Quote
yurble
Personally, I'm waiting for the slippery slope I was promised, of poly marriages.
Actually, I want to make marriage a purely social affair and get the government out of relationships. Let people make contracts if they want, with as many people as they want, covering aspects of life such as inheritance, end-of-life decisions and financial support.
Allowing homosexual marriage is a step forward, but it merely expands the franchise and still allows romantic couples to gain legal benefits which are denied to singles, non-romantic couples, and romantic multiples. There are advantages and disadvantages to all living situations, and it is not up to the government to mitigate disadvantages to some situations or add extra benefits to others because this effectively promotes certain situations over others, which is not the government's responsibility. The government's only role should be expanding the law against "family status" discrimination to cover all family situations, or repealing it. (Personally I'd like to see more consideration given for people who want to avoid neighbors whose life choices seriously impact their own quality of life.)
As for the comment about marriage not being related to procreation, it's nice to see that. However, it's obvious to me that the government still does encourage procreative relationships, in a number of ways. Obviously the value of procreation is subject to discussion and it is not a given, though you wouldn't know that from how all western governments seem to wail about declining birth rates and offer incentives/privilege to those who prop up the pyramid scheme of modern economic systems.
LOL. You should have heard the argument a family member of mine made. He said that, even 10 years ago, we would have never thought gays could get married.
Now, we don't think it'll ever be possible to marry one's pet but, 10 years from now, that may be possible too.
I simply said that an animal cannot give consent, which is why we can't marry them. He then asked, "Well, what if it benefits the person who wants to marry the animal?"
I again said that animals cannot give consent, and they don't speak English, so they can't say the words "yes" and "no" in regards to sex.
Another family member thinks that gay marriage will open the floodgates to allowing it to be legal to force churches to marry homosexuals because they'll sue for discrimination.
She thinks that pro-gay marriage folks like me throw around the word "bigot" willy nilly to describe anyone who disagrees with us on this issue. I told her that, when people actively work to pass laws to make it so the gays cannot have the same rights they already enjoy as heterosexuals, that's bigotry.
I said that they are allowed to disagree with same-sex marriage and not like it but working to pass anti-gay laws crosses the line from mere opinion to bigotry and forcing one's religious beliefs on others.
She said that WE are being bigoted against THEM, the Christians. I've told them both that they lack critical thinking skills but they just don't get it.
