Rosie O'Donnell would applaud.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Nic Name
The offensive actions of the United States failed in every attempt to capture Canada.

Surely you recognize our "right to defensible borders", eh? :-)

[Nic Name]

By "our" you mean yours and mine? Of course.

[LordSludge]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Marriage and divorce: The reason people make a big deal about this is that there are many benefits to a marriage that is recognized by the government, i.e. taxes, rights during death/probate/etc. of the spouse, power of attorney, etc.

If you don't care about any of these things, there is no reason to get a government-recognized marriage. For people who do want these things, the government must regulate who gets married to prevent abuse. It can't be both ways.

These things could all be handled by a legal contract, agreed to each party (maybe more than two people, if that's what they want -- not my business). Sure, maybe there would be a standard boilerplate contract, call it "marriage" if you like, but for govt to impose the rules and restrictions of a relationship between two people is wrong, in my opinion, especially when you consider that many of those rules & restrictions are rooted in religion. Nasty business, imposing one's religion on another...

Adoption: I'm sure you don't really think that anyone who expresses the desire to adopt a child should be able to. This is not an arrangement that is being made between two consenting adults; we are talking about the health, well-being, and safety of a child. There must be government regulations on the conditions under which adoption can occur.

This is more of a side-argument, as I see it, but consider that we don't have laws on who is "qualified" to give birth... More to the point, I don't see why a govt-approved marriage should be any criteria for adoption. To be honest, though, I don't think most people are really qualified to have kids -- married or not, adopted or not -- but they get by. Guess it's a good thing they don't require my approval. heh

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by LordSludge
for govt to impose the rules and restrictions of a relationship between two people is wrong, in my opinion, especially when you consider that many of those rules & restrictions are rooted in religion.

The government is not making rules on who can be in relationships, the government is making rules on who can enjoy government benefits of a supposed long-term relationship. Although the "long-term" part of the definition is definitely becoming blurred.

I'm not arguing for or against gay marriages or whatnot, just pointing out that your proposal that the government should make no rules whatsoever on marriage would never work.

[jeni]

but consider that we don't have laws on who is "qualified" to give birth...

that is an excellent point. i'd be terrified to be the child of many of the customers i see in my store. or to have to put up with them as a parent, if nothing else. and those are just the people who come to my store.

[Griff]

Originally posted by Tobiasly


The government is not making rules on who can be in relationships, the government is making rules on who can enjoy government benefits of a supposed long-term relationship. Although the "long-term" part of the definition is definitely becoming blurred.

I'm not arguing for or against gay marriages or whatnot, just pointing out that your proposal that the government should make no rules whatsoever on marriage would never work.

The problem here is that there is an assumption that government should be providing benefits based on marital status. If government kept its nose out from under the relationship tent, LordSludges private contract system would work just fine.

[Nic Name]

I left my wife and kids. Before I left she signed a contract by which I don't have to pay any support, so I'm pretty well set financially, but I miss having the kids around to help with chores. I'm looking to adopt a couple of strong boys. Money's no prob. Will pay more than market rates to adopt a young boy. Leave a message at the beep.

[buz46]

I left my wife and kids. Before I left she signed a contract by which I don't have to pay any support, so I'm pretty well set financially,

With the Govt. out of the way; bands of rogue lawyers take to the streets, forcing couples to sign inequitable pre-nups at gun point!!

Will pay more than market rates to adopt a young boy. Leave a message at the beep

No comment...

[spinningfetus]

Originally posted by Nic Name
Will pay more than market rates to adopt a young boy. Leave a message at the beep.

Then boy have I got a deal for you...