Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
If two homosexuals can get "Married" then we might as well throw out the whole concept of government endorsed Marriage because it becomes meaningless. If any two males or females can get "Married", wouldn't it be discrimination to prevent heterosexuals from entering into "Marriage" just to get insurance and tax benefits. Just because a pair of married male heteros chooses to not have sex together, but instead continue to bang hot chicks on the side are they some how less worthy than a Homo couple.

---

What's to stop heterosexuals doing this currently? A heterosexual male and heterosexual female can get married purely for insurance and tax benefits. Whether or not we throw out government endorsed marriage has nothing to do with whether homosexuals are allowed to enter into it, it seems to me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Citizen,

You seem to think I have some kind of burden of proof.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
What, exactly, are you contending is false?

---

Quote:

---

the financial problems of a marriage are completely handled by financial laws that exist outside the purview of marriage.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Citizen,

You seem to think I have some kind of burden of proof.

---

YOU and I both KNOW what claims you're making, and I'm kind of curious why it is that those claims are the only ones that don't appear in your list?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
What, exactly, are you contending is false?

---

Well, there's this:

Quote:

---

the financial problems of a marriage are completely handled by financial laws that exist outside the purview of marriage.

---

One that doesn't appear in your list at all, interestingly. The burden of proof is on your shoulders, you claim that business regulations are good enough for marriage, I reject that and say marriage laws exist, and should exist, because marriage is not a business relationship; that trying to apply business rules to a marriage would be hammering a square peg into a very round hole. You keep stating that business rules are perfect for marriage, but you've not yet even begun to try and explain, let alone support that position.

Lets go a bit further. You're also claiming (albeit tacitly) that Marriage laws must reward marriage, that you can't have legally recognised marriage without social engineering. Frankly that's nonsense, and I've already touched on that, a point you've wholesale ignored. Lets move that logic to another circumstance: I suppose you can't have legally recognised business relationships, without forcing people to start businesses, and punishing those that don't, right?

ETA:
Or should we apply different logic to business relationships over marital ones? If that's the case though, I can't see how you could possibly claim that a business framework is suitable for marriage. Since if we have to apply different logic to their differing circumstances, I can't see any basis for a claim that we should apply the same legal framework to their differing circumstances.

I also reject that the government has no place whatsoever in regulating romantic commitments, especially since you have already admitted it does have a role to play there, even if you do conveniently forget that a second later.

What I'm contending is false is your idea that a legal marriage framework isn't necessary, and that things designed for completely different purposes can be applied to marriage's unique circumstances. The burden of proof is very much on your shoulders on that claim.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
First and foremost: Troll? HELL NO...the one after you, of course.

As to the issue at hand, I'm so rummy at this point I can't think straight. I think we're pretty much in agreement, overall, so I'll let it go at that.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

"You keep stating that business rules are perfect for marriage, but you've not yet even begun to try and explain, let alone support that position. "

Is there some function to marriage laws other than deciding the disposition of resources and assets?

"You're also claiming (albeit tacitly) that Marriage laws must reward marriage"

I'm claiming that's what they do. And I'm right. They do that.

"I also reject that the government has no place whatsoever in regulating romantic commitments, especially since you have already admitted it does have a role to play there"

You have oddly shoehorned rape into 'romantic commitments' in order to make this point. I can't say I agree with that particular lumping.

"I suppose you can't have legally recognised business relationships, without forcing people to start businesses, and punishing those that don't, right?"

An interesting point of view. Although, since any individual or group of individuals of any size or composition can start a business or reach an agreement about property and assets, one might say it's much more dynamic, inclusive, and non discriminatory.

"What I'm contending is false is your idea that a legal marriage framework isn't necessary, and that things designed for completely different purposes can be applied to marriage's unique circumstances."

What circumstances are unique about marriage, again? I missed it.

--Anthony


Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

---