Quote:
Originally Posted by fckillerbee
I did read the whole thing jackass. obviously you answered the same way I did. You also asked a question. I said eliminate marriage...because of religion. Then people would just have to get into "legal" agreements. For health care....movie tickets...yada yada.
What stops someone from getting a legal marriage certificate if say...they change their name, dress up like a girl, and get married. Does someone actually look up their social...find their name change..and see who they were before and deny their marriage certificate?
I understand there are benefits to being married.... what I'm saying is....why does it have to be marriage that is a binding contract to those benefits? Because everyone will take advantage of it? As if they wouldn't when it becomes legal for gays to marry? As if straight people don't take advantage of "getting married" for reasons not related to love.
This eliminating marriage question...was for the one that is religious. for the one that is saying its a sin to live together if your not married....blah blah blah... What if we eliminated marriage. Then what would "his" argument be if he also couldn't get "married".
|
For purposes of this argument, I consider marriage to be the name in which this binding contract exists, not as a religious ceremony symbolizing the unit of two people, which is the way it's viewed now.
Now, if you're suggesting getting rid of the term marriage in reference to the religious meaning, then sure, go for it, it would have no effect on the contractual binding that is marriage now.
Just FYI, yes, when you file your marriage certificate, it is tied to your social security number, which would effectively null your marriage to whomever it is you're marrying in the eyes of the government. Can you imagine the look of surprise on a guy's face when he gets a letter in the male saying his marriage certificate has been declined because his spouse was a transsexual? I would probably hang myself....
In essence, I do agree with you in many aspects, marriage as a whole has been too closely identified to be synonymous with religion in general that the Religious Reich feels it belongs to them and their laws should dictate what's acceptable. Having been to 3 weddings in this past year alone that were not held at a church, I consider it complete and utter zombie-bullshit that the churches are all up in arms over same sex marriage, moreover, that their opinions are affecting policy because of their own opinions on how people should live. You don't see me trying to pass laws that put the bible in the fiction section of a book store, why should they get to affect policy that has absolutely no affect on themselves?