@davidc4430 wrote:
you dont have a problem with gays having a legal union (a marriage) but just dont call it marriage?
should we expand that thinking?
if your ugly, you cant be married, i dont want ugly children born, but ugly people can have a legal union.
if your fat, you cant marry, but you too can have a legal union.
you see, singling out a group of people because they are different is just not on.
Society has always dictated the rules to people since time immemorial. Sometimes those rules might seem logical to us, sometimes not. I guess that is how social change comes about over the years, as people object etc
But in any workable society there have to be rules, laws, conventions.
In most societies all through history, marriage has been between men & women & I'd say a large part of that has been around protecting the family unit. By making it a ceremony, a rite of passage as it were, societies have made it something to be taken seriously. Something where men know they are more likely to have fathered the children from the union, & are more likely to stick around. Of course it doesn't always work out even with conventions in place, we know that.
The benefits of marriage have been obvious for the children. You only have to look at past family trees and once you get back about 120 years or more, you'll discover that most widows/widowers remarried very quickly if they had children. Often within months. Two parents together makes the task a bit easier.
Over the last 4 decades or so, our societies have worked very hard to break down the importance of marriage & conventions surrounding it. I'm not saying if that is necessarily a good or bad thing but it is a fact. You only have to look at the attitude to sexual activity/living together/single mothers etc.
Has it been good for kids? I think for some it hasn't, if we're truthful. Those in single parent households have it harder & children who are bashed & killed, you'll often hear it was a step dad or de facto.
The reason there has been no marriage between gays is because they don't have children so it hasn't been a social priority.
Given that social conventions have broken down so far that marriage itself is no longer necessary for living together or having children. Given that religious affiliations aren't what they were either. Given that being gay is now much more socially acceptable. You have to ask -why the push for marriage? Gays need to have their partner recognised for superannuation purposes but those changes have been made.
So we're looking at a legal change. But if your attitude is we can't discriminate by having any definition of marriage, then it does open the gates to multiple wives/husbands, child marriage & the extra costs for our social security system.
3BrNBBRz4UYdo+!~~60_7.JPG "chameleon54"){kind=avatar}
, ........ While kids should be taught to be respectful of others views and lifestyle choices, we dont need a whole lot of gay propaganda forced on schools and classrooms. Just the same as we dont need religous ed. taught in public schools.
