From: wiley@crooks.b11.ingr.com (Dave Wiley)
Subject: Re: Presidential talk
Reply-To: wiley@wiley.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:51:27 GMT

>Jim Mason writes:

>> IMHO, the state has no business in
>> engaging itself in the marriage business anyway; the social contract
>> is between the INDIVIDUAL and the state. 

Lawrence Hughes writes:

>What does the "social contract" between individuals and the state
>(...) have
>to do with the (considerably more real) social contract between a man and a
>woman who wish to establish a family?

Both being married and having children are covered by the tax laws.  But
I'm sure you know this.

>> But as long as the state is
>> going to recognize SOME marriages, it's going to have to recognize ALL
>> marriages.

>Say, between an Albanian herdsman and his favorite sheep? One involving an 8
>year old child? Anyone really think there should be NO line drawn ANYWHERE,
>other than this gentleman? 

Who's to say?  Any attempt to draw such a line would be to impose a set
of morals on people who may not share them.  For the time being, I see
nothing wrong with any two people who claim to be married being
considered that way for legal purposes.  Of course, why should marriage
be restricted to couples?  Better the government just butt out.

Far be it from me to phrase the Libertarian perspecitve on this, but I
will anyway.  I assume youse guys would say that abolishing taxes would
be best.  But given a choice between having tax laws which respect
marriage or ignore marriage, wouldn't a Libertarain prefer tax laws
which ignore marital status?

>> Admit it, hets hedge when confronted with gay marriages,
>> etc., because they realize these are areas in which they themselves
>> enjoy SPECIAL PRIVILEGES!!!!!!

>I don't hedge at all. And yes, we do enjoy a very special priviledge, which is
>the ability to create new human life. Not real sure how you are planning to
>get the government to grant that "right" to homosexual couples....

Objection, your honor!  Irrelevant and argumentative.   Move to strike.

>Now if the "special privileges" you are referring to are tax breaks for "real"
>married couples, it is not clear if these really exist.

It's very clear that the tax laws are different for married people as are
inheritance laws and others.  Why should this be?

>If you are referring to the ability to adopt children, in the event (which has
>got to be FAIRLY common in homosexual marriages) that you can't make one
>the "old-fashioned way"... I really feel that it is extremely unfair to any
>child to be raised by two parents of the same sex, and of a sexual persuasion 
>that the bulk of society considers to be abnormal. Such a child cannot be
>considered to have a fair chance of fitting into society, or having normal,
>healthy relationships later in life. Being raised by a single parent of either
>sex isn't a great deal better. The conventional family is a good solution that
>has worked well since before recorded history...

I disagree.  The quality and stability of the perspecitive parents is
far more important than any litmus test for social correctness could be.

>If you really want to live in a sexual relationship with another man, go right
>ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to consider it to be equivalent in any
>way with conventional heterosexual child-oriented marriage. Some argument
>perhaps could be made to equate it with (intentional) DINK (Dual-Income,
>No-Kids) couples, but not with "conventional" marriage.

Since I did not get married for the purpose of conceiving children, you
would say that my marriage is not a "conventional" one?  I would be
entertained give those people who you refer to as the "rest of us" the
details of my courtship/marriage and yours and see which one rated as
more conventional.  Not that I would be proud of such an appellation.
I've always prided myself on being a bit eccentric.  As a matter of fact
I count you as a friend partially because of (and paritally in spite
of :-) your eccentricities.  Perhaps this is something that you, Jim,
and I have in common.

Perhaps even we could agree on the best solution would be for the
government to butt out of the business of marriage and children.  How
about it?

--
david wiley              "The American passion for hygiene and dark
Intergraph Corporation    restaurants had made me start my meal with
205-730-6390              an hors-d'oeuvre of hot face towel."
wiley@wiley.b11.ingr.com                                   - Rumpole