ummm ... wonder which states would honor a contract with an animal or a computer or a tree? -- j

well ok. I was sweatin it for you a bit. no, actually I was wondering if it was close to my people in Rochester

tiny. how many motels? where do you eat dinner? how long do you hang out there? can you go fishing?

robbie

Gee I always taught that six sigma covered 99.7 % of the area under the normal curve or three hundred out of a million. If Jan is outside of six sigma then she should be 1 in three hundred. N'est-ce pas?

Yes, for 2 income earners with similar, strong middle-class or higher incomes, the complex tax code results in a marriage penalty. For those with only 1 income or 2 incomes that are very dissimilar, the higher income thresholds for tax rates, deductions, etc... results in a tax benefit (historically the more common result... perhaps not as much now...).
Those who clamor the most for redefining marriage do so for the tax-favored treatment that would be likely in their case. In the original story that spawned this discussion, the "computer" doesn't bring a 2nd significant income to the mix...
For the record, I favor traditional marriage as a historically stabilizing, civilizing force, as was alluded to in Mike's comments above. However, in our modern society, marriage (and the divorces that usually result) is broken, and divorce courts do not provide equal justice to men as they do women. As a result, in my humble opinion, modern marriage is the riskiest choice in life that you can make, and it usually ends badly for the man... While I would like to hope for the best, my rational mind and years of observation have led me to the above conclusions...

Who says? Why is "giving consent" the definition of who can and can't marry? Says who?

I'll give you a hint.. it's not something people came up with.

At a minimum, all tax-favored treatment of marriage, at the federal level, should end. I would prefer it end at the state level, as well, but each state can pursue the path chosen by their citizens. I don't think marriage needs state endorsement or regulation. As far as the issues of inheritance, property ownership, etc..., legal contracts would suffice, if the parties involved choose it. The state govt, at that point, would have a role in contract enforcement by courts, if needed to resolve disputes. If a state wants to offer a convenient marriage contract that is all-encompassing for the above typical concerns, that's perfectly fine. But eliminate the tax-favored ties to marriage, and you immediately eliminate the primary motivation for all of the ridiculous modern redefinitions of marriage.

Is that a serious questions? Only actual humans have rights. "Rights" are right to actions for survival, not to objects, products, services, etc.

Yes it matters: this is not logic!
Individual rights can not extend to mere computer interaction.