Re: In which case...

Howdy. It looks like you've been around here a long time, #129. You should post more. :-)

Gender can be complicated. That's one of the reasons why I think concentrating on gender is missing the big picture.

My view is that society should support families. It should encourage people to get together to support each other, take care of each other, raise children (if so inclined), etc. The difficulty comes in defining a family.

There's a long history of ship's captains, and judges, and even priests marrying people. That seems to me to be a tradition worth preserving.

Up until recently, and even now in some societies, multiple simultaneous wives were not uncommon. The US decided that was a bad thing, so it's not allowed now.

There are financial and social benefits bestowed on marriage. There are also personal, financial, and psychological benefits to being married.

My grandfather and his sister lived in the same house after their spouses died. They were a family even though they weren't married to each other. It was better for both of them to stay together rather than live separately. I think society should encourage that when possible. I think they should be able to claim the same tax deduction that a married couple could. I think they should be able to have the same survivor benefits of a spouse without the necessity of a will (though everyone should have a will). Etc.

So how should a "family" be defined so that it fits with all of this? Maybe two adults living together who make a commitment to each other. It could be fairly simple ((e.g. my grandfather, his sister, and my uncle (who helped care for them)), or get complicated (an adult man with 2 unrelated women? 3 adult men with 5 unrelated women?). Should the government get out of the secular marriage business? No, I don't think so. Should marriage be redefined? No, I don't think so but might be persuaded. I think though that by conferring benefits on families rather than married couples would take care of a lot of the problems.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who now worries about the backlash from single people...)

Post #183,823 by CraigB 11/9/04 6:56:02 PM Reply	Re: In which case... This might almost be the place to bring up marriage being exclusively between man and woman... Um. Based on what criteria? Appearance? Plumbing? (Current or at birth?) Although not terribly common, what to do with indeterminate gender? Maybe count chromosomes? Measure hormone balance? How about the ability (or desire) to breed? Should get interesting when someone ABnormal requires that the terms be defined. CraigB
Post #183,826 by Another Scott 11/9/04 7:40:16 PM Reply	It could always be made more complicated. Howdy. It looks like you've been around here a long time, #129. You should post more. :-) Gender can be complicated. That's one of the reasons why I think concentrating on gender is missing the big picture. My view is that society should support families. It should encourage people to get together to support each other, take care of each other, raise children (if so inclined), etc. The difficulty comes in defining a family. There's a long history of ship's captains, and judges, and even priests marrying people. That seems to me to be a tradition worth preserving. Up until recently, and even now in some societies, multiple simultaneous wives were not uncommon. The US decided that was a bad thing, so it's not allowed now. There are financial and social benefits bestowed on marriage. There are also personal, financial, and psychological benefits to being married. My grandfather and his sister lived in the same house after their spouses died. They were a family even though they weren't married to each other. It was better for both of them to stay together rather than live separately. I think society should encourage that when possible. I think they should be able to claim the same tax deduction that a married couple could. I think they should be able to have the same survivor benefits of a spouse without the necessity of a will (though everyone should have a will). Etc. So how should a "family" be defined so that it fits with all of this? Maybe two adults living together who make a commitment to each other. It could be fairly simple ((e.g. my grandfather, his sister, and my uncle (who helped care for them)), or get complicated (an adult man with 2 unrelated women? 3 adult men with 5 unrelated women?). Should the government get out of the secular marriage business? No, I don't think so. Should marriage be redefined? No, I don't think so but might be persuaded. I think though that by conferring benefits on families rather than married couples would take care of a lot of the problems. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott. (Who now worries about the backlash from single people...)
Post #183,909 by Ashton 11/12/04 1:10:01 AM Reply	This fine Human suggestion is____entirely too___sane to fly amidst a bunch of religio-zealots who have just appointed a Certified Village Idiot (and coterie of fiends) to - shepherd their Bagman-with-the-Codes for Terran Destruction, at-will. ie Not a snowball's chance in figmentary-Xian-Hell of any such blindingly Sane legislation ever occurring! You Silly.

Welcome to IWETHEY!