View Single Post
Old March 30th, 2013, 08:29 PM   #482
82cj7ltd
Saved by Grace
 
Join Date: 07-10-12
Location: Waterford MI
Posts: 298
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I see that Iím coming in late, but Iím a bit confused about kerryann and L4CXís recent discussion, from reading the last few pages.

Kerryann (and anyone who sees what I may be missing here):

So as I understand what you said below, your thought is that we could get rid of marriage as a secular contract as you see it, and make one contract that everyone follows, which you say will cost money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryann View Post
I think either we get rid of current marriage law as a secular contract (which it is) or we just made one form of secular bonding contract that everyone follows. Introducing extra legislation and process will cost money. In my opinion if everyone is equal there should only be one set of laws.
Then, L4CX agrees with you, under the condition that it is the best compromise for each side, though it would certainly be a lot of work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
I'm all for the extra legislation if it brings both sides the best option. I realize that it would be alot of work even changing the law to say "insert alternative here" but I think that would be best for both.
Now if I didnít miss anything from earlier, you now say that those who hold views similar to his should pay for the extra costsÖ.. ??? Didnít you just put the idea forward, while saying it would cost money?
I thought that was your thought on a possible solution; how did he and those who hold views like his end up being responsible for that cost? I didnít see him put that idea forward anywhere, so Iím confused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryann View Post
How about you and the people who hold those views pay 100% for the extra costs. Choices should have consequences.
82cj7ltd is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.05374 seconds with 11 queries