Marital Politics

[jcrawford]

Marriage rights are a hot political topic these days. Many sexual, religious and political issues are involved and the topic ought to make for a wide-ranging discussion and debate on such life and death issues as reproductive rights, sexual relations, child-rearing, financial obligations and other legal responsibilites, plus a host of other topic-related subjects which any poster may wish to introduce.

The feminist Kate Millet wrote a book several decades ago called "Sexual Politics." Hopefully we may generate enough information, data, personal POV's, opinions and comments in this thread to provide text for a new book called "Marital Politics."

I know that's a tall order, but if we put our minds to it, I know we can do it. Whether any of us would want the book published or whether it gets edited not will not be up to any of us, since everything we post here is already the published property of our generous website host, "Debating Christianity."

To get the first chapter of our book started then, the first question will be;

What rights do men or women have in marriage or to get married at all?

[Wyvern]

[Would that we had some Christian, Jewish and Islamic politicians here in America.

The problem with your viewpoint is that there are in fact a large number of politicians in america that also hold strong religious beliefs. I believe what you want is a religious political party. President Bush is an avowed reborn christian, if this isn't your idea of what a christian politician is please illuminate us with your reasons why he isn't.

[jcrawford]

Would that we had some Christian, Jewish and Islamic politicians here in America.

The problem with your viewpoint is that there are in fact a large number of politicians in america that also hold strong religious beliefs. I believe what you want is a religious political party.

Good grief! If we had a religious political party, all those "politicians in america that also hold strong religious beliefs" would probably denounce it as a threat to the Republican Party.

President Bush is an avowed reborn christian, if this isn't your idea of what a christian politician is please illuminate us with your reasons why he isn't.

The Bush league is more interested in protecting their oil interests than waging a Holy War on the domestic violence perpetrated by local abortion terrorists.

[Cephus]

But the problem is that that is not what the churches are saying. They (conservative churches and their members) want the secular government to define marriage by conservative doctrine. They want all churches and the secular justices-of-the-peace to ban gay marriage.

What they want and what they're going to get are two different things. Conservative churches lost power long ago, but we're unfortunately having somewhat of a backlash of neo-conservatism at the moment. It will pass. Honestly, I don't give a damn what neo-conservatives want, they can go get stuffed.

If religions want control over their own doctrine, they better start building walls between themselves and the government.

That's essentially what's going to have to happen, but it won't. In the end, neo-conservatism will fall. Fanatics never do well in the long-term.

[jcrawford]

Conservative churches lost power long ago, but we're unfortunately having somewhat of a backlash of neo-conservatism at the moment.

Rather than endorsing and recognizing church marriages then, conservative Christian, Jewish and Muslim men should just demand government recognition and licensing of the terms and conditions of their heterosexual or homosexual marriage contracts and covenants.

What's good for the gander is good for the goose, and what's good for men is good for General Motors and the rest of America whether some church likes it or not.

[McCulloch]

Rather than endorsing and recognizing church marriages then, conservative Christian, Jewish and Muslim men should just demand government recognition and licensing of the terms and conditions of their heterosexual or homosexual marriage contracts and covenants.

And why should governments comply with such demands? I cannot see why any elected official would want to get government agencies into the business of interpreting and enforcing religious precepts.

[Cephus]

Rather than endorsing and recognizing church marriages then, conservative Christian, Jewish and Muslim men should just demand government recognition and licensing of the terms and conditions of their heterosexual or homosexual marriage contracts and covenants.

That's not necessarily a bad idea, but Christians would whine loud and long about it. If the government simply gave out all civil partnerships to everyone, regardless of the gender of those involved, and left it to religion to provide a ceremony if they wanted to their members, would that be fine with you? That would provide for heterosexual and homosexual civil partnerships with identical rights, but would not somehow infringe on your idea of a church marriage.

[jcrawford]

Rather than endorsing and recognizing church marriages then, conservative Christian, Jewish and Muslim men should just demand government recognition and licensing of the terms and conditions of their heterosexual or homosexual marriage contracts and covenants.

That's not necessarily a bad idea, but Christians would whine loud and long about it. If the government simply gave out all civil partnerships to everyone, regardless of the gender of those involved, and left it to religion to provide a ceremony if they wanted to their members, would that be fine with you? That would provide for heterosexual and homosexual civil partnerships with identical rights, but would not somehow infringe on your idea of a church marriage.

Thanks for opening a line of communication again, Cephus. Since my interest is not necessarily focused on church rituals, ceremonies or church law concerning marriage but rather the procreative rights of men within marriage, I'm in no hurry to grant other men the right to marry each other until all married men get their equal right to procreate within marriage restored to what is was before the feminists and their abortion sidekicks came along and destroyed millions of men's marriages and families without their consent.

