Why restrict marriage to hetero and gay couples? Any two adults who live together should be able to form domestic partnerships.
Posted Nov 10, 2008, 5:56 AM UTC
107
And that's why I rejoice so much when I hear "conservatives" say that gay marriages are destroying the family: because the idea of a family has expired, and the only one who really cares about is the church, which depends on the propagation of anti-sex mythos to lure in people.
1
I am an atheist. Whatever else you might call me in terms of politics, "conservative" is not one of those things.
I disagree with your statement, though. I do not believe the idea of a family has expired. It may be changing, hopefully to a more inclusive definition than it previously had. That doesn't mean we don't need "families".
Raising kids is too important to leave to the government and I don't see a lot of options for effectively bringing up the next generation that does not include a strong family unit of some description or other.
1
Raising kids is too important to leave to the government and I don't see a lot of options for effectively bringing up the next generation that does not include a strong family unit of some description or other.
Entirely correct. My point was, however, is that family, as a concept, should lose the special standing - and associated privileges - that it used to have. Modern society does not pressure people into getting married anymore, and not everyone looks forward to having children. So, abolishment of family as a special concept would be another welcome nail into the religious belief.
1
[deleted]
1
Conservatives seem to hate this idea because they think non-married people are gigantic sluts that need to be controlled.
But really, it should be just as the title has put it. Even if conservatives say they're ok with some kind of gay partnership agreement akin to marriage, they'll probably fight it to the bitter end.
When 2 people get married, and get a tax break, what do you suppose that looks like in the backs of the minds of social conservatives? "what? people get tax breaks for working together? Why, that should only apply to my corporation and not anybody else!"
I'm pretty sure that conservatives' next step if we win back gay marriage in the states we just lost, they'll try to turn it into socialism.
1
funny how when it comes to gay people you suddenly support marriage for all. But the rest of the time you go around warning single men against marriage with wingnut rants about how all wives are conspiring to destroy their husbands and steal men's sperm. Interesting. Seems more like you're only for marriage when it suits your reputation.
1
I believe any two people should be able to form a civil union and gain the rights generally associated with marriage while the concept and term "marriage" is left outside of government control.
Marriage means something in much the same way that "dating" means something. What I envision precludes certain concepts generally associated with marriage, mainly the romantic aspect.
I think two old people, friends who only have each other near the end of their lives, should be able to get a union, have all of the rights of marriage without being married if they so desired for whatever reason they desire without the stigma of being married (and the assumption of things like having sex together is avoided). The same is true for siblings. Of course, some of the rights might be redundant (siblings are family, for example, so visitation when sick is automatic), but why should that matter?
Edit: as a phantom reply pointed out . . . I meant two consenting adults as "people." Just in case that wasn't obvious.
[deleted]