|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
Academy of Humanism - Challenges: "The Enlighten... Today We Mourn the Loss of a Useful Myth... 'Cons... Inhofe Watch ChannelOklahoma.com - News - Inhofe:... UGH Today I had the misfortune of being at a hous... What to say? I'm in a surly mood today. What do... Hey, You There with the Camera? The Independent W... Over the Barrel Yet? DEFEAT THE RIGHT IN THREE MI... Because God Said So SCIENCE FAIR CREATION SCIENCE... Inhofe Watch! Where is our (not so) esteemed Sena... I'm Starting to Sound like Geroge Will, Ack! Slipp... Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
8.05.2003
dustbury.com: "Regardless of the hardware possessed by Heather's, um, parental units, marriage is fundamentally about children, about providing them a structure within which they can grow and develop; the partners themselves, like it or not, are secondary players. This is not to say that childless couples don't deserve to have their unions sanctified by church or state or whatever, but the fact remains: marriage is fundamentally about children. " Playing devil's advocate I'm going to assume that marriage is fundamentally about children. From there it follows that we would: 1) Not allow people to marry unless they are planning to have children, maybe even make the marriage legal only once a child has been born. After a year of probation if a child has not been produced then the couple will have to go back before the state and declare their intentions to bear children or else have their marraige dissolved. 1b) People that have children are forced to marry even if the pregnancy was a mistake. (Just like the old days!) 2) Not allow married couples with children to divorce or separate unless the child has reached eighteen years of age and has declared his/her independence. 2b) if rule #2 is not applied then once couples have divorced, their children are taken away from them and given to a married couple. Same rules apply in the case of the untimely death of a spouse. Remember that if marraige is about children then single mothers/fathers are no good. 3) Not allow marraige for people with fertility problems unless they agree to adopt a child. After adoption rule #2 applies. 4) Allow gay couples to marry if they adopt a child. Again rule #2 would apply. -enough of that! Admittedly we have some sort of system like this in place already when you consider child support. The fundamental issue is that you receive special privileges as a married couple. Here are just some of the Rights you lose as Same-Sex Partners without the Civil Union: While not being gay myself, I have had a long term commited relationship where some of these special privileges would have been nice, especially the access to the other partner's benefits. I resent the fact that in order to gain access to these perks I have to go and get married, which we both decided we didnt want to do. I know many people that have been in long term commited relationships that never proceeded to marraige, and I have known people that have been married multiple times for short periods of time. But somehow making it official (italics denote sarcasm) means its binding? Hardly. The decline in the relative value of marriage may be due to the fact that there is incentive for people to get married, the aforementioned benefits. When you gain special access because of your marital status then that may be enough to overcome the threshold of marriage. Whereas it might be harder to come to that decision were it not for the carrot dangled before you. It may be respect for the gravity of marriage that many people do not enter into it hastily, despite having to pay a penalty for doing do. Consider that. Granting some form of legal standing to gay relationships is a no brainer in my mind. It doesn't have to be a religious marriage but I don't think that's what they're asking for. They simply want access to the same rights and privileges that heterosexuals get by virtue of being married. Its ironic that straight people can get married and divorced, married and divorced, over and over again but we deny commited life long partnerships of the same sex the respect it deserves. Its a done deal, its only a matter of time. The people fighting this same sex civil union are cavemen in my eyes. Go bang on your cave walls the world will go on without you. | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
