Shelzin
Equal Opportunity Asshole
- Jul 15, 2012
- 7,610
- 4,171
- 928
- Banned
- #61
Fair enough... I disagree with both of you then. I'm good with that. But I still think that your post I quoted made sense. Even if I disagree with your reasoning behind it.I don't like you.I oppose the states telling people who they can, and cannot, have sex with. Why does that not make sense?
But frankly there was nothing wrong with your first post that he said it didn't make sense. If I may, feel free to correct me.
State/Federal government should be able to sanction unions. That is two people entering some sort of social contract that receives legal benefits.
Marriage is a sanctioned union. But marriage is also a religious construct that is wrongly supported by a government that has freedom of religion. Therefor I oppose, and I assume you do as well, any government sanctioning marriage. Unions between people yes... Marriages no.
Not quite.
I don't think government should use taxes to influence social policy. I see some advantages to the government setting up laws to protect the interests of children, but most marriage laws are historically built on the idea that women cannot provide for themselves without a man. The laws are a little more balanced now, but there really should be no financial support for either partner unless their are children involved.
As far as religion, I am a but of a heretic, I don't think the church should have any say in who gets married either. If a couple wants to say they are married, they are, and the church has no more business endorsing that than the state does. The only thing people need permission from the church for is to have a church wedding, which is more about social protocol than religion.
I think religion has much more to do with it than you give it credit for. Then again I live in the bible belt, so... *shrugs*