On 11/11/2006, at 2:21 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And there are polygamous stable partnerships already. They're rare,
but they do exist in "the West", and in other parts of the world
they're more common.
We do have quite a few of them in this country, and unfortunately, all
too often they involve they exploitation of women....
I'm sure that some do. Which is why a legal recognition of those
relationships would protect those women, and their children.
I still
don't see how allowing a tiny minority of people to formalise an
unusual domestic relationship makes for a "dramatic reordering" of
anything.
Its because people respond to incentives, and if you provide
incentives
for something, then you will get more of it.
So people only get married for the incentives? Again, it's a minor
issue, and you're protecting way more people by having a legal
framework and safety net than you are by banning something entirely
(c.f. abortion, "war on drugs", prohibition...)
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
