At 06:47 AM Thursday 11/9/2006, jdiebremse wrote:
--- 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.
On that basis, then, what did they have against polygyny? Or if the laws against that have no basis except that a sufficient fraction of the populace finds the practice by a minority "icky," why is that reasoning not sufficient for the practice being debated here?
-- Ronn! :) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
