maybe I should turn muslim and have 4 wives then
we have a law defining marriage already but the libs and homo’s want to over turn the law to suit their perverted mental sickness
Did you have to put down your banjo to post that?
Marriage is a religious institution, and the state has no business with it.
However, the family is the foundational unit of society. Without families, society as we know it cannot exist. Government has a compelling interest in furthering society, and opposite-sex couples are how we do that.
I am fine with the elimination of prohibitions against same-sex couples being together. And I think they should have the same right of individual contracts as anybody else, so if they want to leave money to each other, or allow each other to make medical decisions, go right ahead.
But I don’t think the state should have to give them special benefits. There’s no purpose for the state to encourage same-sex couples. However, there IS a purpose for the state to encourage opposite-sex couples. If they don’t people will procreate, but won’t get married, the mothers will be single moms which puts additional burden on the state, and children without parents of both sexes grow up generally less adapted than others.
There’s no purpose in encouraging same-sex couples, because if a same-sex couple decides to sleep around, they can’t have children, so there’s no change they will end up as single parents.
It is so obvious why the state has a compelling reason to encourage long-term relationships between opposite-sex couples, for the good of society because they are the ones who can make children.
And it is equally obvious that, other than that SPECIFIC benefit to the state, the state has NO interest in who is living with whom, or what their relationship is like or how they decide to share their burdens and responsibilities.
Therefore, the state should NOT have same-sex unions, only opposite-sex unions.
I will note that some people argue that only couples with children should get the benefits. First, any opposite-sex couple theoretically can have children at any time, and as I said, the state has an interest in encouraging the biological parents to stay together.
Second, we actually DO encourage these opposite-sex couples to have children, by offering child tax credits and standard deductions, paying for their child’s education, and other benefits.
A society that does not encourage procreation, and that does not encourage individuals to form small societal units to raise those children (families) will decay. The state is ill-prepared to raise children.
Agreed on the minor, but minors can't married anyway. The gay factor doesn't apply. I was using the father/daughter combination as a blood relative example.
According to my tax form, married is a government classification so they must be able to define it. The biggest reason gays want the ability to be legally married is so they can get benefits through their partner’s employer. No one is stopping them from living together and playing house.