|
| A criticism from the Derivatist side | la garçâ malpadert | November 03, 2005 - 16:11 | | D. N. Vercáriâ | November 03, 2005 - 16:47 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | November 03, 2005 - 16:11 |
| Absolutely(#23373), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], November 03, 2005 - 16:47. Viewed 109 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ | > By the way, I don't believe in legal marriage at all, so I don't see why Talossa should have laws about it. :)
Now that's one thing on which I agree. :-)
- D. N. Vercáriâ
¡Pecüliárismeu és escasençâ - MRP!
|
|
| | Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu | November 03, 2005 - 16:49 |
|
Parent message | | D. N. Vercáriâ | November 03, 2005 - 16:47 |
| RE: Absolutely(#23376), posted by Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu, [IP Hidden], November 03, 2005 - 16:49. Viewed 131 times. |
|
Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu
Group: citizens
(847 posts total)
(last post: March 12, 2008 - 12:13)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ | > Now that's one thing on which I agree. :-)
Could you explain this as well! I am really curious!
|
|
| | D. N. Vercáriâ | November 04, 2005 - 03:06 |
|
Parent message | | Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu | November 03, 2005 - 16:49 |
| RE: Absolutely(#23385), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], November 04, 2005 - 03:06. Viewed 114 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ | I all brevity, I think there are several layers that should be kept seperate.
a) It's not up to the state or any other institution to acknowledge or disallow private relationships between people, beyond a general framework. (If people like sort of a religious recognition of their relationship, fine, that's their own business; this should not be imposed on those who don't care for said religion, not by the state).
b) Where matrimony covers a bundle of civil contracts, so to speak, these civil contracts could be provided anyway, whenever people decide to choose so.
c) Special support for raising children may be granted as well, depending on whether there are children or not.
- D. N. Vercáriâ
¡Pecüliárismeu és escasençâ - MRP!
|
|
| | Üc Tärfâ | November 03, 2005 - 16:23 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | November 03, 2005 - 16:11 |
| RE: A criticism from the Derivatist side(#23364), posted by Üc Tärfâ, [IP Hidden], November 03, 2005 - 16:23. Viewed 101 times. |
|
Üc Tärfâ
Group: citizens
(1365 posts total)
(last post: March 10, 2008 - 08:29)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ | > > Why is this question being asked? Why is our situation different than any other nation in the world? Because we are a micronation that exists solely on the internet
>
> Jim, I know that Ugo is accusing you of being a Derivatist,
I'm not accusing none! ;-)
but no Derivatist would ever say that "Talossa exists only on the Internet". Talossa exists, and has existed since 1979, on the East Side of Milwaukee, WI (or "on the western shore of the Talossan Sea", from another perspective). Granted all but one of the current citizens of the Republic are "citizens in exile", but it is our very real attachment to a very real patch of land and a very real history which makes Talossa different - and better! - from "virtual nations", or indeed from just another WWW discussion group. It is simply historical accident that we're not in a position to get together more often, not a permanent feature.
Generally it's what I think me too. We are Talossa, neither a Micronation nor a Macronation.
____________________________
MRP Spokesman / Dûceu dels mocts dal MRP
my talossán personal page.
Visitetz Cézembre dürånt el otogñheu.
e-mail: ugo.truffelli AT libero.it |
|
| | Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu | November 03, 2005 - 16:16 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | November 03, 2005 - 16:11 |
| RE: A criticism from the Derivatist side(#23362), posted by Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu, [IP Hidden], November 03, 2005 - 16:16. Viewed 118 times. |
|
Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu
Group: citizens
(847 posts total)
(last post: March 12, 2008 - 12:13)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ | By the way, I don't believe in legal marriage at all, so I don't see why Talossa should have laws about it. I am very curious about this. Please explain you thoughts to me.
What is your definition of "legal marriage"? Why do you not believe in "legal marriage"?
|
|
| | la garçâ malpadert | November 03, 2005 - 16:36 |
|
Parent message | | Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu | November 03, 2005 - 16:16 |
| Legal marriage(#23368), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], November 03, 2005 - 16:36. Viewed 132 times. |
|
la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ | > What is your definition of "legal marriage"?
I do not support state recognition of any kind for private emotional and domestic arrangements. Let people have all the private or religious marriages or commitment ceremonies or whatever they want, but I don't see why the state has any business intervening, either positively or negatively.
> Why do you not believe in "legal marriage"?
Because I'm a Marxist-feminist. I can go on for hours about marriage as the historical expression of women's domestic slavery if you like. :)
Miestrâ Schivâ
Seneschál dal Repúblicâ Talossán / Prime Minister of the Republic of Talossa
"The Republic's Most Articulate Spokeswhatever" - R. B. Madison
|
|
| | Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu | November 04, 2005 - 15:08 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | November 03, 2005 - 16:36 |
| RE: Legal marriage(#23407), posted by Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu, [IP Hidden], November 04, 2005 - 15:08. Viewed 128 times. |
|
Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu
Group: citizens
(847 posts total)
(last post: March 12, 2008 - 12:13)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ | Actually, Prime Minister, I would like to hear more about this. I have read a little bit of the site (and thank you for the reference), and I am curious to hear what your thoughts are.
Please email me.
Feel free to grab my email address from the Minister of Immigration if you do not have direct access to it.
Thanks,
Jim
|
|
| | Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu | November 03, 2005 - 21:10 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | November 03, 2005 - 16:36 |
| RE: Legal marriage(#23384), posted by Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu, [IP Hidden], November 03, 2005 - 21:10. Viewed 119 times. |
|
Túischac’h Txec Ereufighleu
Group: citizens
(847 posts total)
(last post: March 12, 2008 - 12:13)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ | I am actually stunned that you and Dieterm, well anyone, do not want to define marriage. I had never considered not having laws that define marriage. Because of this I have been doing research as to the ramifications of this possibility.
I do agree that the government has no role in determining who we can or cannot marry. I have not disputed that fact. That is really an individual choice. Marriage has been primarily a function of religion and there are those who are not religious or cannot find a suitable religion to which enbraces their relationship. Who will they turn to? I guess you argument will be purely that marriage is a choice and does not need anone to embrace or validate the union?
I believe that there will come a time where there will need to be a way officially prove that individals have taken up the mantle of marriage. It will not be enough to say "I am this person spouse." especially if they are dead. Those that have a religion that supports their union will be able to get a piece of paper that says that they are married and not just someon who wants in on their property because the deceased does not have a will written. What about those who do not have a supporting religion or if they are not religious. Who will they turn to.
Their partner may not have the right to help them if they cannot prove their relationship. Visits in prison, presiding over funeral arrangements, guardianship or what ever other legal issues that may come up. At some point there will need to be a legal document that states their relationship.
I am not suggesting that we state who you can and cannot marry. I am suggesting that we explicitly state that you can marry whoever and however many that you want. Even without a government definition, there will at somepoint need to be a contract to protect all individuals involved in the union. This is something that will form out of necessity.
I very much see the need for a contract to define the relationship as a method to prevent unnecessary hardship on the individuals (creating their own contract)in the union and to protect the union in their interests.
A law defining marriage and a basic contract for marriage as a spring board for citizens to model their own contract to protect themselves and their union is what I am suggesting.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
