Marriage should have no legal significance.

[Immanuel Can]

Why not? It was the progenitor of the US. Virginia was one of the earliest colonies, and one of the original 13. Last time I looked it's still in the US. It's taught as an early "American" colony in US history classes. And it's right next door to Washington, D.C.

Can you get more American than that?

[bobevenson]

It was the progenitor of the US.

But it wasn't the U.S., right?

[Immanuel Can]

It is today.

[bobevenson]

What are you, in some kind of time warp?

[Immanuel Can]

No, just well aware of the relevant history. Or are you convinced that Virginia is not America?

But let's jump ahead, to where you're comfortable recognizing the US: "In 1776, seven out of the Thirteen Colonies that declared their independence enforced laws against interracial marriage." Or "Between 1913 and 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. Only Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia never enacted them." [source: Wikipedia]

For me, the important take-away is not "America is evil," which would be silly, but rather "the early reasons for making marriage a matter of law in North America were not good ones"...which I believe is quite consonant with the point you were making...

[bobevenson]

No, just well aware of the relevant history. Or are you convinced that Virginia is not America?

But let's jump ahead, to where you're comfortable recognizing the US: "In 1776, seven out of the Thirteen Colonies that declared their independence enforced laws against interracial marriage." Or "Between 1913 and 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. Only Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia never enacted them." [source: Wikipedia]

For me, the important take-away is not "America is evil," which would be silly, but rather "the early reasons for making marriage a matter of law in North America were not good ones"...which I believe is quite consonant with the point you were making...

There was no U.S. in the year you mentioned earlier, and nothing you can say changes that fact. As far as marriage, it should only be considered a matter of culture and custom, not law. The term should not be used by the government at all, and have no legal meaning. Furthermore, so-called "married" people should not have any special legal prerogatives or advantages in the eyes of the law.

[Philosophy Explorer]

I would say marriage should have legal significance at least for taxation and financial purposes.

PhilX

[bobevenson]

I would say marriage should have legal significance at least for taxation and financial purposes.

No, it should not, it shouldn't have any more or any less significance than two people who are just living together. It is not the function of government to discriminate against people who do not choose to be part of some cultural phenomenon.

[Immanuel Can]

There was no U.S. in the year you mentioned earlier, and nothing you can say changes that fact. As far as marriage, it should only be considered a matter of culture and custom, not law. The term should not be used by the government at all, and have no legal meaning. Furthermore, so-called "married" people should not have any special legal prerogatives or advantages in the eyes of the law.

Hey, you and I agree...about everything except that America is free from anti-miscegenation laws, which clearly it has not been. I could prove it to you, but I think you'd get more and more angry for no reason if I did.

But like you, I see no legitimate role for government in determining the status of marriage -- either in conferring it, or in defining it. It's just not a job for government to be doing.

P.S. -- You might want to stop bolding everything. It comes across as shouting, which is something one never has to do when one has reason on one's side.

[artisticsolution]

Here is what Bob has issue with I'll bet...

He doesn't like the fact that, the partner in a marriage that has stayed home taking care of the children for 18 years, has legal rights to the other partner's (who has been out in the work force) money.

Bob is looking out for the right's of the person in the relationship with the money. Because, as we all know, everything boils down to money...."Fucking money grubbing life partners who have been leeches for years...someone oughta take 'em out and beat the crap outta them for falling in love!"

[bobevenson]

You might want to stop bolding everything. It comes across as shouting, which is something one never has to do when one has reason on one's side.

I've got my computer set at 125%, which I don't think is overly large. A large font in this forum is 150, and I cut it back to 125. Maybe you should adjust your own computer because bold 125 font looks just right to me.

[bobevenson]

Here is what Bob has issue with I'll bet...

He doesn't like the fact that, the partner in a marriage that has stayed home taking care of the children for 18 years, has legal rights to the other partner's (who has been out in the work force) money.

Bob is looking out for the right's of the person in the relationship with the money. Because, as we all know, everything boils down to money...."Fucking money grubbing life partners who have been leeches for years...someone oughta take 'em out and beat the crap outta them for falling in love!"

Common property should be split evenly in a divorce, but if some money-digging bitch marries a billionaire and divorces him a year later, the government shouldn't give her 500 million dollars, and a prenuptial agreement shouldn't even be necessary!

[Immanuel Can]

Here is what Bob has issue with I'll bet...

He doesn't like the fact that, the partner in a marriage that has stayed home taking care of the children for 18 years, has legal rights to the other partner's (who has been out in the work force) money.

Bob is looking out for the right's of the person in the relationship with the money. Because, as we all know, everything boils down to money...."Fucking money grubbing life partners who have been leeches for years...someone oughta take 'em out and beat the crap outta them for falling in love!"

Can that be right? It wouldn't make any sense to be hashing that out here...it's a worldwide forum moderated from the UK, as I understand...so why would B.E. be bothering us with personal domestic issues rather than discussing a philosophical question of how marriages ought to be defined...

But oy vey...it' looks like you're right, judging by his last response. Wow.

Well, I'm out of here...I have no dog in this fight.

[bobevenson]

I'm not just talking about people in this country, on this planet, or in this galaxy, I'm talking about the entire universe!

[Arising_uk]

I've got my computer set at 125%, which I don't think is overly large. A large font in this forum is 150, and I cut it back to 125. Maybe you should adjust your own computer because bold 125 font looks just right to me.

That's because you are a loon who thinks shouting in his head adds import to your words, it doesn't.