Are women more forgiving than men? or she was more a president's wife 
than a wife only?

20 responses total.

It is rare a man who doesn't treat a woman as a trophy ( except in 
communist society).Very few men look beyond a pretty face and sexy 
lookings for companionship, intelligence and stimulation. In a 
capitalist society, the world is in between the stomach and below the 
stomach,it has two issues,"zoru" and "Zameen".

You also hate homosexuals.

Hey Poly whats this? How homo comes into the picture?
And as per new law Canada becomes the (safe) home for HOMOS.What's an 
improvement. Do you support the new legislation?

I do. Marriage is a civil/economic arrangement for sharing life, and I
see no reason why it should not be available to any adults, regardless of
other factors. What reasons do you see for limiting it to couples of opposite
sex?

I agree with Rane.

Ditto. 

Rane, would you limit it to formerly unrelated adults, or a certain number
of adults?

Are you referring to issues of consanguity and bigamy? Those would take
the issue to an entirely different level. I would have to consider what
is being asked of a contract involving people in such relations. 

Consanguity is an issue only if the union is likely to produce children.
When we get far enough along in reproductive technology for same-sex
couples to use their own germ matter for children, we'll be far enough
along to eliminate the problems of consanguinity.

Polygamy (inlcuding both polygyny and polyandry) is a different matter.
However, it seems to me that the changes to the law necessary to recognise
same-sex unions would be likely to make solving the legal problems
(inheritance, for instance) of polygamy much easier, probably reducing
them to trivial.

The union could produce children whether or not it was legal.  Legalizing a
union gives people economic advantages such as health insurance and
inheritance without tax (which the Republicans seem to have abolished anyway).
My two great aunts lived together for maybe 40 years.  Another friend lived
with his sisters until they died.  Should they be allowed to be an economic
unit?

If they're sharing expenses, they are an economic unit.  If they want the
economic benefits of marriage, they can get *most* of them through various
legal agreements.  About the only things they can't get are the ability to
file taxes as a couple (which isn't a benefit unless there's a significant
income disparity, it's a detriment) and the ability to put the other person
on their health insurance.  There are some other situations where it can
become a problem as well, especially if there are other antagonistic blood
relatives around, but those are the big ones.

In New York City, can two people rent an apartment with both of them on the
lease if they are not married?

This response has been erased.

NYC has rent control.  I think perhaps nobody wants to rent to two unmarried
people because this could start a chain of people who won't leave, and you
need to have people leave once in a while so you can 'improve' the place and
thus raise the rent.  My aunt's landlord tried to raise their rent when they
brought in their own refrigerator.  My grandfather was paying $90/month for
a five room apartment in Brooklyn until the mid 80s.  

I don't know, but they certainly can in Ann Arbor.

This response has been erased.

Rent control means you cannot raise the rent unless you 'improve' the place.
This encourages people to live in the same apartment for ever and makes it
very hard to find a place to live.  It also discourages the landlord from
doing any maintenance until a tenant leaves.

The marriage is not only a social prostituition but also a great 
understanding,feeling of togetherness and the dependency when sexual 
urges become less important.Its the strongest pillar of human society.
Everything becomes useless in absence of this one. So there must be 
normal relationship among human beings.Afterall the birth of every 
child shows that the god still has great hope about the human race.
Any abnormal relationship must be avoided and must not be encouraged, 
otherwise there will be mess and sub-human attitudes in the society.

I wouldn't put it that way, but I agree with the notion that society must
regulate some aspects of procreation, in order to ensure that the young
are mostly properly cared for, since they will in their time inherit
society.  It has been apparent, however, that what might be considered an
"abnormal relationship" is usually based on subjective opinions, and not
always well based in what best serves society.

whats the conclusion?

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss