I think he meant that the only status the state should care about (for the purpose of giving tax breaks, etc…) is the status of parent. Parent-child becoming the only “family unit” that matters, legally.
It surely does if you want to argue that the state should recognize it.
“I want a special state recognition/special rights/special exemptions for the kind of association I’m involved in” “What is it for?” “Does it matter?”.
Arguing that marriage is an outdated concept is considered at a very least as a strong hint that you’re homophobic, on this board, apparently(*). Hence the strong reactions.
(*) The reasonning being that you probably want to get rid of marriage because now gays can have it, and you prefer to spoil it for everybody rather than let them have a taste of it. That’s supposed to make sense.
I didn’t see the insult there.
Disagreeing with somebody is not an insult, except in Bizarro World, aka apparently the USA in 2014.
Once again-this is a message board, not a blog.
And how ‘bout that Jim Brown? He was really somethin’, wasn’t he?
Really. 
Nuclear, toxic-get it? 
Yes; in SmaptiLand, it leads to the formation of emotional bonds, which in turn lead to the likelihood that an individual might put himself at risk of death for the sake of saving the life of his own offspring or sexual partner.
And death is the worst possible thing that can happen to anyone. Everyone has a basic biological duty to remain alive by any means necessary until they achieve the age of twenty-nine years, three hundred sixty-four days, at which time they proceed to the Carousel, where they are lifted up into eternal, uhhh, living. . . ness. Or something.
What does sex have to do with marriage? I do not recall any questions about sexual behaviour when The Wife and I got a marriage license, and no Marriage Police are peeking in our windows.
Of course, things may have changed in the thirty years, I wouldn’t know.
I read this, twice, as John Brown. And it was weird.
Bullshit. In ye olden days, women worked - and worked hard. Staying home, doing nothin’ but raising the kids? A relatively recent luxury.
Read the actual words I used which do not imply that women did not work at home, just that few had formal ‘jobs’ outside the home- we are talking middle ages to nineteenth century here. Women with children (one of the prime purposes of marriage) usually worked at home in their child bearing years. This could include spinning, weaving etc with home based work.
Hang on. Are they going to abolish marriage in an independent Scotland or something? 
Few people - women or men - had “formal ‘jobs’ outside the home” from the Middle Ages and until the Industrial Revolution. And when the husband is tilling the soil, and the woman is right beside him tilling the very same soil, that’s not a situation where the husband is “economically active” while the wife has “little place in the working world.”
While women had children they rarely worked outside the home. Women tended to produce children every other year from marriage to menopause. The feudal system saw men working for the estate and mothers working at home. Under industrialisation women might work part time at home spinning or weaving while child rearing.
We know that in 14th century Paris, “there were women barbers, apothecaries, armorers, shipwrights, tailors and spurriers,” as well as female “masons, carpenters, makers of doors and diggers of gravel.”
We also know that English women were involved in “stone-picking, weeding, haymaking and turnip-hoeing” as well as “reaping,” and that well into the 18th century, English women involved in reaping “were paid the same rates for the job as men, and sometimes even higher rates.” That writer concludes that “contemporary evidence suggests that women there [in northern England] continued to do much the same work, and that no marked sexual division of labour revealed itself before the end of the century.”
So, once again, when you claim that
the facts are simply not on your side.
By way of clarification, I posted that because the only post Mr. Jones ever made that WASN’T in some way about how we must keep marriage out of the hands of the people who have buttsecks (even if it meant abolishing state recognition of it) was about how Jim Brown was the greatest football player in the NFL, while he was playing.
My belief is that every person should take a moment and consider whether their deeply held philosophical convictions are directly lifted from the plot of a mediocre Young Adult novel, and if so, to reconsider them.