Re: Are Conservatives Really Stupid?

From: Georgie Hinklemyer <samoolives_at_yahoo.com_at_hypermail.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 03:00:20 -0000

Perhaps the ORIGINAL purpose of marriage was for kids. Nowadays it's
more for reassurance - and tax benefits. At least here in the States.
 
I think the government should stay out of the marriage business
entirely, and stick to the "legal union" business. Even if it does
mean "contracts" for 10-year marriages, etc. (Would the Church go for
limited-time marriages?)

--G.H.

--- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "Hiram Gonash"
<okfreddy_at_h...> wrote:
> Holy #^%$! LMA kinda agrees with LMM on something....now let's talk
> about WMDs...
>
> -Ozzy
> (It's Hell Monday. I don't get my 9:30 feeding due to stupid,
> non-productive meetings and I'm already cranky. Where's my nuk and
> blanky?)
>
>
> --- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, Joy McCann
> <jmmccann_at_s...> wrote:
> > I don't think the legal definition of marriage should have to
> include the
> > possibility of procreation. After all, that would exclude a lot of
> elderly
> > and infertile couples anyway. But I think we need to be mindful
that
> the
> > main reason for the existence of marriage *is* to provide a
> (theoretically)
> > stable environment for the raising of children.
> >
> > I'd go with Ozzy's definition--or bag entirely the idea that the
> government
> > should be giving its blessing to private unions. Probably the
> former, since
> > there should be a legal "shorthand" for the various benefits
married
> people
> > need/enjoy. That way, the union doesn't have to be constructed
> > piece-by-piece by lawyers every single time.
> >
> > As it is, people occasionally do get legally divorced just to
detach
> their
> > finances--and then still live together as a couple. So it already
> happens.
> > As for yahoos out in Nevada and New Mexico who marry family
members,
> I don't
> > really have a problem with it--though if the state ever recognizes
> this, it
> > should also insist on birth control. And I have no problem with
> legalizing
> > prostitution, though that's a separate issue from marriage.
> >
> > --Q.M.
> >
> > * * * * *
> >
> > OK, that takes care of sex between family members and "humans too
> > young to know any better, legally". That probably also covers
> > animals, since it's kind of hard to prove consent on BOTH ends -
er,
> > sides. I suppose prostitution is also out of the mix since some
> > states have legalized it. That leaves homosexual &
> > polygamous/polyandrous relationships, "alternate" methods (sodomy,
> > etc), and ??? (Am I missing anything else?) So perhaps not such
a
> > slippery slope after all.
> >
> > Oz proposed (in one of his blogs) that marriage simply be defined
as
> a
> > legalized relationship between two consenting adults. Emphasis on
> > CONSENTING. All the tax benefits, etc. thereof included.
Something
> > bothers me about this. I see the potential for including things
like
> > child-parent relationships, or perhaps a legalized union for 10
> years,
> > then stopping it as tax-ically useful, etc.
> >
> > Should the definition of marriage include procreation?
> >
> > --G.H.
> >
> >
Received on 2004-04-12 20:01:30