![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Succinct, sure -- but above all, WRONG.
Just because (ONE of) the most likely "outcome(s)" back then was children, that's far from meaning that was the reason for those laws. Two people living in a close relation, usually living together, was an even more prevalent "outcome", and has several positive societal effects, as the other Scott showed. It's at least as logical to assume those were the reason for tax breaks etc. And since that's still the case, the presumption is that the laws are still just as valid as ever. The burden of proof against that is on you, and so far you haven't shown -- just claimed -- that procreation is all that marriage is about. That claim itself is still pretty much exactly the same as the religous loons are making. (And doesn't that in itself tell you it's liable to be wrong as Hell?)
--
Christian R. Conrad
Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi
(Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)