Quote:
Originally posted by Maelakin:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Maelakin:
As a side point, even the Law should not be able to tell you morally what you can and can't do in your own home.
|
I could not disagree more strongly.
The law should be able to tell you that you cannot
1.Bash your spouse
2.Rape your spouse
3.Bash your children
4.Rape your children
5.Bash your pet
6.Rape your pet
7.Kill any of the above or any visitor.
The idea that a mans home is his legal kingdom is antiquated mate. Get into the 2000's. You can't hit a woman in your house. It is justifiably forbidden by the law. [/QUOTE]As in all cases, a person’s individual liberty comes first. In each of your examples, you are violating individuals’ personal rights, with the exception of the pet. As far as your pet goes, since you in essence DO own your pet, you should be able to do what you will with it. If they want to stop animal cruelty, they should start with outlawing the ownership of animals.
The above has absolutely nothing to do with moral law. As I have stated many times before, law should be the force that protects your personal liberty, and in the cases you suggest personal liberty is at stake. So, I stand by my remark.
A comment posted by myself in this thread previous to your statement:
Quote:
Originally posted by Maelakin:
To me, government should protect personal liberty to the extent of proven discourse to the populace. In any situation that contains a possibility derived from one unfounded conclusion, they should not have the power to pass laws governing those actions.
|
Read the thread before responding maybe? [img]smile.gif[/img]
Back on the topic of marriage, what you personally used marriage as does not matter. In the eyes of the law, marriage is a merger of financial estates. Just because you chose to keep all financial affairs separate does not mean the law looks at it that way. When you were divorced, was it quick and painless or did someone sue for a portion of the estate. I know from personal experience that separating funds does not mean you keep yours and she keeps hers upon divorce. It only happens that way if you choose that method and the other party agrees. [/QUOTE]We "own" the animal do we? I was under the impression we have a license to exclusively house, feed and care for it.
In Australia we've been introducing the term "animal partnering" rather than "pet owning" because of misconceptions you illustrated.
You do not own the pet in the sense that you do not have the right to abuse your pet or end it's life prematurely.
As to your comments that "my experience doesn't matter" I'm afraid it does. We kept our possessions seperate and the law definitely looked at it that way. We used a legal mediator and pretty much each kept all we brought in. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. Marriage is not simply a "merger of finances". That would be a business partnership, and an aspect of marriage you CAN enter into.
Have you heard of "prenuptual agreements Maelakin?
I gave a personal experience of marriage and the law. Let's hear yours before you so quickly consign mine to the irrelevency bin.
As to "was it quick and painless" some sensitivity could be in order. It nearly killed me thanks Maelakin. Not because of the mere finances, but because of the social, emotional and spiritual conjoinment the union contains.
Again, let's hear your personal experience of marriage and divorce. I'd love to hear it.