"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
My friend recently got married to a Muslim man and it did not involve a provincial marriage license whatsoever. In Islam, the only thing that validates marriage is the vows between partners and the marriage in the eyes of their community. They'll only seek a marriage license if they want state benefits, and that, in my view, is what this argument is actually about. Too many bigots hide behind the idea that your marriage isn't real unless it's licensed, and yet they protest expansion of government powers; well, look in the mirror, bucko. Marriage is about families and communities, period. Two gay people can and do get married, and it's legitimate to those who matter most.
The ceremony is irrelevant to the state licensing process. People can have any religious or community ceremony they want. This is about one type of partnership getting benefits while other types of partners are excluded, even though all kinds of partnerships are involved in raising children. If heterosexuals get to receive benefits using my tax dollars, then I should get the same benefits when I someday marry a man. It's just that simple. And I want homosexual parents to have all the state benefits that heterosexuals get for raising their families. Conservatives who claim to be about family values hypocritically gloss over this fact in their non-stop tirade against homosexual equality.
Separate but equal does not work. Every argument I've heard against marriage are arguments that have been generated by neo-con think tanks in the United States. They use specific legal and constitutional minutiae to bog down the argument. The bottom line is, this is an equality issue, and it won't rest until equilibrium is reached. That day will come, and the conservative right can either accept that fact, or live in misery. Either way, I don't give a toss what they think. Most of the Western world embraces licensing for homosexual partnerships. The U.S. is just a little slow on the uptake, but it'll come around.
I'm also not interested in what people think the historical relationship is to modern marriage. The issue is so diverse globally that there is no 'correct' answer. You can isolate any culture you want to prove your point. This is about the rights of the people in modern society, in your country, and issues relevant to now. I don't really care what some society did in the bronze age.
You asked "do you want to marry a non related adult"...I can't marry a non-related adult if I or that adult are already married.
By your logic polygamists are not being treated equally.
You didn't include a marriage qualifier in your question so I'm free to assume whatever value for that attribute I see fit and argue accordingly.
I would argue that a person does have a strong control over exactly who they love, but that wasn't your point.
Last edited by Jerry; 10-24-09 at 12:35 PM.
Swat the mosquito and scratch the itch.
If you don't like my opinion, don't ask for my voteOriginally Posted by ballot
Last edited by Jerry; 10-24-09 at 12:48 PM.
This world needs more Philip Spooners! The man is a hero
~Following My Own Flow~