Comments on: Consumption Partners http://kerryhowley.com/2008/01/21/consumption-partners/ Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:28:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: liberty law http://kerryhowley.com/2008/01/21/consumption-partners/comment-page-1/#comment-1706 liberty law Sun, 07 Feb 2010 02:49:02 +0000 http://kerryhowley.com/2008/01/21/consumption-partners/#comment-1706 I'm still a little unclear on your entry here. Do you really believe this? I don't say you are wrong, but you'll have to create the best debate in order to convince other people that you are right. I’m still a little unclear on your entry here. Do you really believe this? I don’t say you are wrong, but you’ll have to create the best debate in order to convince other people that you are right.

]]> By: gwern http://kerryhowley.com/2008/01/21/consumption-partners/comment-page-1/#comment-1367 gwern Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:25:38 +0000 http://kerryhowley.com/2008/01/21/consumption-partners/#comment-1367 > States bestow marriage visas, and so bureaucrats deem it state business to decide what constitutes a “real” marriage. The old models aren’t just discredited; they’re suddenly illegitimate, false, based on deception not just between partners but between partners and the state. “Do you actually love him, or are you just doing this for economic reasons?” Because what has counted as marriage for most of the institution’s history suddenly doesn’t count here. I am not rightly able to apprehend this sort of assertion. Is it an attempt to say that marriages of convenience for things like passports do not exist, and measures like this taken against such marriages are illegitimate? Or is it trying to argue we should let such practices make a (even further) mockery of immigration regulations lest we offend those who appear to be false marriages procured just for the greencard but actually are real lasting marriages? Or perhaps the real conclusion is in the first sentence: marriage visas should not exist in the first place. (A proposition that would strike many as deeply unfair.) > States bestow marriage visas, and so bureaucrats deem it state business to decide what constitutes a “real” marriage. The old models aren’t just discredited; they’re suddenly illegitimate, false, based on deception not just between partners but between partners and the state. “Do you actually love him, or are you just doing this for economic reasons?” Because what has counted as marriage for most of the institution’s history suddenly doesn’t count here.

I am not rightly able to apprehend this sort of assertion.
Is it an attempt to say that marriages of convenience for things like passports do not exist, and measures like this taken against such marriages are illegitimate? Or is it trying to argue we should let such practices make a (even further) mockery of immigration regulations lest we offend those who appear to be false marriages procured just for the greencard but actually are real lasting marriages? Or perhaps the real conclusion is in the first sentence: marriage visas should not exist in the first place. (A proposition that would strike many as deeply unfair.)

]]>