--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The former of your definitions has only recently been added to > marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided > people make provision for the children of such unions (adopted, > fostered or biological), what business is it of anyone else.
Despite your cavalier attitude - "shrug" - you are, nevertheless, talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal structure. I don't know what "provisions" those are that you are talking about, but you are basically suggesting a social experiment on a grand scale with children as the little white laboratory mice. As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages (unions of one man and one women) because such relationships were fertile, and provided the best structure for the raising of the next generation. Now, pedantic types will point out that the State also provided the incentives of marriage to elderly and infertile couples, but prior to modern times, the number of such marriages was small (one rarely if ever knew if a couple would be infertile beforehand, and there were much fewer elderly remarriages), and in any case, such marriages didn't alter the basic societal structure. In other words, such marriages are historical artifacts, rather than the result of any conscious intent. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
