Should gay marriage become legal?
3 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 9 previous comments
- regardless of whether you're married or not Wills still require lawyers to muddle through the mumbo jumbo and families and doctors still are part of the hospital equation. But the federal government in today's marriage laws or in the one I described shouldn't require their meddling. Only reason I addressed wills and hospitals was because it was brought up.
In respects to the naturalization in this scenario I know one needs to be married. What I was getting at was that marrying someone still requires you go to the legal process. That's all I was implying. Your application stating your marriage to a citizen should be looked upon with more consideration for approval.
Wait, what? Marriage was about women being protected and men needing secured sex?
Sure people have done that, which sucks because it dilutes what we hold it to be. But if people want to marry for love, secured sex, or for the niceties, how to stop that? I have no desire to say, “ok, new marriage law: no marrying unless its for love" that's redefining marriage in a different way.
I still hold that there is no reason to keep government in the business of defining which marriages are legal or not legal. That has always been my position.
“...it is so nice to have a system that gives your SO automatic rights over your life and will..."
That, my friend is scary, because a government that gives you rights can readily take them away. Your rights come from being a human and from a creator and that creator isn't your mom, dad or the government.
If you were wondering the movie last night was good. :-)Feb 28, 2013
- I'm of the opinion that is a constitutional rights issue; both in regards to freedom of speech (expression) and freedom of religion. Ergo, it should not have been illegal in the first place.Mar 4, 2013
- , there should be an easy way to set all that stuff up that doesn't involve a historically religious event. Perhaps just a simple standard contract that the government has two people sign. Unraveling that contract would, of course, be as difficult as getting a divorce. Then civil rights would apply much more easily since two men should be able to make a contract with each other. Since marriage wouldn't be recognized by the government at all, they wouldn't have to spend all this time figuring out if it should be legal or illegal, when they shouldn't have been involved in the first place.Mar 4, 2013
- Well marriage has long stopped being religious (I mean, it was never really supposed to be religious. It was a way for women to force men into taking care of the children by controlling sex, and that happened much before modern humans even existed). Nowadays it is a way for the gov't to keep track of who is with who for, again, life decisions, benefits, etc etc.
"Your rights come from being a human and from a creator and that creator isn't your mom, dad or the government. "
Well that is where we differ. I don't believe that human rights is a "thing" (some natural thing that exists). Human rights are the things we humans things are "right" (where right changes from culture to culture, from person to person), and the ability for someone to enforce these "good things". All we can hope for is that the person enforcing these laws (the strongest person) has a perception of what is "right" that is comprisable with the greater majority of the people's perception of what is right.
Of course you don't (fundamentally) believe that, so no point in arguing that. Good day.Mar 4, 2013
- I don't want to leave my hopes in humanity to defend rights. History should be a glowing example of what relying and hoping on humanity leads us to.
Mar 4, 2013
- "Well marriage has long stopped being religious"
Well at least in America (since that is the jurisdiction and government we are talking about) a vast majority of marriages take place in churches and have religious leaders presiding over them. So I would say you are wrong.
"it is a way for the gov't to keep track of who is with who for, again, life decisions, benefits, etc etc."
If that is the case, then a simple standard contractual agreement would be a far better solution. Since if people want to be together, they will. And if the government wants accurate information, then it is silly to make laws saying some people can marry while others cannot. If it was a simple contract, then anyone over the age of 18 could easily and legally sign it. What is the disadvantage of that solution?Mar 4, 2013