jo4hn wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:03:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.

In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
be treated as exactly equal before the law.

How about that? We agree on something :-).

But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever.
Yes
they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those
groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an
age
below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state
have
the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.

BTW, I ran across a sentence in a book today that reminded me of the
cults, etc.. "The biggest lies are those we tell ourselves."

Insofar as group clusters are concerned, we already have partnerships,
corporations, etc. People and animals (or vegetables) are covered by a
bill of sale.
kreegah,
jo4hn

John -

For the first time in my life, I finally understand "hot" peppers ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/