That is your right.
"The State" is merely a construction of society,
Nice to run into someone who actually understands the crux of the argument.
and a well-ordered society is built by family units, not individuals.
A family 'unit' can be anything that individuals decide it is. That can be a man and a woman, two men, or any grouping that several consenting adults decide it is.
Allowing marriage special legal privileges is a way of incentivize marriage, and thus create stable families,
Here's the flaw in your thinking. You assume that marriage creates a stable family. There is mountains of evidence to the contrary. Also, once you allow the State to give one group 'special privileges' you've opened Pandoras Box. There's absolutely no end to groups clamoring for their own 'special privileges' on the grounds that they benefit society.
For instance, the two lesbians who live across the street from me with their two children have a much more stable relationship than the people who live literally right next door to them in a State recognized 'marriage'.
Were I forced to chose I'd rather my son be raised by the two lesbians with their children than the alchoholic loser and his wife.
Where marriage has deteriorated most precipitously - inner cities - order has broken down as well.
You've neglected to factor in the State sponsored 'welfare' which has, in my opinion, and even more destructive effect on the production of responsible adults. Not to mention the outright evil pounded into their heads by our 'public education' system.
You haven't thought nearly deeply enough about this issue.
Once you grant the State the power to decide what is and what isn't a 'family', you give them grounds to interfere in all sorts of areas.
It's far better to the State to pound sand when it comes to what is and what isn't a 'family'.
Best,
L
Thanks.
A family 'unit' can be anything that individuals decide it is. That can be a man and a woman, two men, or any grouping that several consenting adults decide it is.
That changes the true definition of the word 'family.' A man and a woman, two men, or a group of adults are not a 'family.' By definition, a family is a man, woman, and their children, which can then be extended through direct bloodlines - that is the etymology of the word, and it is only very recently where people have tried to redefine it along the same lines you mention.
Here's the flaw in your thinking. You assume that marriage creates a stable family. There is mountains of evidence to the contrary.
There are mountains of evidence that marriage is the single most stabilizing force people experience in their lives. Do we want to get into the battle of the evidence?
Also, once you allow the State to give one group 'special privileges' you've opened Pandoras Box. There's absolutely no end to groups clamoring for their own 'special privileges' on the grounds that they benefit society.
But the State breaks the citizenry into groups all the time - murder laws separate society into murderers and non-murderers, draft laws separate society into the eligible and the ineligible. Different rules apply depending upon which group you are in. Further, simply because groups may whine about the privileges they want doesn't mean society has to acquiesce to those demands - again, society makes the value judgment as to whether those privileges comport with valid social objectives.
For instance, the two lesbians who live across the street from me with their two children have a much more stable relationship than the people who live literally right next door to them in a State recognized 'marriage'.
Were I forced to chose I'd rather my son be raised by the two lesbians with their children than the alchoholic loser and his wife.
Okay. But those lesbians cannot perpetuate society into the next generation, which is one of the foremost goals of society, is it not? The loser and his wife can at least bring forth new life, even if they shouldn't.
You've neglected to factor in the State sponsored 'welfare' which has, in my opinion, and even more destructive effect on the production of responsible adults. Not to mention the outright evil pounded into their heads by our 'public education' system.
I haven't neglected them, but they aren't really pertinent to the discussion of marriage as I see it. But you'll find me in complete agreement on both those points.
You haven't thought nearly deeply enough about this issue.
That seems a bit presumptuous.
Once you grant the State the power to decide what is and what isn't a 'family', you give them grounds to interfere in all sorts of areas.
But the very nature of the State gives it the power to do just that - what areas do you believe are suddenly subject to State power if the State recognizes marriage?