Quote:
|
Originally posted by: vinnieponteThey have their beliefs, and thats fine. But you can't pass a law barring them from marrying and being together no matter how much you hate it.
|
Vinnie, my point is this - maybe you CAN pass a law restricting marriage, since it's not an inherent human right, as "proven" by my previous statements. If marriage is a right, then where's my wife?
If you go so far as to say that it's not an individual's right to be married, but it is a couple's right to get married, then I can see the logic. However, if "all committed, loving couples should be treated equally," as capitalcity said, then what prevents me and Jane from getting married.. followed soon after by me and Suzy getting married.. followed soon after by Jane and Suzy getting married. And there, my friend, you have polygamy, which is against the law, and nobody's crying for it.
So, the line has to be drawn somewhere, obviously. Even those of you who fully support gay marriage and not just civil unions are drawing a line at being in multiple marriages at one time. And that proves my point - marriage is not a human right, it is a privilege. It's a social institution that is purely cultural and/or religious in nature. The only reason marriage has any place in our government/employment/etc is because it is such a primary part of our culture and/or religion, and as such, the prevailing beliefs of our culture and/or religion will continue to legally define it.
And the prevailing beliefs of American culture say that marriage is exclusively between one man and one woman. Like it or not. Again, I think we ought to allow civil unions so that gay couples can have the same institutional advantages as married couples. However, I don't expect the societal definition of "marriage" to change any time soon, because the prominence of marriage in America is rooted in our "socio-cultur-religious" beliefs, which generally do not accept same sex marriages.