Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)
Ok here's my take ...
1) I don't give a stuff about amendments, consititutions etc - I'm not an American. There are other countries out there who aren't America and they have the same debate. So I'm not going to hang my reasoning on that.
2) Social morals/acceptability is fluid. If we all stuck to what was acceptable right now, we'd be in a cave somewhere or being dragged around by our hair or being sold like sausage.
Previous story of the moment from my sig.
3) I'll say up front, I don't believe in ANY marriage/civil unions. I think it's expensive to get into and hard to get out of. I don't believe you can say to someone "I will love you forever" because unless you're Dr Who you aren't able to say than and know it's true. You *can* say "I hope I will love you forever" but that isn't the 'agreement' so in my view it's not quite lying but it's an empty promise. I can see it being useful to keep surnames straight if there's children involved.
Given that I'm not interested, I don't actually care if you do it. It won't effect me so that's good and dandy. Whether you call it a marriage or a civil union again I don't care.
But I feel it's bloody unfair to have to settle for the 'lesser' option because of a baseless opinion of a minority. Yes you think you're right, I think you're wrong but I'm not stopping you from doing anything now am I?
Let's be practical: why on earth are we producing two sets of paperwork, two sets of rules/regulations etc etc for the same thing. Isn't that a monumental waste of time and effort. Not to mention annoying the aforementioned people who want to say "I'm married to xxxxx" rather than "I have a legal contract with xxxxx"? That is a very different emphasis.
I have to say that while I understand why pre-nups exist, it is a
contract and not something I'd be too chuffed to be given to me by my so called beloved. I'd be thinking "so you don't trust me enough/think I'm better than being a money grabbing so and so". Guess what they'd be having for dinner that night? A civil union might be better than a pre-nup, but it's still a contract and for those into this I can well understand why they see it as a 'poor mans option'.
Yes you can argue that if someone belongs to a group who says "we won't perform your wedding here because you're of the same sex", they would question whether they want to be a member and leave. That's fair enough; their building, they can do what they like. But what difference does it make to that group if it's called marriage rather than a union if it's held elsewhere? Not a thing. Not one.
I'm a fairly practical person and all I can see is a lot of extra work and effort for no return. Have one set of legal paperwork called marriage and then whatever 'blessings' you want elsewhere.
There's a time to stick your nose into people's private lives; when they're beating their wives, or spending their time drunk, or a molesting their kids. Arranging a marriage between two consenting adults, isn't one of them.
##
As a complete aside; if someone gets legally married but doesn't go through with a religious blessing, will that religion accept them as married? Because if not everyone better get their booty to various churches, temples, mosques etc to make sure they're totally tied good and proper. Mild sarcasm, but a valid point.
##
*waits for hate PM's*