Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:05:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
594 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > <snip>
> > And don't get me started on the marriage thing. Marriage is NOT a
> > right. It's a construct invented by organized religion and supported
> > by the government, ostensibly to provide some stability for children
> > in order to safeguard our future. Demonstrate an equivalent benefit
> > to society when it's extended to gay couples. Maybe someday, when
> > biotech obliterates the difference between male and female...
>
> I agree in the sense the government recognized marriage is useless.
> Marriage in the sense of 2 people deciding to spend the rest of their
> lives together and possibly raise offspring is fine.
Why do you draw the line at 2 people? And for that matter, why not
allow 6 year olds to marry if they decide to. Like I said, the law
is never going to be perfect. I just don't see how the proposed
modifications to current marriage laws make things better overall.
Sure, some folks will feel better about themselves and that's good.
But think about the hidden costs. Tied up in the government support
for marriage are laws covering dependent benefits. The money to
provide these benefits to a whole new class of people will have to
come from somewhere. It's going to end up coming out of the pockets
of families with kids. I say the kids need it more because as a
whole they are more dependent on society. They cannot work to
provide it for themselves. That's why the government is involved
in marriage, and that's why this change is bad.
Figure out a way to reform this whole mess for the better and I'll
support you on the marriage changes.
Don
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Marriage is also a formal statement of interpersonal committment, and the legal recognition of marriage entitles the spouse to benefits and responsibilities not available to non-spouses. (...) No need for that; many same-sex couples already (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
