Remember, Diversity is Our Strength

[owknows]

Well, SS benefits for example. Wife has access to them, especially if she were a stay at home mother

Again... why would this be any different?

If you have a notarized marriage contract, how would it matter?

I don't see your actual point.

[blah3]

Again... why would this be any different?

If you have a notarized marriage contract, how would it matter?

I don't see your actual point.

I don’t get your point. Govt provides benefits/ assigns responsibility when you get married. So if you want to access those benefits/protections govt is involved

[owknows]

I don’t get your point. Govt provides benefits/ assigns responsibility when you get married.

Yes. And I don't believe that government OUGHT assign responsibilities or dole out candy based on your marital status. Trying to use "because government does it this way now" as a rational justification for your position, is not rational.

So if you want to access those benefits/protections govt is involved

Even stipulating that government doles out responsibility and candy based on your marital status... HOW WOULD THIS REQUIRE GOVERNMENT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE CONTRACT?

Government does not demand you seek it's permission to enter into other contracts.

If I promise to deliver 15 bushels of corn for $200... I don't need government's permission to do so. Government isn't a party to the contract.

But somehow (mostly for traditional religious reasons) we've created a process whereby people who want to enter into a contract of marriage... but must first go hat-in-hand to seek the permission of the state. That's frankly ridiculous. But because it's tradition, we don't question it.

And if people chose to enter private but perfectly legally enforceable marriage contracts, they could be afforded the same standing as any other contract.

So even your arguments regarding governments doling out benefits fails. If government requires that you be married before it hands out it's bag of candy... then produce your marriage contract.

Not sure why you're trying to justify government intrusion into our lives, with more government intrusion into our lives. (In reality the answer is that you're fine with government intrusion provided it's the kind that you favor)


But let's not pretend that is is necessary. It isn't. It is simply tradition.

[blah3]

Yes. And I don't believe that government OUGHT assign responsibilities or dole out candy based on your marital status. Trying to use "because government does it this way now" as a rational justification for your position, is not rational.




Even stipulating that government doles out responsibility and candy based on your marital status... HOW WOULD THIS REQUIRE GOVERNMENT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE CONTRACT?

Government does not demand you seek it's permission to enter into other contracts.

If I promise to deliver 15 bushels of corn for $200... I don't need government's permission to do so. Government isn't a party to the contract.

But somehow (mostly for traditional religious reasons) we've created a process whereby people who want to enter into a contract of marriage... but must first go hat-in-hand to seek the permission of the state. That's frankly ridiculous. But because it's tradition, we don't question it.

And if people chose to enter private but perfectly legally enforceable marriage contracts, they could be afforded the same standing as any other contract.

So even your arguments regarding governments doling out benefits fails. If government requires that you be married before it hands out it's bag of candy... then produce your marriage contract.

Not sure why you're trying to justify government intrusion into our lives, with more government intrusion into our lives. (In reality the answer is that you're fine with government intrusion provided it's the kind that you favor)


But let's not pretend that is is necessary. It isn't. It is simply tradition.

Let’s also not pretend that marriage is akin to you delivering bushels of corn for a certain price either. Marriage is very beneficial for society.

[owknows]

Let’s also not pretend that marriage is akin to you delivering bushels of corn for a certain price either.

Of course not.

It is nevertheless a contract between individuals.

And a contract to which government is not a party.

Marriage is very beneficial for society.

True, and irrelevant to the question under discussion.

[blah3]

Of course not.

It is nevertheless a contract between individuals.

And a contract to which government is not a party.




True, and irrelevant to the question under discussion.

It is absolutely pertinent to the question. Because it’s very beneficial to society it’s a good idea to have govt support.

[owknows]

It is absolutely pertinent to the question. Because it’s very beneficial to society it’s a good idea to have govt support.

And with that, I'll consider you out of ammuntion...

[blah3]

And with that, I'll consider you out of ammuntion...

Ahh your presumptive arrogance rests its ugly head again.
Implementing programs and providing rights/ protections for an institution that is very beneficial to the society as a whole is perfectly within the purview of the govt.
Your but two people can do it themselves is folly as well as either person wronged in said contract is going to the govt to get their claims adjudicated.

[owknows]

two people can do it themselves is folly

Because non-specific reasons and stuff.

[blah3]

Because non-specific reasons and stuff.

Because if their is a disagreement or breach they will have to take it to the courts and stuff

[owknows]

Because if their is a disagreement or breach they will have to take it to the courts and stuff

Just like they do with any other contract.

It's a distinction without a difference.

[blah3]

Just like they do with any other contract.

It's a distinction without a difference.

Last I checked courts were part of government