious fashion.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> The marriage ceremony took place in Mesopotamia only after the marriage contract which was civil was completed. So yes marriage the word came much later in means the same thing. Two people combining their lives together in a legal and maybe religious fashion.


Looking at your past history here of making broad statements like this I'm confident you won't answer this....but.....what makes you think the ceremony took place after the Civil contract?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

boatswain2PA said:


> Looking at your past history here of making broad statements like this I'm confident you won't answer this....but.....what makes you think the ceremony took place after the Civil contract?


You have not bothered to actually do any research yourself have you? Then you accuse me of making broad statements when you are uneducated in the subject .

History books. They are quite clear that the contract took place first and then the ceremony which was nothing more than the father delivering the daughter to the man and the man saying he would take this wife ( In Sumerian of course). There was no religious ceremony.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

For crying out loud. Marriage is what 2 or more people who are married think it is. 

There are other important things to discuss like what does a henway?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> For crying out loud. Marriage is what 2 or more people who are married think it is.
> 
> There are other important things to discuss like what does a henway?


Marriage is mostly a license to fight.


----------



## starrynights (Oct 7, 2021)

painterswife said:


> Curious why you always want to discuss me instead of the topic of the thread? I must be so fascinating to you.


it's called 'gaslighting'


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> You have not bothered to actually do any research yourself have you? Then you accuse me of making broad statements when you are uneducated in the subject .
> 
> History books. They are quite clear that the contract took place first and then the ceremony which was nothing more than the father delivering the daughter to the man and the man saying he would take this wife ( In Sumerian of course). There was no religious ceremony.


That's your opinion, and you are welcome to it. 

I've studied history a bit and I disagree. Seems most everyone else does too 

Culture is tied to religion, and both drive the law (both civil and criminal). No way there would be a legal recognition of marriage anywhere (such as Hammourabi code) without there first being cultural/religious recognition first.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

boatswain2PA said:


> That's your opinion, and you are welcome to it.
> 
> I've studied history a bit and I disagree. Seems most everyone else does too
> 
> Culture is tied to religion, and both drive the law (both civil and criminal). No way there would be a legal recognition of marriage anywhere (such as Hammourabi code) without there first being cultural/religious recognition first.


Culture is not religion and you are the one focusing on marriage needing to be religious. Mesopotamia is proof that civ ilmarriage existed long before Christianity.

Marriages coupling, handwriting or the myriad of other words used to call it was for far more than religion first. It was for control, for property ownership and for companionship and even survival.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> For crying out loud. Marriage is what 2 or more people who are married think it is.
> 
> There are other important things to discuss like what does a henway?


how much she ways depends upon what the rooster happens to be doing while she’s being wayed!


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> Culture is not religion and you are the one focusing on marriage needing to be religious. Mesopotamia is proof that civ ilmarriage existed long before Christianity.
> 
> Marriages coupling, handwriting or the myriad of other words used to call it was for far more than religion first. It was for control, for property ownership and for companionship and even survival.


Culture is not religion, never said they were. But they have been tied together since the dawn of humanity. Even the current leftist climate change/socialism/etc often acts like it's own religion.

Nobody is arguing that marriage was around before Christianity. Hence my flippant "and the sky is blue" comment...kinda like "duh!". Every one knows marriage was around Christ, and everyone knows the sky is blue. Kinda stupid to have to keep saying the sky is blue, and kinda stupid to keep saying marriage came before Christianity.

Equating early marriage to ownership is simply your opinion.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

Farmerga said:


> Marriage, in all of its possible forms, should be removed from government all together.


Eat more possum ....


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Berwick said:


> Eat more possum ....


I put that as my avatar in order to mess with a bigot who had a problem with rural people. I liked it, so, I kept it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Farmerga said:


> I put that as my avatar in order to mess with a bigot who had a problem with rural people. I liked it, so, I kept it.


I remember that thread.


----------



## 67drake (May 6, 2020)

I got this for Christmas. Barter or trade. Open to offers.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

67drake said:


> I got this for Christmas. Barter or trade. Open to offers.
> View attachment 108763


I saw something similar in the tourist trap shops in Tionesta, PA. I still wish I had bought one.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Caught possum corn fed is about like pig brains, pickled pigs feet or knuckles and various other proteins that were something that I found enjoyable that if I have to go back there now will mean something terrible has happened.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I have eaten possum before. Did not know what I was eating until after I had finished though. When you were born a sharecropper, you learn not to ask what you are eating though until after you have eaten. 

