@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
You are assuming that marriage is some sort of spiritual union... remember it is perpetuated by a secular government. If it is spiritual union then that is a violation of church and state and the state has no business in marriage at all then.
If gays get married you are saying that heterosexuals will think they can leave their spouse? Sounds like there is already a problem there and children may just as well be better off in an more loving relationship rather than one solely kept out of necessity. For instance if a couple both remarry then it gives the children two households to chose from rather than a single unstable household. Your arguments do not hold up under scrutiny.
I am assuming no such thing. Many people marry who are not the least bit spiritual. Some people marry for convenience. Some people marry for financial gain. And some people think marriage is a union ordained by God and add an additional religious layer to the process. Others don't include anything religious whatsoever in the ceremony or they have no ceremony at all as it is not required in order for the marriage to be valid. Some states recognize common law marriages where there isn't even a signed contract. A lot of people marry who don't even like each other much, much less love each other. I have several gay friends, some who have been quite close, who did marry because they wanted to be parents. All the marriages but one have ended (all but one amicably) while the former husband and wife continue to coparent the kids--one has worked it out and stayed together.
Marriage is a legal contract recognized by the State and subject to state laws only that provide certain benefits to those entering into the contract and that apply certain rules and requirements that those entering into the contract agree to. Many of those rules and requirements are specifically for the protection of children and would be silly applied to a same sex couple.
I do not think you being allowed to marry would affect my marriage in any way nor would it make any difference to any other good marriages. I do think however that changing the legal definition to accommodate you and your partner would further change the attitude about marriage and even more people wouldn't bother than already do.All I am saying is that changing the definition of marriage will make it something that it is not now. It is like changing the definition of sushi would make that something different that what it is now.
As most Americans continue to not want the definition of marriage to change, but DO want to provide some way to accommodate needs of those, straight and gay, who for whatever reason cannot or choose not to marry, it seems to me that the sensible and most productive thing would be for everybody to work together to make that happen.
And I would like for the national moral psyche to revert back to the principle that all children need a mom and a dad whenever that is possible, and responsible people don't have kids without getting married first. And I would like for marriage vows to become real vows again and not be from the 'let's try it out and see if it works' mentality. And then I think divorce would again be a fairly uncommon thing instead of an expected thing.
I think had the gay community tried to work with the American people as a whole to come up with practical solutions, those solutions would already be in place essentially everywhere, and we would also recognize civil unions nationally. But trying to accuse or guilt Americans into something has generally slowed the process for real solutions.
When most Americans want gay marriage, however, it will be a done deal. Right now most Americans don't want to change the definition of marriage.
