@roboneko @SpurgAnon
So, respond already.
WHY DO WE NEED A SINGULAR LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR EVERY POSSIBLE COMBIMATION OF LONG TERM COHABITATION?

@LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon we don't necessarily. I didn't make that claim. I'm saying that if the government is going to make eligibility distinctions then those need to be non-religious and non-lots-of-other-stuff as well. but it would probably make a lot of sense for various things to be explicitly split off into separate laws

@roboneko @SpurgAnon
WHERE DID I MENTION RELIGION FUCKFACE?

@roboneko @SpurgAnon
I have been writing my non-religious reasons for abolishing legal marriage for the last several posts.

@LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon at the start I said that you'd presumably need a non-religious justification to make such a distinction. while you've certainly made it clear that you're not a fan of the current state of the law you don't seem to have provided a non-religious justification for discriminating based on the biological sex of the individuals

or in other words I was suggesting that doing away with such a distinction wasn't without reason given the absence of such a justification

@roboneko @SpurgAnon
So, I will repeat that.

Marriage is extremely broken system based on 100 assumptions, 99 of which don't apply to straight couples. It's original purpose was to bond people together.

Now, the bonding part is optional, the consent is optional, and the purpose is division of assets on divorce.

And I do not believe, that forcing homosexuals into the same system will help them in the slightest. Not only would the "original purpose" not fit, but the current one is even more retarded.

@LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon

> It's original purpose was to bond people together.

purpose in what sense? there are plenty of bible passages putting prices on women and various transgressions. imo the purpose of marriage is and always has been to maintain social stability. historically there would nearly always have been children involved but even with that being different now plenty of the same dysfunctions still exist

@roboneko @SpurgAnon
> Bible
I'm not reading that bullshit.
Write me an argument, not some 2000 year old copy-pasta

@LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon I never claimed that you did. I point to it as evidence of how far back the history goes and to explain why I see the purpose of the legal construct as "maintaining social stability"

@roboneko @SpurgAnon
If you cannot write an argument without referencing that book, then you aren't capable of writing something worth reading

@LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon I mean this is hardly new. it's been going on since approximately forever because it turns out that there are a bunch of social ills where people will screw each other over and it destabilizes society

I think it's at least somewhat analogous to "abolish the police". there are plenty of examples of abuse but that institution came to exist for good reason. things could certainly stand to be improved tho

@roboneko @SpurgAnon
Sorry, but I missed the argument.

> There has to be a good reason
That is the premise, but without a good reason, you are admitting defeat.

Yes, there has to be a reason. And without it, this shit is indefensible

@LukeAlmighty @roboneko @SpurgAnon what are you saying here? that you don't see the social ills that marriage attempts to address? or what?

@roboneko@breastmilk.club @roboneko@bae.st @SpurgAnon
Do you mean the law or the social interaction?

Of course I see the benefit of 2 peoples saying "I am fully committed to this".

Marriage law on the other hand is a legal trade document based around creating the conditions for leaving. And that is the exact opposite.

@roboneko@breastmilk.club @roboneko@bae.st @SpurgAnon
I also see the benefit of two gay people committing to each other. And guess what? Their commitment is absolutely different on the fundamental level. And they do deserve the right to form their own boundaries without some fat politician fucking it up.

@LukeAlmighty @roboneko @SpurgAnon

> Their commitment is absolutely different on the fundamental level.

how is it fundamentally different than a straight couple who decides not to have children?

one of the primary social ills that marriage laws attempt to address are the things that happen when one of the parties stabs the other in the back several decades later. having older or disabled or whatever people unexpectedly left destitute is not in society's best interests

that isn't to say that there aren't serious issues with the current legal situation. same as with the police in many places. but even if they could use improvement, these institutions both exist for good reason

@roboneko@breastmilk.club @roboneko@bae.st @SpurgAnon
Why do you keep repeating "there are issues", while ignoring them completely?

A broken legal system is something, that cannot be allowed to continue, and you ask me, why shouldn't it be forcen on even more people? Because that will make it even more broken.

> A spoon in context of grabbing food
ok. It helps somewhat
> A broken spoon in context of grabbing food
Doesn't help at all. It is actually wasting your time, and it cut your hand.
> A broken spoon in context of what to eat
What are you doing? Why would you eat a broken spoon?

@LukeAlmighty @roboneko @SpurgAnon seem to me to be saying in effect

> don't fix that issue because there are other issues

and I'm saying that both should be fixed but that one wrong doesn't justify another

@roboneko@breastmilk.club @roboneko@bae.st @SpurgAnon
One wrong justifies not spreading a broken system into even more broken context.

What's so complicated about that?

@roboneko@breastmilk.club @roboneko@bae.st @SpurgAnon
So, again. Can I divorce you after we split rent for an year?

@LukeAlmighty @roboneko @SpurgAnon nothing complicated about it, but I disagree with that sentiment. I see it as an indefensible distinction being made by the current law. I also don't see the current law as entirely broken, in the same way that I don't want to abolish the police

@roboneko @SpurgAnon
They seem one size fits all, because that was literally the point of the law you're defending now.