If it does, what should the defining aspects be? For example, should there be restrictions based on gender pairings, age, species, number of partners, anything else?
How do you feel about this topic, as a matter of law?
2006-10-07 15:46:26 · 9 answers · asked by MamaBear 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Yes. However you define it, the family unit is essential to social structure, interaction, and stability. The family unit is socially protected and strengthened when it is given a recognized legal status.
If there are legal benefits to having a legally recognized family unit, people will seek to form a family unit that qualfies. A simple example is getting married rather than just living together.
If there are legal dis-incentives to the dissolution of the unit, in addition to whatever social pressure there may be, then that will aid the family unit to hold together in the rough patch, and every family unit has a rough patch.
If the unit stays together to "make it through", than society benefits because the family unit is the building block of society. If the unit dissolving, then society loses time and researches while the piece of that unit are re-asimilated into society, and new unit(s) formed.
Thus, apart from the issue of what a "family" or "marriage" is, the answer to your central question, is Yes, a country has an interested in legally defining marriage.
2006-10-07 15:56:48 · answer #1 · answered by mikemckewl 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Homosexuals aren't going to have children anyway. Married or not. So the argument that Gay marriage will reduce the number of children is ********. Married people can make decisions for their spouse, inherit property, all that good stuff. Gay couples can't do that. even if they have been together for years, they have no legal rights as spouse.
The whole Gay Marriage Issue is a smoke screen created by the Republicans to appease the Religious Right. It also makes a great diversion. Because if you can keep people arguing about Gay Marriage, it will stop them from arguing about the war in Iraq, the loss of personal privacy and any other issue the GOP wants to not talk about.
2006-10-07 22:56:50 · answer #2 · answered by darthclown 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As a matter of law the definition of marriage is "a union between a man and woman". A domestic partnership is totally different and it should be maintained as a seperate institution from marriage; however, be worthy of the state's legal protection.
2006-10-07 23:04:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rephrase the quesiton you asked like this:
Does a country have a vested interest in growing their tax base with children so the country has a future?
Think about it- no kids, no country given time
2006-10-07 22:48:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think the government needs to be telling anyone what to do in their personal lives. As long as one is not causing harm towards another what's the big deal.
2006-10-08 00:16:33 · answer #5 · answered by JR 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as a women i feel that in order to be secure if something should happen to you mate if your married you can get everything your en tiled to while unmarried they don't treat you the same both side need living wills for every ones protection
2006-10-07 22:54:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The government has no bussines in that what so ever.
2006-10-07 22:49:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is none of my business who marries who.
2006-10-08 02:17:24 · answer #8 · answered by sillylance 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
man+women= marriage, no f-ggots
2006-10-07 22:48:16 · answer #9 · answered by goldwing 110083 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