I could do _Fear Factor_ or _Naked and Afraid _no problem though.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Farmerga said:


> I put that as my avatar in order to mess with a bigot who had a problem with rural people. I liked it, so, I kept it.


I'm on a forum of blue collar construction type folks mainly, with a long time member who goes by the name Coona*ss. It is a regional term for those who don't know.
He will get the occasional bug eyed response from a new member that he is using a racist name and how can that be allowed in a public discussion room. 
He grew up with the nickname, he likes it and he likes ruffling soft feathers.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Isn't C00n a$s what Davey Crockett wore on his head?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> I'm on a forum of blue collar construction type folks mainly, with a long time member who goes by the name Coona*ss. It is a regional term for those who don't know.
> He will get the occasional bug eyed response from a new member that he is using a racist name and how can that be allowed in a public discussion room.
> He grew up with the nickname, he likes it and he likes ruffling soft feathers.


You wouldn't be talking about BT by chance? If so, which one? The original or the next 3?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

No.


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> Isn't C00n a$s what Davey Crockett wore on his head?


No; it's someone who is from south-central and southwest Louisiana.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

Markansas said:


> marriage should it be to only one person. ? and why ?


Would you prefer to have 4 wives if you were male?
Or 4 husbands if you were female?
Or 4 of those non-binaries if you were non-binary?


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Markansas said:


> marriage should it be to only one person. ? and why ?


A marriage is between two people. And in the case of all the Old Testament prophets, they were never limited to only one marriage.

Each marriage contract is between two people.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Berwick said:


> Would you prefer to have 4 wives if you were male?
> Or 4 husbands if you were female?
> Or 4 of those non-binaries if you were non-binary?


Non binary is a myth or a lie. Can you say that in Germany?
A wife deserves 100% devotion from her husband.


----------



## IceFire (10 mo ago)

Berwick said:


> Would you prefer to have 4 wives if you were male?
> Or 4 husbands if you were female?
> Or 4 of those non-binaries if you were non-binary?


One husband is enough to deal with. Why the heck would I want to compound it?

What is the punishment for more than 1 spouse? More than 1 MOTHER-IN-LAW!


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

Farmerga said:


> Marriage, in all of its possible forms, should be removed from government all together.


Why?

Do you think that marriage should perish from earth?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Farmerga posted that it should be removed_ from government._


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Berwick said:


> Why?
> 
> Do you think that marriage should perish from earth?


Government is not the end all/be all of anything. Why should we kowtow for government permission to approve our relationships?


----------



## Digitalis (Aug 20, 2021)

ET1 SS said:


> A marriage is between two people. And in the case of all the Old Testament prophets, they were never limited to only one marriage.
> 
> Each marriage contract is between two people.


Abraham and Jacob both had more than one.


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

Why should marriage be to only one person? Why should it be to the opposite sex? Why should it be to a living thing? Why cant I marry myself? Why can't I marry the whole world? Why can't I marry my car? Why have definitions at all? Why can't marriage mean eveyrthing, and nothing?

Instead of drinking coffee in the morning why can't I just call it 'marriage'? Why can't I call the moon 'marriage'?

This is where relativism brings us to the point of absurdity.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Adirondackian said:


> Why should marriage be to only one person? Why should it be to the opposite sex? Why should it be to a living thing? Why cant I marry myself? Why can't I marry the whole world? Why can't I marry my car? Why have definitions at all? Why can't marriage mean eveyrthing, and nothing?
> 
> Instead of drinking coffee in the morning why can't I just call it 'marriage'? Why can't I call the moon 'marriage'?
> 
> This is where relativism brings us to the point of absurdity.


That's where I am at. I don't care what other people do or marry.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

You can marry as many people, animals, or objects and I will not complain. I just don't care. After several marriages I moved to a state thaty does not recognize common law marriages. I have been happy ever since. Haven't had to give away a single house since the move.


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

Call me old fashioned; I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. It is for LIFE, no divorce accept in the case of infidelity or demonstrable abuse.

It took thousands of years for people to figure out that monogamy is the best arrangement for most people and for society as a whole. Its best for the children, a million studies have already demonstrated that children from intact, traditional, nuclear families are better adjusted, do better in school, have fewer mental health issues, lower suicide rates etc. I'd bet my last dollar that couples who stay together live longer, stay healthier, happier, are better off financially, etc, etc.

Modern people think they know better than previous generations, and that hubris is our downfall. You dont know better than thousands of years of wisdom. Marriage exists for a reason, because it works.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Why CAN'T I wear white after Labor Day?


----------

