How about allowing them to marry if they adopt children, thus solving two problems at once? (Of course, we'd have to disallow any sterile relationship from becoming marriage outside of adoption in this case).
Better yet. Forget the marriage part altogether. Just give tax incentives to anyone who raises children. Even let single people adopt children (with usual background checks and high standards and such). That way it's not an encouragement to make babies, but to turn babies into adults.
I do see great value in a universally accepted, standard contract of union between n people, having all of the non-monetary benefits of our current marriage class (visitation rights, financial ties, etc...). I believe that the incentives offered (easy creation of a common and universal contract) are a boon to society. We should have a separate system of incentives regarding children. Not necessarily for their creation, mind you, but for their adoption and good upbringing. Offer any guardian of children these benefits regardless of how they obtain them.
I also agree with this. Why should two friends sharing a bank account be any different from two married people sharing a bank account? If I want everyone in the FRC to be able to visit me in the hospital, why can't I legally say so? We're not talking about government incentives here. We're not talking about tax breaks or bonuses. We're just talking about citizens being allowed to share with other citizens of their choosing without unnecessary complications and lawyering. If I get health insurance from my employer, why should I only be allowed to extend it to spouse and/or children? Why can't I pay the same spouse price to give it to my friend, or my cousin, or my neighbour who just lost his job?
As to the question of why the government provides those incentives, originally it was all bout child rearing - not necessarily "togetherness". The togetherness ideas seems highly flawed, particularly when the government continiually throughout history limited and continues to limit various groups from being able to be married (various races, homosexuals, and relatives).
Historically it was indeed about child rearing. If we continue to offer incentives for marriage based on the idea that we are doing it to encourage making babies, then in fact we should not allow gays to marry. If given the choice, I would prefer having no government incentive for marriage whatsoever rather than have it be an incentive for making babies. We have people making babies they can't afford, we have people putting kids up for adoption, getting abortions, and teen pregnancies. If anything we need a disincentive for making babies and incentives for more adoption.
If we are to continue offering incentives for people to marry, we need to have a reason for it other than to encourage biological reproduction. The reason I have given is the only one I can think of that makes sense. If someone can offer another reason for the government to grant these incentives, I would love to hear it. If not, then I think the only options are to grant incentives for reproduction, excluding gays and sterile people, or to discontinue the incentives altogether.
I am not saying that child rearing SHOULD be the basis, only that it was. The marriage incentives offer stability not only to those that are married, but to society at large. It creates an automatic "responsibility" guard should one person be unable to make good on debt, be incapacitated and medical/financial/legal matters need to be handled, and so on.
I do see great value in a universally accepted, standard contract of union between n people, having all of the non-monetary benefits of our current marriage class (visitation rights, financial ties, etc...).
If I want everyone in the FRC to be able to visit me in the hospital, why can't I legally say so?
Now I'm getting visions of an FRC communal marriage and a big, wide-open ranch.
I do see great value in a universally accepted, standard contract of union between n people, having all of the non-monetary benefits of our current marriage class (visitation rights, financial ties, etc...). I believe that the incentives offered (easy creation of a common and universal contract) are a boon to society. We should have a separate system of incentives regarding children. Not necessarily for their creation, mind you, but for their adoption and good upbringing. Offer any guardian of children these benefits regardless of how they obtain them.
This already exists, doesn't it? When someone is appointed a guardian of a child, they instantly get the responsibilities and benefits of child rearing, including tax breaks, legal decision making rights, etc.
This already exists, doesn't it? When someone is appointed a guardian of a child, they instantly get the responsibilities and benefits of child rearing, including tax breaks, legal decision making rights, etc.
But there are separate benefits regarding children that can only come from being married. Again, our archaic legal system has conflated the two issues.
It creates an automatic "responsibility" guard should one person be unable to make good on debt, be incapacitated and medical/financial/legal matters need to be handled, and so on.
The responsibility guard is one component of the togetherness I suggested. When you have more people in your family, and a greater social circle, you have more people to fall back on. There is more likely to be someone to pay for grandma to go into assisted living. There is more likely to be someone for emergency services to call when a person has a problem.
And even so, if the responsibility guard is your only justification for marriage incentives, I still don't see a reason to allow incestuous marriages. Family members are already related, and are often responsible for each other. They don't really need an additional incentive to be so. If they're the kind of family members who aren't responsible for each other, the incentives of marriage aren't going to change that, anyway.
People building responsibility guards between families does provide a real benefit to society as it increases the number of people to fall back on, and often forces people to develop socially as they search for spouses outside of their existing family circle.
I'm all in favor of the Universal Civil Union idea, but I would like some of our resident lawmen (and lawwomen (looks finnish)) to weigh in on the issue. Is there legal precedent for such a thing? Is there some kind of fundamental roadblock to the implementation of these kinds of contracts?
It would be simple to address the marriage issue if we had a modern, technology-backed, uniform legal code.
