|
Post by LauraJean on Jul 21, 2004 14:00:36 GMT -5
Wow, what a biased article. I think its laughable, the conclusions it comes to. I would pretty much agree with Dean in this case (though I'd need more info), because to me, it sounds like these two people wanted to get married for financial reasons. I would support there should be some type of agreement they should be able to come within legal bounds. So if an uncle and niece want to marry for financial reasons it's okay, but not if they want to marry for love? What if they are in love? Do we then legislate a minimum age at which blood relatives can marry? Wouldn't that be discriminatory --denying rights which are available to one group to another particular group based on age? I really only referenced the article to discuss the attempted legislation --not because of Dean or anyone else-- and to highlight that the "Slippery Slope" argument is NOT specious. As it stands, I think you've made my point for me nicely. Blessings, LJ
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jul 22, 2004 15:14:48 GMT -5
So if an uncle and niece want to marry for financial reasons it's okay, but not if they want to marry for love? What if they are in love? Do we then legislate a minimum age at which blood relatives can marry? Wouldn't that be discriminatory --denying rights which are available to one group to another particular group based on age? I really only referenced the article to discuss the attempted legislation --not because of Dean or anyone else-- and to highlight that the "Slippery Slope" argument is NOT specious. As it stands, I think you've made my point for me nicely. Blessings, LJ Sorry I didn't reply last night. I guess you made me rethink the idea of marriage as it stands under the law. Why, should two adults who wish to enter a legal agreement for financial or other motivations (healthcare, taxes, etc.) be denied this because these things only apply to 'married' people? If you look back to the roots of marriage, it wasn't about love, it was about transfer of property, stature, etc. It was a financial arrangement. What is its purpose now? We don't have the same understanding of it (well, some of us) as it once stood. Now, it takes on different meanings. For the religious, it is a union under their god. What is it to me? Why should I be only entitled to commit myself to a loved once under the terms of marriage? What would that change versus my current given situation (which is on 4 years now...)? Maybe we should separate all the legality behind marriage and really get the government out of our business. Well, when can one enter (on their own) a legally-binding agreement?
|
|