Quote:
|
Originally Posted by seretogis
I was referring to marriage itself as a social contract. It is something which social institutions should define, not government. Government should only recognize/support a legal binding of people such as a civil union or business partnership. It should not become involved in "defining marriage" any moreso than it should be invovled in defining the qualifications necessary to become a stand-up comedian.
|
If that's the case, then deregulating marriage is something you'd support. If homosexuals are allowed to be joined in a legal union, with all of it's various benefits, then the other stuff is their business. Let them go find a pastor or a priest or imam that is willing to do it. Shoot, do it yourselves. I'll do it. Philosophical marriage can be what you want it to be.
When the government says that Frank can't visit Jim in the hospital because he's not a 'spouse', it's wrong. It doesn't matter if you agree with their lifestyle or whatever. Many of my friends are gay, but if I ever saw them consummating I'd get sick to my stomach. It's not about that. It's about their rights. It's about all men being created equal.