I thought we were not suppose to grant privelege to any group in america .
2006-08-03 08:54:55 · 17 answers · asked by playtoofast 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
you know you are in first place for best answer to my question! I have to say add peole with children into that mix (since they get the earned income tax credit) and you got me SOLD! Thanks, play...
Neddie, it's called 'gay marriage'. That's a different name
2006-08-03 09:00:55 · answer #1 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. Marriage is an agreement between individuals, their God, and their communities. The state doesn't need to be involved, no matter if it's two men, a man and a woman, or 3 women and a robot.
The argument that "marriage needs special state protection because marriage and family affect society" is bogus. Every private activity or relationship we have affects society at large, but we would never think of having a special government license for all of them. If we allow the state to meddle in the private relationship commitments people make, under what reasoning could we stop the government from interfering with any other private sphere of life?
If people still want the state involved in their personal lives, they should be able to create an enforceable contract regulating their relationship and granting whatever privileges they want to their partner(s). This can provide state protection to those who still want it without requiring the government to make any moral judgments.
2006-08-03 16:09:50 · answer #2 · answered by timm1776 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are plenty of privileges given to people in this country. Afirmative Action gives preference/privilege to minorities,having a driver's license is a privilege,not a right. If marriage is seen as a privilege because of the rights it may give to someone,then I have no problem with the gay community having the same rights, except the right to call it marriage. If they'd like to call it a civil union or partnership--fine.
2006-08-03 16:12:33 · answer #3 · answered by Kennyp 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I actually like this idea. Married people get all sorts of perks and privileges that the rest of us do not, and I don't think it's fair.
Let's compare a married couple to a couple simply living together. The married couple gets tax breaks, but the single couple pays a much higher rate. The married couple can get on one insurance plan costing their employer a lot of money. The single couple must provide their own health care.
If one of the married couple dies, the surviving spouse gets ownership of everything without taxes. The remaining single loses 1/2 of everything to inheritance taxes - and that's only if they have a will stating that you get it!
There are a hundred other benefits to married people that the rest of us must pay for. I agree. I'm sick of it. Allow religious weddings, but no more legal ones. It's not the government's business.
2006-08-03 15:57:45 · answer #4 · answered by FozzieBear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. and the marriage thing has been working throughout human history, not just here in the "western world". this is one sleeping dog that deserves to be left alone. the arguement is that since marriages break up anyhow, what does it matter about the sexual orientation of the people marrying? it matters PLENTY! a Marriage is a committment to care for the other person in your for the REST OF YOUR LIFE, sex or no sex. it is a committment to care for the children of that marital union and to put their welfare above your own.
2006-08-03 16:01:19 · answer #5 · answered by blkrose65 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and I think we should flatten the White House with a bulldozer while the current occupant is inside playing pocket pool. That would also solve a lot of problems.
2006-08-03 16:00:10 · answer #6 · answered by Austin W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only reason I can see that marriage is a benefit is to the children. They require the protections involved in a marital situation.
2006-08-03 16:07:56 · answer #7 · answered by essentiallysolo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don´t agree, I think that the family unit needs the protection. But yes, I don´t mind if that family unit consists out of alternative mixes.
2006-08-03 15:58:53 · answer #8 · answered by Gungnir 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting theory. I doubt it would catch on, though. Marriage is in the bible and as long as the religous run the country, it would be difficult to change it.
2006-08-03 15:59:26 · answer #9 · answered by bluejacket8j 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.We should end the christian supremacy and arrogance that has justified walking all over gay couples in the first place.
2006-08-03 15:58:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