CW:
Same sex couples can already get married in churches without government recognition if the church will allow it. I can get married without the government's permission. I could get married without any government interaction at all, I simply wouldn't have a marriage license or receive the societal benefits/status of a legal marriage. If this is what homosexuals really wanted, they could have it already. I guess this is why I have been against legal recognition all along.
M: I think this is unfair and does not hit the mark. When I speak of a loving commitment in marriage I refer specifically to the legal commitment one makes to ones spouse. Loads of people live together and presumably love each other but don't what the burden of a legal commitment. It is that binding oath and the legal obligations that are the external proof and reflection of that inner love that gives marriage social prestige, in my opinion. By denying gays the right to take on those legal bonds as any other married couple can you deny them the right to cement their relationship as a legally binding affair. You would give them a second class marriage.
CW: So, as MoonBeam said, if you want to get married for love (not for status/benefits), you can find a church that will marry you, regardless of sexual orientation/gender/what have you. If you are interested in status and benefits, which I still submit are conferred based on the idea of a couple's ability to perpetuate society via childbirth, then you require legal recognition of your marriage.
M: The status and benefits are not conferred based on the ability to perpetuate society via childbirth as such. They are conferred based on the fact that the marriage is a legally binding agreement between people to care for one another and that from that fact there arises in society a stable platform from which children will be raised in nurturing security. This platform with all its status and benefits is granted to couples long before they prove they can bare children of their own because even if they can't they will provide the best situation for those who wish to adopt. By presuming otherwise you are placing the welfare of children and the future of society second not first. You will deny some parentless children a stable loving home. It is of these children I think we should look to first rather than that some who have no children will receive tax benefits. And besides many married couples will intentionally have no children. Surely it would be more logical, from your point of view, to argue to eliminate the marriage benefits until a couple has children in one way or another or else ask them to repay all benefits at the end of life if they have no children, no?
Same sex couples can already get married in churches without government recognition if the church will allow it. I can get married without the government's permission. I could get married without any government interaction at all, I simply wouldn't have a marriage license or receive the societal benefits/status of a legal marriage. If this is what homosexuals really wanted, they could have it already. I guess this is why I have been against legal recognition all along.
M: I think this is unfair and does not hit the mark. When I speak of a loving commitment in marriage I refer specifically to the legal commitment one makes to ones spouse. Loads of people live together and presumably love each other but don't what the burden of a legal commitment. It is that binding oath and the legal obligations that are the external proof and reflection of that inner love that gives marriage social prestige, in my opinion. By denying gays the right to take on those legal bonds as any other married couple can you deny them the right to cement their relationship as a legally binding affair. You would give them a second class marriage.
CW: So, as MoonBeam said, if you want to get married for love (not for status/benefits), you can find a church that will marry you, regardless of sexual orientation/gender/what have you. If you are interested in status and benefits, which I still submit are conferred based on the idea of a couple's ability to perpetuate society via childbirth, then you require legal recognition of your marriage.
M: The status and benefits are not conferred based on the ability to perpetuate society via childbirth as such. They are conferred based on the fact that the marriage is a legally binding agreement between people to care for one another and that from that fact there arises in society a stable platform from which children will be raised in nurturing security. This platform with all its status and benefits is granted to couples long before they prove they can bare children of their own because even if they can't they will provide the best situation for those who wish to adopt. By presuming otherwise you are placing the welfare of children and the future of society second not first. You will deny some parentless children a stable loving home. It is of these children I think we should look to first rather than that some who have no children will receive tax benefits. And besides many married couples will intentionally have no children. Surely it would be more logical, from your point of view, to argue to eliminate the marriage benefits until a couple has children in one way or another or else ask them to repay all benefits at the end of life if they have no children, no?
for falling into that.
Facebook
Twitter