- Joined
- Dec 24, 2005
- Messages
- 4,736
- Reaction score
- 824
- Location
- South Dakota
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Did you recently watch this?
No, it looked like a ****ty movie. But I assume it works with my idea?
Did you recently watch this?
what stops straight people from doing that now?
Can people do this now? I have no idea.
Your analogy doesn't fit. This one does. You own a shark. I own a barracuda. We each have pools where our pets live. My barracuda can't come to the community pool, though, because it has a sign that says, "all SHARKS welcome". Suddenly, we realize that both sharks and barracuda's are fish. So, the community pool gets renamed "all FISH welcome". Now, your pool remains, sharks only. But the community pool is now for FISH.
If folks want something that represents more spiritual bonding, they are free to go to the place of worship of their choice. I want to separate the concepts.
Politically, no. It is similar to pro-life folks. They are willing to keep legal abortions that are the result of pregnancies caused by rape or incest, in order to prevent all other types of abortions. It's a political compromise that is more palatable to some pro-choicers. This is the same concept that I am applying here.
Dav, I'm not saying that there would be any structural difference. There wouldn't be. But for those who are religious, there IS a difference in the bond... at least in their perception, spiritually.
The disapproval of the woman, I would assume.
Marriage is only considered a "religious union" because religions, like the government, have over time come to recognize something that already exists in a different plane - that of tradition/culture.
i wouldn't be so sure, women can go to any length for money.
No, no, never, never. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Yes, because there are no gigolos.
No, no, never, never. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
What's wrong with it? It's simple:
Marriage = man + woman + legal recognition
<fill in the space> = man + man / woman + woman + legal recognition
you are right in that Traditional Marriage is in the law now.
For many state's they have legally defined marriage within the traditional definition. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, no where in the Constitution does it say that all sexual orientations must be allowed to have an inclusive definition within the marriage covenant for all states. State's issue the marriage license, and they have the right to define what relationships fit that license. Our laws are based on the will of the people. It's tradition to hold murder as immoral, to hold theft as immoral, and to hold disorderly conducts as immoral. Those traditions are also laws.
The legal defense is that state's issue marriage licenses. Many states have formerly defined what marriage is in that states. A few have included homosexual unions as acceptable marital relationships. Others have restricted the definition only between one man and one woman. The legal defense is that a state and the citizens of that state have every right as a society, to define a social contract that is recognized by the law.
So then why is it ok to say "this side of the restaurant (marriage) is for gay couples and straight couples. Now, all you other sexualities aren't even allowed inside."
If the basis for argument is that it's wrong to disallow homosexual unions from marriage because it's unlawful define marriage as an exclusive thing for one sexuality, then why can't other sexualities along side homosexuality have the right to that contract?
Defining spaces in a restaurant and setting the terms for a contract are very different. Suppose there is a contract set in place that gives financial benefits to corporations. Is it wrong for that contract to limit the contract only to corporations and not to individuals?
Is it wrong to any contract to have any boundaries?
It isn't wrong for a state to define marriage, especially when the state's give out the licenses. They have every right to set the terms, conditions, and boundaries on the contract.
So then why is it ok to redefine something that has been legal for centuries?
Sexuality is not the same as race. This is like comparing homosexuality to polygamy.
Civil Unions should be the legal process for all citizens.
Marriage should be a private matter without the government involved.
Oddly enough, I think I agree with all you just said.I absolutely agree. Furthermore, the 2 need not be connected. If you wish to have a legally recognized and binding relationship with someone with all of its attendent rights and responsibilities, a civil union fits the bill. It should be a simple matter of contract law. On the other hand, if you wish to have a traditional marriage, you should be able to do so without governmental interference in accordance with your own religious preference. There should be a simple means of allowing a marriage to also be registered as a civil union with the government if the couple so desires, but it should not be necessary. Problem solved.
Unfortunately, it is not as simple as it should be since marriage has become entangled with the tax code, etc. This never should have happened in the first place. Undoing it now may be politically impossible, and takes some aspects of the marriage relationship out of the states' control.