Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTeeks
If it's all about the "traditional" meaning of the word "marriage", I guess us women should go back to becoming our husband's property and only being chosen for marriage because some guy wanted my large dowry and I should get back into the kitchen and make him some dinner. Because that was the original definition of marriage, was it not? But that changed, so why can't it change to include the marriage between two people of the same sex?
|
Wisdom finally prevails!!! I can't wait to let the Mrs. know!
The government should not be in the business of ratifying marriages, whether they are same sex or not. To the government, the only concerns should be how to tax one person, a couple, and a family, and how to provide benefits to them. Governments should recognize civil unions only.
If a couple choses to further recognize their partnership under the guidelines of a religious institution, and they meet the requirements of that institution, then call it a marriage, call it a chili-dog, call it whatever you must. Being married should change nothing in the government's eyes. This isn't meant to stop the fighting about gay marriages, but it does give everyone an outlet to exercise their beliefs. All you need to do is find the religious institution (or start one) that matches your belief.