You know I don't usually get political but the argument just wasn't logical
I tried to post this on facebook but it was too wordy.
So what you are saying is, that the sole purpose of marriage is for procreation. Does that mean that if you aren't going to procreate then you can't get married? Or say you found out that you can't have children. Does that mean you should get divorced? What if a same-sex couple got a donor and procreated. Then they should be have to get married, right? under the aforementioned logic? Or would the donator and the donatee have to get married? What about people who already have kids and don't want (or are beyond the age of having) more? Are you saying that THEY can't get married? Isn't that opening up the possibility of age discrimination too?
Sorry, Mr Lawyer for the defense, that argument doesn't hold water with me. It's all wet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I hear you!
Marriage is a religious ceremony. The law, due to seperation of state and religion should have no say, positive nor negative.
Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, with a covenant between the two and God. And, just as two same sexed people have the freedom of speech to call their union, I have the right to say it is not.
The idea of the state being allowed to say who can make a covenant between themselves and the Divine is ludicris. The only thing the state has the right to do is to enforce a legal agreement between two parties and to allow special privileges based on that agreement.
The guys and women I instruct, I tell them to not marry for any reason except the person they want to have children with. Any other reason for marriage lacks a strong enough reason to enter into a life-changing, and usually lifelong co-servitude.
But, if two same sex people want to make that legal commitment, they should be able to do that, and call it Fred for all I care or even have a say in it. At the same time, if they call it a marriage, I have the right to say it is not.
I was common law married as an Atheist. I don't remember inviting a deity.
I'll just play nice and shake my head because it isn't my blog to stir up.
I was asked several times by people why get married if we couldn't have kids. Not only was it rude to ask me, it was insensitive. Apparently, if you survive death a couple times and have your insides removed just to survive, you are supposed to die alone.
Sounds fair.
Heather, I hope I die alone. I do not want to take anyone with me. This isn't 1500 BC Egypt.
The problem is, people have bought into the idea that marriage is romantic. It isn't. The wedding often is, but dealing with the problems that come with marriage make it not so.
You proved my point by your own example. You had a common law marriage. You did not need a ceremony to live with someone and be devoted to them.
Would a piece of paper have helped that relationship? I sincerely doubt it.
I too do not want to have a knck down drag out fight about it. But, since GM brought it up, it might be good to discuss it a little.
The point I was trying to make isn't whether Gays or Lesbians should or shouldn't be allowed to marry, (although I am pretty sure my opinion on the subject shined through) but rather an argument against the argument that marriage should only be for the purpose of procreation. Granted, I neither need a piece of paper to love someone OR to procreate, but for many people that piece of paper means a lot. In their eyes it makes the bond real. To suggest that a couple of any sex should not get married because they are not in it for the procreation is denying that legal bond to anyone who can't or doesn't want to reproduce; whether it is by choice, not, or by genetics. In our current society, Marriage isn't always about children, it's about showing your community that you have chosen a partner. Something that I agree should not be dictated or denied by the state.
Part of the trouble is, that the piece of paper grants certain priveleges. So by telling me that I can only get married if I plan on having children, you are telling me that as a non-breeder, I am not allowed tax breaks, shared insurance, access, as it were into the same places that a married couple can go. Take the male/female out of the equation, and you are segregating privelages according to who can or wants to pass along their genetic information. This is why that argument doesn't hold with me. Because it starts to sound like a science fiction movie where Breeder=Good and Non-Breeder=Bad.
I do agree that you shouldn't marry someone you wouldn't want to have children with. But just because you can see someone as a good parent, doesn't mean that you can or will have children with them.
Meanwhile, not all states have common law marriage. I could have lived with C or D for all eternity but never have been allowed to claim them on my taxes or put them on my insurance plan. Should I have died, even if I spent my whole life with one of them, they would have had no rights to my property if I didn't leave a will. If he were living in my house, and my family wanted it so, this person would be thrown out on the street, even if he and I lived together for 50 years.
These are the rights being fought for. And it was the basic statement which essentially said that non-breeders shouldn't marry that got me all riled.
GM, you proved my point. The government should have no say in marriage. The tax issue is a different issue altogether.
The government should have no tax on individuals based on their income. The government should not give a tax break because there should be no tax at all.
If you insist on taxing income, then there could be a tax break for two or more individuals who agree to be responsible for each other. It should not be dependant upon a religious ceremony. It should be based on a legally binding agreement between all parties involved.
Also, it is completely irresponsible for a person who has capital value to not have a will.
As for being recognized by society that you are bound to another, that paper does not stop adult men and women from sleeping with others. I would wager it does not stop even the most devoted spouse if the situation was attractive enough.
What stops a spouse from sleeping around is their devotion to their mate. Their character and how strong they are to maintain faithfulness to a covenant they made with another is what stops them.
Post a Comment