Dustin! Ha! Comparing marriage to the holocaust. Don't get that opportunity very often. The rest is a little out there. Like people are lining up to get married, not to be sent to concentration camps.
Oh, but I wasn't comparing the holocaust to marriage (that would be absurd). I was using her means of reasoning in a far more severe instance. The formula for reaching the conclusion remains the same. Unless what is true today isn't true tomorrow.
And you say that "That either government sanctioned marriage is right or it is not right (there is no in between)." Well in fact, there is an in-between. The current legal status of marriage is a hodgepodge of programs. There are elements that are bad, and elements that are good. For instance, some married couple get tax breaks. Would you consider this evil?
That does not mean the means used to reach a tax break are noble. But at least we find a time when inequality is acceptable. Now I have to get married to *maybe* get an extra tax break. If I conclude that marriage is not a right, and thus shouldn't be sponsored by government, anything resulting from that wrong does not make it any less wrong simply because some good elements may arise. If I were to take over the US by force with an army, one might be able to conclude that this is either right or wrong, good or evil. I am sure that if Canada were somehow able to do this, we would brand this as fully wrong, no? But if the Canadian government gives us a tax break, is it then slightly more acceptable that they took over our country by force? After all, tax breaks are good, correct?
Also, marriage is a method of setting someone as your next of kin. This was discussed before with wills, but it also applies to visiting people at hospitals, living wills, and lots more.
Then if this is the case, married couples have more rights than individuals. So, I guess that those people who choose to remain single are second-class citizens and won't be getting any hospital visits for some time to come. Is the only remedy marriage? Because if the best remedy for "visiting people at hospitals, living wills, and lots more" then I guess most people are just out of luck. Oh well.
Of course, even if it's a bad thing, that doesn't necessarily mean that government discrimination is a good thing. Take public roads. They're expensive, and the more people that use them, the more we pay. Again using Elizabeth's argument, would you support kicking all women drivers off the road (I mean politically support it).
Knowing how women drive, my rational faculty would have women kicked off the road anyway. But you are changing the nature of the discussion. There are rational and irrational approaches to reducing that which has already been done. Kicking women drivers off the road would do more harm then good, and would not help in any way to making the roads more private (which is the central issue). My argument for reduction does not include, as I stated before a "by any means necessary" approach. While I would favor privately owned road systems, there are rational and irrational ways of going about it. But I can clearly find many levels of discrimination on expanding roads. Some people don't even have paved roads! Are we going to step up in the equality department to make sure Billy Bob 400 miles awy from the closest city has a nice road? After all, he pays taxes for roads and shouldn't be discriminated against for not having one.
Even if marriage really is completely without merit, which hasn't been proven on this forum by any means, it would be a hollow victory if equality before the law was dropped.
Then I guess since some people are fully taken care of by the government, while others are not, that all people should be taken care of by the government to ensure equality. After all, even if socialism is "completely without merit... it would be a hollow victory if equality before the law was dropped." And as for having to prove that marriage is or without merit, I guess I will simply cite Ayn Rand on the functions of government: "The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force. This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else. Everything else should be privately run and would be much better run." [Ayn Rand - Playboy 1964]. I'm surprised she forgot to include marriage all those years!