Replies

People are supposed to marry the person they love, not the person you approve of.

Yeah I know, thats what the SJC of Mass said in their opinion and you're repeating of it verbatim confirms my informed opinion that neither you nor they have the power to redefine words by fiat.

But I believe you've shown yourself to be polyphobic here Luis by using the singular. Who are you to limit marriage to two people? Though I must admit your definition and the SJC's are magnanimous enough to allow a brother and sister, et al, to enter into a platonic marriage to access econoomic advvantages not currently available to them.

"Yeah I know, thats what the SJC of Mass said in their opinion and you're repeating of it verbatim confirms my informed opinion that neither you nor they have the power to redefine words by fiat."

By the way, as usual, you countered by attacking the poster, and not addressing the actual issue.

Hey John, do you think siblings getting married would represent a huge drain on the treasury? You seem to be giving more and more emphasis to this, to the point that one gets the impression that you are in a state of angst that this portends some fiscal specter that will complete the entitlement trinity of medicare and social security. I think that is just about the most most tendentious, probably empirically wrong, and marginal aspect of your case that you can possibly make. The financial benefits of hooking up are relative minor vis a vis the attendant financial risks. That's my financial opinion. Cheers.

And with my chalk in hand, I am happy to draw a line for you: polygamy and incestual legal unions are out, and unions of two non incestuous consenting adults are in, be they platonic or not. By the way, you seem to have ignored the "problem" of platonic adults of the opposite sex getting married for the financial benefits, which in the brave new order I suspect will continue to be the primary "drain" to the government purse. What do you think?