I am of the opinion that we need another Justinian-like unification and simplification of our laws, implementing technology to bring our system into the new millenium. This, added to a more open government and a simple, trustworthy voting system would make this country (and, eventually, the world) a much better place. If this happens within my lifetime, I will die(/live forever on the internet) a happier man(/digital entity).
I am of the opinion that we need another Justinian-like unification and simplification of our laws, implementing technology to bring our system into the new millenium. This, added to a more open government and a simple, trustworthy voting system would make this country (and, eventually, the world) a much better place. If this happens within my lifetime, I will die(/live forever on the internet) a happier man(/digital entity).
As much as Rym and myself like this idea as well, it is incredibly unlikely. Also, every science fiction novel says it's a terrible idea. The All Thing? No thanks.
They say that if we employ enough technology, the AI will emerge from the singularity unintentionally.
And you simply do not give these complex systems control over physical entities. The evil law AI can't destroy the optical disk and paper backup records, nor can it kill all humans, if you don't hook it up to a shredder/killing machine.
Yeah. The reason I'm against gay marriage is because it might lead to people having sex with trees. Trees can't give their consent. Gay marriage is just one step away from dendraphilia. If we allow gay marriage and dendraphilia, then having sex with honey bees is the next step. ONLY WE CAN PREVENT GAY BEE SEX IN TREES!
Very, very disturbing. However, one thing should be noted. It will swell for sure.
And you simply do not give these complex systems control over physical entities. The evil law AI can't destroy the optical disk and paper backup records, nor can it kill all humans, if you don't hook it up to a shredder/killing machine.
Ah, this is true. However, for it to be useful, it must interact with people in some way. It will have monitors, speakers, printers, and other output devices. If just one human helps it out, we're in deep shit. Remember, skynet had an entire company of people helping it out.
The evil law AI can't destroy the optical disk and paper backup records, nor can it kill all humans, if you don't hook it up to a shredder/killing machine.
*ahem*
People are this dumb. There are lots of them. Despair.
[multiple posts citing government incentives for marriage, and how these are either aimed at creating children or increasing social networks; thus, either marriage should exclude homosexual and sterile couples, exclude incestuous relationships, or such incentives should be done away with entirely]
Exactly what form do these benefits take? I'm assuming based off your other posts that you're not reffering to things like visitation and courtroom rights.
Apologies for not citing a specific post, the points relevant to my response were a little scattered.
And you simply do not give these complex systems control over physical entities. The evil law AI can't destroy the optical disk and paper backup records, nor can it kill all humans, if you don't hook it up to a shredder/killing machine.
Ah, this is true. However, for it to be useful, it must interact with people in some way. It will have monitors, speakers, printers, and other output devices. If just one human helps it out, we're in deep shit. Remember, skynet had an entire company of people helping it out.
There should be a Godwins law for Skynet. EDIT:Rym is right. If the machines have no hands, they cant pinch your ass. And all you got to do is to make sure everyone understands how dangerous the AI can be if it should ever get hands.
Even if the incentive for marriage is the encourage children, it still makes sense to deny it to gays, for purposes of simplicity. It is much easier to check whether a couple is gay than to check whether they are fertile, and this may not always be accurate. Allowing all straight couples to marry and no gay couples to marry is an easy way to deny these benefits only to people who won't produce children. Of course, this means that it also makes sense to deny marriage to people who are obviously too old to have children.
Luckily I am saved by the YouTube blockage at work. No tears for you this day!
Really?! Nuri, I think you are my soul mate! ^_^
Oh yeah. I cry at crazy stuff. Something will evoke my maternal instinct (Yes, I have one of those. Try not to faint.) and BAM, tears everywhere. Especially during those extra hormonal times...
Luckily I am saved by the YouTube blockage at work. No tears for you this day!
Really?! Nuri, I think you are my soul mate! ^_^
Oh yeah. I cry at crazy stuff. Something will evoke my maternal instinct (Yes, I have one of those. Try not to faint.) and BAM, tears everywhere. Especially during those extra hormonal times...
Ditto. And that commercial (which runs on Bravo here all the time, so I see it a lot) always makes me cry. Adam lunges for the remote to change the channel. He is usually mere seconds too late.
Comments
And even so, if the responsibility guard is your only justification for marriage incentives, I still don't see a reason to allow incestuous marriages. Family members are already related, and are often responsible for each other. They don't really need an additional incentive to be so. If they're the kind of family members who aren't responsible for each other, the incentives of marriage aren't going to change that, anyway.
People building responsibility guards between families does provide a real benefit to society as it increases the number of people to fall back on, and often forces people to develop socially as they search for spouses outside of their existing family circle.
Apologies for not citing a specific post, the points relevant to my response were a little scattered.
EDIT:Rym is right. If the machines have no hands, they cant pinch your ass. And all you got to do is to make sure everyone understands how dangerous the AI can be if it should ever get hands.
Of course, this means that it also makes sense to deny marriage to people who are obviously too old to have children.
My wife has to leave the room for that one.
Goddammit, I need a dog.
EDIT: Also, fuck yeah Keith Olbermann.