Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
No, though it provides a baseline. If couples wish to modify those standards they can through additional paperwork. Honestly it makes sense to have a standard contract that can be modified as the couples see fit. But because it's so intertwined into law - for example requiring insurance companies to cover spouses, requiring hospitals allow spouses to visit, allowing spouses to obtain citizenship) spouses lose a lot of protection as well as responsibility without it.
|
Agreed.
Quote:
|
But plausiblity and morality have nothing to do with each other. I don't think I understand your use of morality there.
|
That's why I said not with the weird "Christian assumptions." Government intervention is immoral as it slow the dynamism of cultural interaction. Depending on where you set your moral compass, government intervention is definitely immoral. (And by government intervention I'm defining as any time the government does more than its two obligations of protecting citizens within the state from each other and protecting the citizens of its own state from citizens of another state)
__________________
Overall, though, it's the bigness of the car that counts the most. Because when something bad happens in a really big car – accidentally speeding through the middle of a gang of unruly young people who have been taunting you in a drive-in restaurant, for instance – it happens very far away – way out at the end of your fenders. It's like a civil war in Africa; you know, it doesn't really concern you too much. - P.J. O'Rourke
|