Other:Why or why not?
Other:
What do you mean, exactly?
Are you asking whether the government should regulate who can get married to whom?
OR are you asking whether the government should regulate who they allow to enter into certain types of legal contracts, some of which qualify the involved individuals for tax breaks?
The first one. I mean all forms of marriage be they poly, monogamous, gay, straight
The government does not have the power nor capability to regulate who can get married to whom.
Since that is, at it's most basic level, simply an agreement between two persons.
Lol, the only nonsense here is yours. Marriage has always been the domain of governments for one reason or another. The only thing that has changed is that governments have become less religious as time has gone by. The only thing that could be said to be new here is the revisionism of those who oppose gay marriage. People like yourself really. Marriage licenses in the US alone go back the 17th century. In Europe, they go back the 15th century.
Before the Church, and in other societies, marriage was a social issue, community thing. In fact in the early years of the church, they had little to nothing to do with marriage. In fact it wasn't until the church gained real power that they regulated or cared about marriage.
People really need to read, instead of just plugging what they want to hear into their brains:
Race and sex, or they were.
Why or why not?
Why or why not?
Men adopting their girlfriends? Those are very different relationships. And benefits for children don't last past a certain age unless they're disabled. Can you post something about that. I've never heard of that.
But spouse, legal spouse, is the only legal relationship we have that entails a legally recognized kinship that comes with certain rights and responsibilities but also is equal for both parts of the relationship.
Before the Church, and in other societies, marriage was a social issue, community thing. In fact in the early years of the church, they had little to nothing to do with marriage. In fact it wasn't until the church gained real power that they regulated or cared about marriage.
And I see NO reason why the govt shouldnt be involved.
You can feel there is no reason for the govt to be involved but I have shown you the rights/responsabilities involved in legal marriage.
That is the reasons they are involved.
However even if you were admant about getting the govt out it would be a losing battle on your side because that is NEVER going to happen.
I'm pro SSM but I also believe that marriage is none of the govt's business.
With that said, I also dont believe it will ever reduce its involvement so I dont really bother tilting at that particular windmill. I see both sides of the issue, I'd just prefer the govt never got involved in the first place.
It doesnt go away, it can be done separately. Costs extra? Oh well. It would just create some new businesses, esp. for lawyers
And I already said I see both sides and dont really have a problem with the way it is.
But yeah...I dont care...I'd prefer the govt not be involved.
Race I can see having no bearing, but different sexes is what defines marriage, therefore it is in the states interest to regulate that. I do believe that a civil contract should also be legislated for same sex couples to legally enter into a social contract, but not as a marriage.
Good for you.
And "reading...it's fundamental!":
However even if you were admant about getting the govt out it would be a losing battle on your side because that is NEVER going to happen.
Yes it is
LOL Who says? Not the thousands of legally married gay people, esp in states that voted that SSM is also defined as marriage. And SCOTUS as well.
I find it interesting that you quickly dismiss the historical definition of thousands of years and billions of marriages for the fad definition of the most recent court case.
No actually it does. That is the only reason you can go to the courts and get married.
1.)Race I can see having no bearing, but different sexes is what defines marriage, therefore it is in the states interest to regulate that.
2.) I do believe that a civil contract should also be legislated for same sex couples to legally enter into a social contract, but not as a marriage.
No actually it does. That is the only reason you can go to the courts and get married.
I find it interesting that you quickly dismiss the rights and feelings and desire for marriage that gays want so badly and were denied for all those thousands of years (in most cultures).
You are talking about a definition. I'm talking about real people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?