Quote:
Originally posted by sixate
Newsflash! Marriage is a life-long contractual obligation! What's yours is hers, and it doesn't matter if you don't have a joint bank account.
Would you sign a life-long contract for any job? I wouldn't. That's why I'll never get married.
To answer the main question. The state does have the right to do it. If they didn't, they couldn't do it. I don't agree with it, but I guess that since I'll never get married I could really care less.
|
I truly have sympathy for you if you evaluate your relationships with another human being the same as you do as a way to make money. And no, it's my firm belief that you can't love a job as much as you can love the right person.
However... its a tough inner debate for me if homosexual marriages should claim the same benefits as heterosexual ones. I'm in no means a homophobe, i'm good friends with quite a few people that are gay. But in the end, people that get married are generally given advantages through the state because it is assumed (ignoring things like non-fertile females/males) that people are going to have children. Homosexual marriages can't produce children of their own.
On the other hand... they can adopt, and be very good parents to kids that, if they weren't adopted, would grow up in poverty. There could be some middle ground reached, where homosexual marriages are always recognized by the state, but the other advantages come by the adoption of (or, attempt to) adopt. It would take really bad parents to raise a kid worse than an orphanage would.
In the end, there's no clear cut solution. Someone's going to get offended, someone's not going to get their way, and there will always be fighting on the subject. I know that in the end, thats always the situation, but on this particular topic, its split right down the middle. So why not compromise?