3 ms·

The very first part of my comment explains that they would have. Keep your ideas of how people should live their lives out of my goddamn life. You can make deci

The very first part of my comment explains that they would have. Keep your ideas of how people should live their lives out of my goddamn life. You can make decisions for yourself, DO NOT make them for others.

meric 13y ago
If marrying cannot be undone, people would make the choice more carefully. I'm not saying it should be applied to existing marriages. 'You can make decisions for yourself, DO NOT make them for others.' Your statement makes no sense. Decisions are made for you by others by the congress, senate, and other government institutions everyday. And how do these congressmen get into office? By promoting their views on what everyone should be doing. You can try to avoid discussing ideas you don't like but it only means decisions will be made for you without your input. Good luck.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  I can't believe how evil you are. You are handing a death sentence to people you've never met for mistakes millions of people make and will continue to make regardless of your proposed rules. It violates basic human rights.
  - meric 13y ago
    Man writes a few sentences on Hacker News = "Handing out a death sentence". Man writes he is favorable to religious and cultural norms in place for two thousand years except for the last fifty = "evil" and "violating human rights". Removing No-fault divorce doesn't mean you're not allowed to divorce if there is e.g. domestic violence / abuse. It just means you're not allowed to divorce for no reason. Removing it is hardly a death sentence. Millions of people gamble on the stock market and lose, are you suggesting instead of punishing people who make mistakes on the stock market via economic losses, they should be compensated? Because it is a basic human right to make investments? You're also saying that it is a basic human right for one to renege on a vow that is meant to last for life. Then what about the human right to have one's agreements with others respected? Does it not violate your human rights if your wife reneges on the vow she took to be with you until death? If you aren't willing or aren't able to fulfill the terms of a contract, it is morally wrong for you to agree to it. And once agreed, even if it has become difficult to fulfill the attached obligations, it is morally right to fulfill it nonetheless. What about you, where are your morals, and what are they? I would suggest it is you who is evil. By removing consequences to actions you subvert the relationship of society where the virtuous are rewarded. The likes of you leads a society down a path of hedonism where only the self is worshipped, and morals are ignored and culture is destroyed.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      > religious I was even giving you the benefit of the doubt that your position wasn't based on religion. But now you've explicitly admitted that you want to inject your religion into law. Your evil knows no bounds.
      - meric 13y ago
        Rather, law has inserted itself into religion.

meric 13y ago

If marrying cannot be undone, people would make the choice more carefully. I'm not saying it should be applied to existing marriages. 'You can make decisions for yourself, DO NOT make them for others.' Your statement makes no sense. Decisions are made for you by others by the congress, senate, and other government institutions everyday. And how do these congressmen get into office? By promoting their views on what everyone should be doing. You can try to avoid discussing ideas you don't like but it only means decisions will be made for you without your input. Good luck.

nknighthb 13y ago
I can't believe how evil you are. You are handing a death sentence to people you've never met for mistakes millions of people make and will continue to make regardless of your proposed rules. It violates basic human rights.
- meric 13y ago
  Man writes a few sentences on Hacker News = "Handing out a death sentence". Man writes he is favorable to religious and cultural norms in place for two thousand years except for the last fifty = "evil" and "violating human rights". Removing No-fault divorce doesn't mean you're not allowed to divorce if there is e.g. domestic violence / abuse. It just means you're not allowed to divorce for no reason. Removing it is hardly a death sentence. Millions of people gamble on the stock market and lose, are you suggesting instead of punishing people who make mistakes on the stock market via economic losses, they should be compensated? Because it is a basic human right to make investments? You're also saying that it is a basic human right for one to renege on a vow that is meant to last for life. Then what about the human right to have one's agreements with others respected? Does it not violate your human rights if your wife reneges on the vow she took to be with you until death? If you aren't willing or aren't able to fulfill the terms of a contract, it is morally wrong for you to agree to it. And once agreed, even if it has become difficult to fulfill the attached obligations, it is morally right to fulfill it nonetheless. What about you, where are your morals, and what are they? I would suggest it is you who is evil. By removing consequences to actions you subvert the relationship of society where the virtuous are rewarded. The likes of you leads a society down a path of hedonism where only the self is worshipped, and morals are ignored and culture is destroyed.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    > religious I was even giving you the benefit of the doubt that your position wasn't based on religion. But now you've explicitly admitted that you want to inject your religion into law. Your evil knows no bounds.
    - meric 13y ago
      Rather, law has inserted itself into religion.