reply to post by scorand
Forgive my lack of response in a timely fashion, so few pay any real attention to what I say.
People can choose to live together without the "benefit" of marriage in any concept. Man & woman, two men, two women, two couples, threesomes...etc.
In most cases it is perfectly legal to live in whatever lifestyle a person wishes.
The question of marriage then becomes a question of why exactly? For a traditional man and woman marriage it can be out of religious, or social
conformities. In most cases it is out of love, but there are still marriages of convenience, prearranged and other such circumstances that actually
undermine the meaning of marriage.
Many arguments stem from tax incentives and insurance coverage. Hmm, not exactly the stuff of fairytale weddings there. Or even material for a
workable pickup line in a singles bar.
Which brings me to pets as dependents like children. Pets are expensive, food and medical care, time consuming and like your own children...you treat
pets differently than other animals. You can buy insurance policies for pets. And so on...so while an exaggeration of comparing pets as dependents to
gay marriage. Some of the arguments are the same.
Now for the love aspect of marriage in a social convention. Marriage between a man and a woman is a public commitment of exclusivity. I can sympathize
that gay couples would want the same ability and even somewhat agree to an extent. However, a public proclamation of commitment can also happen
without a marriage as well. I know of many couples that have lived together that I consider to be "married" although they in fact not actually
married. And if you want to experience a public legal commitment, open a joint account at a bank and try to close it without the other one present or
signing...good luck with that one.
And even many businesses already have insurance benefits for significant others. So basically we are left with a church ceremony wedding or a justice
of the peace type thing. Many churches will not marry same sex partners, nor should any law force them to do so. Far be it from me to dictate to a
Hindu temple that they had better preach about Christ or no longer be considered a religious institution. Same thing for gay marriage in that regard.
As for the justice of the peace, I do believe that there are some jurisdictions that allow civil unions that are legally the same thing, just not
called the same as marriage. In fact, I do think that many "mixed marriages" were done that way when it was still very taboo.
Bottom line is that lines are already drawn in many people's minds of what is and is not acceptable. Yes, that does suck if you are in the minority.
However placing undue strain in the form of "shock and awe" tactics is not a good solution as it will only strengthen the resolve of those opposed.
All things in time. Look at Thomas Jefferson, he could not even acknowledge his mistress back when founding the US...think he would have that problem
today?
