Misinformed

Post #373,022 by boxley 3/27/13 5:35:44 PM Reply	Misinformed State Marriage Interest is solely to divvy up the goods in the matters of inheritance. Historically that was the prime legal mover behind state interest in marriage. Now we have dna tests so the bastards can prove their provenance and get access to the spoils alongside the in house heirs. State should have no further interest in regulating marriages. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #373,025 by Another Scott 3/27/13 6:15:02 PM Reply	There are corner cases where DNA is problematic. http://en.wikipedia....i/Lydia_Fairchild I also do not think that the State's only interest in civil marriage is divvying up estates. Marriage has many purposes and many aspects. It's not just about procreation (or couples over 55 wouldn't be able to marry), it's not just about raising children (or oldsters and widows/widowers without children wouldn't be able to re-marry), it's not a lot of things. But it is also a lot of things. "It's a floor polish and a dessert topping!" As for whether the state "should" regulate marriage, well, that's a big topic. I've thought in the past that the state should recognize "family" - e.g. old retired siblings who were widowed and live together in a family home should have the benefits of marriage since they have all the responsibilities of a married couple (caring for each other, etc.) even though there's no sexual aspects involved. I still think that's a good thing to do, but whether it should replace state sanctioned marriage, I dunno. Cheers, Scott.
Post #373,044 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 9:04:50 AM Reply	If procreation isn't involved, why blood tests?
Post #373,046 by crazy 3/28/13 9:40:06 AM 3/28/13 9:46:11 AM Reply	I'm not your lawyer When you pay me several hundred dollars per hour I'll come up with all kinds of historical bullshit to support your favored historical stupidity. That's what lawyers do. But that's not my goal. I have no need to play AS to your BEEP. He was wrong then (sorry beep), just as you are now, and it is simply a matter of demographics moving forward as your viewpoint is erased, an old person dying at a time. The old people try to inflict their prejudice on the young ones, but as each young one gets to know (or become aware of) a close gay relative or friend (that's why the closet is evil, it allows people like you to live in ignorance which causes pain for many when you try to enforce your viewpoints), and that gay person adds a humanizing viewpoint to a dehumanized stereotype. Or shoves you deeper into your isolation when you deny the obvious and causes you to fight. Yay peer pressure and cultural enforcement of "norms"! And the days of YOUR norms are over. Either way, the viewpoint will suffer, as will the holders of it. I'd like to know what your kids say on the matter. Point them to the board and ask what they think. They are adults, right? My kids know this board, and it is always possible if they don't like something I say they will pipe up and contradict me. Edited by crazy March 28, 2013, 09:46:11 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #373,047 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 9:46:29 AM Reply	A typically non-responsive response.
Post #373,051 by crazy 3/28/13 9:56:35 AM Reply	kiss kiss Smile. I've raised enough kids to know I don't need to respond to obvious bullshit.
Post #373,052 by crazy 3/28/13 10:04:20 AM Reply	And YOU responded it is not an issue in above post So why would I bother fighting your standard bullshit when even you don't believe it?
Post #373,054 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 10:20:06 AM Reply	Heh. 2 more posts and still no answer to the question.

Welcome to IWETHEY!