No, but the populace does and they're already in the in the bag of promises and freebies for B.O.

agreed.

Allowing people to marry builds society. It is a strengthening of a relationship. It is a matter of security not just government benefits. It is not about tearing down society. Divorce is about tearing apart society. Should we outlaw divorce? That is the next step. Or outlaw marriage if you cannot have children i.e. any women who is post menopause cannot get married.

If communists controlled this country, it would be much different. Your framing of your argument as if anyone who disagrees with you is insane or stupid is a Saul Alinsky trick. Who is the one that has accepted their premises without realizing it now?

To be living in a communist country. And no, we aren't.

Heterosexuals are not allowed to marry more than one person. Maybe in the Mormon Church. Are you a Mormon?
The argument that if we allow two men to marry will lead to polygamy is simply fear mongering

so if it is true that "sleepers" were put into our society, do you think they're dead? might they have been one of your professors? have they all become capitalists?
Ayers is now for capitalism because time passed since he bombed and murdered as a COMMUNIST reactionary? President Obama is not the first President esp. since the civil war to systematically and purposefully orchestrate statism, and not likely the last. your point is that somehow with each new year, our knowledge increases and so therefore indoctrination of socialist/communist ideas less influential? finally, if Ayn Rand were alive today you believe that she would have no opinion about the changes in the US since the 80s?

So what you are saying is that there should be no benefits for marriage in taxes, death inheritance, etc.
That will never happen.
As long as there are government sanctioned benefits to marriage, it should be open to everybody including homosexuals.

and if someone breaks the contract, how to split the assets. did you see the one post I did where the wife used her former husband's banked sperm to conceive? interesting property debate .

Good point.

I think the need for a contractual agreement also has an origin in biology. This is because males can produce sperm easily and in great numbers, and further, it is in their interest to spread their genes as far and wide as possible. In contrast, a woman has only a finite number of eggs, and bearing a child is costly and fraut with risk.

So marriage makes sense from this perspective, as a public contract to prevent the man disappearing after he has sown his seed, and to prevent the woman from receiving the seed of a higher quality male while tricking the lower quality male into providing care for the offspring that are not his.

it was made under my post and I was insulted by it. I'm absolutely thrilled that you would ask for him/her to "stop by" and insult me again

What conditions need to exist before you consider communism has succeeded?

Collectivism doesn't necessitate communism. One collectivist minded president doesn't mean collectivism or communism has succeeded.

I disagree. BO has a collectivist mentality. BO is in the highest office in the land. Communism has certainly succeeded.

In a perfect world I would completely agree with you.

Even in a free society contracts need to be notarized. I can in principle agree with what you say, however in practice if no contract is filed with some third party either party could then change the contract and claim the other has done so.

A filing of a contract is a protection to the people in the contract. Now I would be all over the idea that this is a voluntary step, one which any person can choose to bypass and just have the contract singed by both parties available if it was not filed when you attempt to use the powers of that contract.

I for one want any contract I go into reviewed and notarized so that neither party can alter it later on. That third party is the government in most cases, but it could in fact be a couple of witnesses just as easily.

So to some degree I agree with you, but not completely because of the need on contract enforcement and the third party needing to have access to the original contract.

Does this make sense?

All of the words in that definition are not linked to concretes in reality, making them easy to argue around or use for whatever purpose the arguer desires. The phrase "protect the general welfare" is flawed for that reason--it is a floating abstract.

I have CUI on my Kindle. The specific essay is an application of Objectivism, not Objectivism itself.

Atlas Shrugged is about the role of man's mind in existence, not the difference between capitalism and collectivism. (Collectivism and Capitalism aren't even opposites of each other. They are different topics.)

Protect: (From Dictionary.com)
to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.; cover or shield from injury or danger.

The meaning of General Welfare changed completely in 1936 (United states verses Butler) but before that case (which opened the floodgates for all kinds of government abuse) the phase was a general statement used much as we would use the citizens today. Prior to the 1936 supreme court decision those words had no more power than to say "Protect the citizens"

Until 1936 that simply meant the government had a responsibility to defend from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, and/or insult. Much better wording would be to protect from the initiation of force, and to retaliate with force on those who initiate it. Liberals would have a much harder time warping the meaning of that to something else as they did by the 1936 supreme court case with our current wording.

The government never needs to be involved, whether you are speaking of a traditional marriage or civil union. My point is that it is simply a contract between individuals, needing no more government endorsement than any other contract between partners (and before it is stated, yes, I know that government has oversight in regards to business contracts and that you usually need a license to operate a business. I am consistent in my thoughts because I similarly do not think that government has any right interfering with or otherwise endorsing businesses in a free market. Government requiring businesses to be licensed before operating is step number one in establishing fascism.) Marriage, as seen as a religious institution, would be afforded the same protection under the First Amendment as any other religious practice. It is legal to purchase pork products, but if you are Jewish you are not allowed by your religious convictions to purchase these products. No one will come into your home and say that because pork is a legal product that you as a Jewish person must therefore partake in eating these products (which gets us wholly into the arguments about the Constitutionality of Obamacare being foisted upon religious institutions, but that will have to wait for another thread). Similarly, just because under my argument marriage would be an open institution with no government involvement or restrictions on who can marry whom, it does not follow that therefore your chosen arbiter of your marriage contract would be required to perform marriages against his will, for whatever reason. If you are a member of a church that does not support gay marriage, "Yay." Don't perform gay marriages. Your articles of faith are yours and yours alone, and do not affect me. Go to a place that will (and believe me, they exist. And under a free market more would spring up.). However, do not come to my institution and try to have it done, then get mad at my refusal and sue me. Freedom goes both ways - which is where we lost it in the first place. The whole idea that simply because an action is legal does not mean that it must be universally supported.

"circle jerk" isn't crap spouting? (And YOU sound intolerant of a difference of opinion.)

Unfortunately, if you tell the average American you don't think the gov't should have a place in marriage at all they'll look at you like you have 2 heads (trust me, I've had this conversation with many people before). I hate that the gov't can sanction a relationship and upon it's sanctioning the people in the relaitonship receive gov't benefits in the form of lower taxes. Private contracts can handle all of this and it's very frustrating that it doesn't work like that.

You posted videos from the 80s where people are speaking about how they operated IN THE PAST. The world has changed significantly since they were operating such that people no longer act that way.