Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[David Minton <dminton AT mindspring.com>]

On 04/18/05 10:49 PM, "Lee Haslup" <biglee AT haslups.com> wrote:

> Michael Czeiszperger wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Apr 18, 2005, at 2:59 AM, Lee Haslup wrote:
>> 
>>> A subset of the infinite ways to hook up -- the union of one man and
>>> one woman  -- is recognized by the government (and society as a
>>> whole) as "marriage" and given special status and a certain degree of
>>> encouragement.  This special status can be justified by the tendency
>>> of married couples to impose less cost on the government and to make
>>> the least trouble for society. Experience has shown that they
>>> generally take care of themselves and one another and they raise up
>>> their kids to be passable citizens with less help from the government
>>> than people selecting other lifestyles.
>> 
>> 
>> If married couples "impose less cost on the government", then
>> shouldn't you be encouraging same-sex couples to marry?
> 
> Most of the cost to society comes from the improper socialization of
> children (boys being especially expensive) so I see the reproductive
> potential of man-woman partnerships as a key factor in shaping the
> institution of marriage.  From there I also observe that if anything is
> a marriage then nothing is a marriage.  It is, of course, a slippery
> slope issue but I have picked my spot on it.

Sounds like the heterosexual couples are causing the problem. Since you
keep, pointing out that marriage is all about procreation.
 
> When did I say anyone couldn't enter into a permanent relationship?  I
> am merely disinclined to call it a marriage in some cases.
> 
>> The basic problem here is people are confusing their religion's right
>> to define marriage with the state's role in sanctioning it.  The
>> consensus solution that I've seen (i.e. people who agree with me)
>> believe that the state should hand out marriage certificates without
>> regard to religion, and if religions want to pile on additional
>> restrictions to have that marriage recognized, then its up to them.
>> The government shouldn't be in the business of enforcing
>> judeo-christian religious doctrine.
> 
> I quite agree.  No religious test for a marriage license.  Just a blood
> test.  As long as the couple has three X chromosomes and one Y between
> them they are good to go.  I pick this combination, not because
> Jeeeezussssss told me to, but because that is the combination that has
> the reasonable possibility of procreation, and marriage is about
> providing an environment for raising kids.

You better have a talk with my wife's grandmother. She remarried at age 83
to a fellow who was 82 a couple of years ago. I don't think she realized she
had a "reasonable possibility of procreation, nor did she plan on 'raising
kids" at this point. Did the state of Ohio error in granting her a marriage
license? If not a legal error, did they commit a moral error, and should the
law be changed to not allow such couples to marry in the future?

If not, doesn't that discount your "most be a man and a woman so they can
procreate or raise kids" argument?

Also, did you realize that your genetic test would open the door for
same-sex couples to marry, if one of the two partners was transgender? Also,
it would allow an XXY woman to marry another woman. Do you need to rethink
your test to close these loopholes?

David