Thread: How marriage and government SHOULD work

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

What about negative externalities that come from private arrangements? Like exploitation of daughters and wives in polygamist sects?

Define "exploitation"? If anything is not consented to, then its usually illegally, ie if a daughter or wife is abused, raped etc.

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

It is pretty hillarious when the Police raided those mormons out west of the Warren Jeffs sect/cult.
They are standing in a room full of pregnant teenage girls but not a single teenage boy in the entire community is to be found?
You don't find anything sick about that?

If the girls consented, no, not at all. That being said, a good education is key to a healthy society. Then again if people are idiots, that cant be helped.

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

That's freedom to you? Exploitation of young women by much older men through religious and social force?

If the girls have the freedom to leave, then yes.

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

That is why there are anti-polygamy laws, to protect women from exploitation.

That makes no sense. Your problem here is not polygamy. What if the police raided a house that had one pregnant teen and one old guy? The problem you are describing is potential abuse of young girls which has as much to do with any current and legal form of sexual relations than the illegal ones we discuss here..

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

What's your point?

Only a man and a woman can make that agreement. A contract wont transform a lesbian lover into a parent of her lovers child.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Only a man and a woman can make that agreement.

Why?

Originally Posted by dixon76710

A contract wont transform a lesbian lover into a parent of her lovers child.

Why not?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parent
par·ent (pârnt, pr-)
n.
1. One who begets, gives birth to, or nurtures and raises a child; a father or mother.
2. An ancestor; a progenitor.
3. An organism that produces or generates offspring.
4. A guardian; a protector.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Why?


Why not?

???? Because only a man can father a child with a woman, marriage only creates parental rights for man married to that woman. Its the biological requirements of procreation.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

???? Because only a man can father a child with a woman, marriage only creates parental rights for man married to that woman. Its the biological requirements of procreation.

That's total bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Parent has nothing to do with biological connection, let alone marriage. You can have a single parent, for example. Furthermore you can have a guardian or adoption. You clearly dont know what you are talking about.

Why should the state have anything to do with what is and what is not marriage? It has no place to dictate religious values, which marriage is. Its only place is to manage contracts. In this sense any marriage can be recognized as a contract.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

That's total bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Parent has nothing to do with biological connection, let alone marriage. You can have a single parent, for example. Furthermore you can have a guardian or adoption. You clearly dont know what you are talking about.

No, quite clearly it is you who doesnt have a clue. Marriage doesnt transform a gay lover into a parent, guardian OR adoptive parent. It does transform the husband of the wife into the father of the child.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

No, quite clearly it is you who doesnt have a clue. Marriage doesnt transform a gay lover into a parent, guardian OR adoptive parent.

Correct. It is the individuals own application of the word parent that makes them such.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

It does transform the husband of the wife into the father of the child.

The word 'parent' doesn't transform anything. It merely means guardian of a child. I have given the definition. Anything deviations are individual opinion which the law should not recognize. As I say it only need recognize contracts.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Correct. It is the individuals own application of the word parent that makes them such.

No, their application of the word has no effect in the law whatsoever. neither marriage nor "application of the word parent" creates ANY parental rights or obligations.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Anything deviations are individual opinion which the law should not recognize. As I say it only need recognize contracts.

Like I said, you cant become a parent with a contract with one of the biological parents.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

No, their application of the word has no effect in the law whatsoever.

Those should be so and in a manner such that it is this way because the government cares not to determine what is or is not marriage.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

neither marriage nor "application of the word parent" creates ANY parental rights or obligations.

LOL Sure. I didnt think we were talking about 'obligations' I thought we were talking about ethical representations in law.