And with my chalk in hand, I am happy to draw a line for you: polygamy and incestual legal unions are out, and unions of two non incestuous consenting adults are in, be they platonic or not. By the way, you seem to have ignored the "problem" of platonic adults of the opposite sex getting married for the financial benefits, which in the brave new order I suspect will continue to be the primary "drain" to the government purse. What do you think?
By in and out, we are talking about what the legal definition of marriage should be? (Not what informal unions will be tolerated by law).
What's wrong with leaving it defined as one man and one woman? This is the traditional and sensible definition, based on the fact that their sexual union may result in children that need protection. To cause the legal definition to diverge from a very well established tradition and the states' own centuries-long definition should require an enormously sound reason. What is it?
I think the economic effects here are less than marriages of convenience which you cover below and which, believe me, I do not neglect. However, I can find no rational basis for denying them based on Lawrence and Goodridge. The economic effects to government from marriages of convenience can and, I believe, will be quite substantial if the trend toward redefining marriage gathers steam and it will gather steam if it is extended to homosexuals because who is to say what one does in the bedroom.
And with my chalk in hand, I am happy to draw a line for you: polygamy and incestual legal unions are out, and unions of two non incestuous consenting adults are in, be they platonic or not.
And thats why I like you, you take positions. Of course, you have drawn a line based on your moral precepts. I use that as a device to turn the tide when my opponents bring out the "who are you to draw a line based on your moral code" argument. But you already knew that. Of course I don't agree with your lines nor do I agree with redefining words but if those redefinitions are made by a republican form of government rather than judicial fiat, it becomes much more palatable. Of course, I would vote with my feet if my state redefines marriage but they won't be sorry to see me go. :-}
By the way, you seem to have ignored the "problem" of platonic adults of the opposite sex getting married for the financial benefits, which in the brave new order I suspect will continue to be the primary "drain" to the government purse.
Like I said, I haven't ignored it at all. In fact it is my firm belief that you would see many women entering into marriages of convenience and bringing their children with them. Not many men however.
What do you think?
I think we diverge on the question of redefining marriage but I think we agree that courts should not be doing it by fiat and that when courts decide cultural issues one side is always quite bitter. And I think we are good enough friends so that if the twain shal never meet on this or that issue, it's no biggie.