I am very specific about my political demands for married men as I believe all married men should be, no matter what they place their faith, hope and trust in.

[Cephus]

Thanks for opening a line of communication again, Cephus. Since my interest is not necessarily focused on church rituals, ceremonies or church law concerning marriage but rather the procreative rights of men within marriage, I'm in no hurry to grant other men the right to marry each other until all married men get their equal right to procreate within marriage restored to what is was before the feminists and their abortion sidekicks came along and destroyed millions of men's marriages and families without their consent.

If your wife is going to run off and have an abortion without your knowledge and consent, then you don't have much of a marriage to begin with, do you? Men have no more or less procreative rights than women do, but because the woman is the one to be pregnant, the ultimate right whether or not the pregnancy continues has been, and always will be with the woman. If you want to be pregnant, feel free. They can implant a fetus into a man's body now, you know.

Until you're willing to do that, you really don't have a leg to stand on. Maybe instead of complaining that women run off to get abortions, you should worry about having a decent relationship first.

[jcrawford]

Thanks for opening a line of communication again, Cephus. Since my interest is not necessarily focused on church rituals, ceremonies or church law concerning marriage but rather the procreative rights of men within marriage, I'm in no hurry to grant other men the right to marry each other until all married men get their equal right to procreate within marriage restored to what is was before the feminists and their abortion sidekicks came along and destroyed millions of men's marriages and families without their consent.

If your wife is going to run off and have an abortion without your knowledge and consent, then you don't have much of a marriage to begin with, do you?

As long as you take that approach there doesn't seem much point in discussing or debating the social or legal issues involved since the conditions you have set up and allow for are exactly what secular state marriages provide for and consist of. That's why secular marriage at this time is a useless institution for men who wish to raise a family without feminist interference and they might as well burn their secular marriage certificates.

Men have no more or less procreative rights than women do, but because the woman is the one to be pregnant, the ultimate right whether or not the pregnancy continues has been, and always will be with the woman.

That's obviously a secular lie becasue prior to the 1970's a woman had no right to abort her husband's offspring without his knowledge and consent.

If you want to be pregnant, feel free. They can implant a fetus into a man's body now, you know.

Your solution here is only to emasculate men and turn them into wombmen. Another pathetic feminist tactic.

Until you're willing to do that, you really don't have a leg to stand on. Maybe instead of complaining that women run off to get abortions, you should worry about having a decent relationship first.

My personal marital relationship is not the issue here, Cephus, since my wife and I are beyond our best procreative and reproductive years, having already parented 4 happy children and looking forward to collecting our well deserved retirement pension and living happily ever after. Until you can deal with social and legal issues on an intellectual or even mature level instead of a personal one only, I'm afraid I may have to ignore most of your irrelevent comments and diatribes.

Too bad, since there seemed to be some room for negotiation with your own sexual and self-righteous demands for man to man marriage arrangements.

[Cephus]

As long as you take that approach there doesn't seem much point in discussing or debating the social or legal issues involved since the conditions you have set up and allow for are exactly what secular state marriages provide for and consist of. That's why secular marriage at this time is a useless institution for men who wish to raise a family without feminist interference and they might as well burn their secular marriage certificates.

Sheesh, you sound like the guy who I heard about on the radio today who is being prosecuted for a multitude of crimes, including kidnapping and raping his wife. He forced a "marriage contract" on her that specified that he can do anything to her that he wants, because it's his "right".

That's obviously a secular lie becasue prior to the 1970's a woman had no right to abort her husband's offspring without his knowledge and consent.

Which is ridiculous, because prior to the 1970s, a woman had no legal right to abortion at all. Of course, it didn't stop women from seeking and obtaining abortions at all, did it?

Your solution here is only to emasculate men and turn them into wombmen. Another pathetic feminist tactic.

You're the one who thinks you're in charge, which is laughable because you keep revealing how weak and impotent you actually are. Women don't have to bow to your will, they don't have to inform you of anything and they don't have to get your permission. The fact that you keep calling for such, and cloak it in ridiculous religious terms, just reveals a lot about you.

My personal marital relationship is not the issue here, Cephus, since my wife and I are beyond our best procreative and reproductive years, having already parented 4 happy children and looking forward to collecting our well deserved retirement pension and living happily ever after. Until you can deal with social and legal issues on an intellectual or even mature level instead of a personal one only, I'm afraid I may have to ignore most of your irrelevent comments and diatribes.

That's funny, a couple posts ago, you said you only had three children. Can't keep your story straight?