marriage is a socialist institution

regardless of how much either member of a marriage earns, the money is pooled and jointly owned. spouses spend according to their needs or wants, or other agreement; not according to how much they earn on an individual basis.

sound like a capitalist institution?

no, sounds a lot more socialist than anything else.


use this next time you get into a debate about marriage. fundies HATE this argument because they want to be both biggoted anti-gays AND 100% capitalists at the same time!

But you describe a good marriage. I suspect fundie marriages maybe very capitalistic. I've know couples who do not pool their money and have strict "who pays what bills" arrangements based on earnings and contributions to the housework. Those couples are no longer married.

take two independent entities and combine their wealth and capabilities to make something altogether better. Oh...and nevermind the fact that love plays into it...

sP

allowing two people to do business as one entity, no different than filing a business as a joint partnership rather than a sole proprietorship. Therefore, this is my argument on gay marriage: If two same-sex people want to get married, go to a church. Maybe the church will marry you, maybe not. If not, find another church that will. But if you go to a JP, that judge has no choice but to marry you and give you the right to do business as one entity. In either event, the government has no choice but to recognize the marriages as single entities. Government does not say that two people filing a joint partnership to do business have to be of different sexes. I would venture to say that most joint partnerships are same sex.

and perhaps they should. I like the line, "most joint partnerships are same sex," because certainly they are. I think the church should be able to marry whomever they want...and to be able to deny CHURCH marriage to anyone they so choose. But, the state should allow marriage between any pairing. Beyond pairs? Well, then you should have to incorporate :-) !

sP

A century ago, revolutionary Emma Goldman deemed marriage as "legal prostitution".

Unless both spouses make the exact same salary, or if one does not share with another.

My wife makes a whole lot more than I do, but she redistributes the difference to me...we share it equally pretty much.

socialist. I guess that is why the ideal of socialism can be so compelling to some of us. If only it worked...

at one rather modern take on it.

I don't think socialism quite boils down that simply. Socialism is a system of economic and governmental control.

If you see Women and Men as essentially two halves of a whole (with Men of course the dominant partners, in most of these belief systems), than their unity isn't socialist, it's natural.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com