You seem to think that having something be legally complex is enough to make justify making it illegal. Fox apparently doesn't. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? Any reason two non-gay roommates couldn't get married for the legal benefits? A man and his sister if they were sterilized? A woman and her invalid mother to gain health benefits?
Remember, by the lines that have been drawn in this issue, you cannot resort to tradition or religion as a valid reason to prevent these things. And "legally difficult" is pretty weak. So is my bloody tax form.
* * *
If you want to get down to it, there are a LOT of lines drawn in the law, many objectively arbitrary. I see no natural basis for suddenly assuming that children bust out into adults at age 18. Society picked a spot, and drew a line. The line has been moved now and then, too. What else are you going to do? Have physical and psychological "adult testing" every year for every kid? A reasonable discussion can be had for deciding where to draw this line.
A lot of people feel that moving the line this one step will not be a problem, and that they are being unfairly set up as the reason for the Fall of Civilization. Personally, I tend to agree. Other people feel that society will not be well-served by moving the line for marriage, and that the people moving the line now are not known for being satisfied with "one step." I'd have to admit they have a point here as well, particularly in a legal environment where Americans are forced by law to deal with people they don't approve of in otherwise private situations.
This could be discussed reasonably without burying it in political motivations from both sides, or assuming that gay marriage will somehow damn us all to Hell*, or assuming that gays being restricted to civil unions is the equivalent of being hung from a tree in the Deep South, having one's voting rights removed, or being forced to sit in the back of a bus.
.
*heterosexual marriage isn't in that good a shape either, but the causes for that is a whole new discussion.
Current Events » in reply to The crux of that argument is polygamy
re: The crux of that argument
The whole thread (101 posts)
- Gay marriage amendment
- The Inconvenient Question, revisited
- re: The Inconvenient Question, revisited
- OK, I'll bite
- The crux of that argument is polygamy
- First liberals had trouble with what the meaning of "is" is, now they're having trouble with the meaning of marriage.
- more to the point......
- A terrific error
- Huge. Huge. Mistake.
- What is intolerant is redefining marriage over the will of the people
- I've explained this once or twice before...
- What a coincidence!!!
- The terrible price of freedom
- Those Christians again -
- re: Those Christians
- No culture in Human history has allowed for same sex marriage.
- One explanation of the difference.
- re: If you marry someone who's of legal age in one state . . .
- re: Those Christians
- A BIG mistake.
- re: Gay marriage amendment
- re: Flap in California, or Nader's announcement . . . ?
- The Inconvenient Question, revisited
