Well I have to say even though I am trying to drop the snarkness I started with that you have got it the wrong way around - it is up to you to show your argument not me to guess what your argument is.
You've consistently ignored that the specific arguments being made are merely a side-issue of my original point. However, for the sake of my sanity: Dr. Hsieh argued that marriage provides an objective means of determining who's in the dating pool and who's outside of it. A person in a marriage is saying, in effect, that they are unavailable in a much more definitive fashion than, say, a person who's merely dating someone.
I would go further. Marriages are contracts between individuals, and deeply rooted, historically and legally, in finances. Marriages amount to the assumption that two people share financial burdens, operating fiscally as a single unit (obviously not entirely--they can still act individually if they so choose, after all--but the assumption can be made that things like houses or cars are the result of a mutual decision). This is particularly important when it comes to such matters as responsibility for children--after all, a parent assumes the responsibility of the child when they agree to give birth to it (and if they do not relinquish said control to someone else, which is always possible).
Rand argued that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and Piekoff continues that line of argument. Hsieh, on the other hand, is a bit more open about things. My view is, an individual can enter into whatever contracts they like, and marriage is no different. The government, because it cannot initiate force (nothing can), cannot force people to enter into only one kind of contract, nor can they dictate who can enter into it.
That aside I am not judging her arguments at all. I have not got a clue what her arguments are so I could hardly do that could I? What I was pointing out that no matter what ism/ideology people profess to follow they seem to always end up being able to justify them living the way everyone else does in their culture/society. It is akin to the very surprising fact that most Muslims are born into families whose religion was also Muslim.
This is judging her arguments. You don't know what they are, but you dismiss them because they result in her living the way everyone else does. How do you know she does? I happen to know she doesn't on a few issues, which she's very vocal about.
And can I point out that you have not yet given an argument to counter the point that someone else made about marriage and its compatibility with your chosen ideology (or if you have I've missed it) - saying that someone else has such an argument doesn't count.
Actually, it does. It's a reference to another argument. Scientists use it all the time, and I've picked up the habit in my communications. If you would have said "I don't know that--can you give me a brief overview of it?" I'd have said "Sure--here you go". Instead, you've merely demanded I offer an argument, and argued that referencing experts isn't an argument, a statement that's rediculous no matter how you look at it.
