Writer's Block: Church and State
Considering that marriage grants people certain legal rights, I'd say yes.
There are some obvious legal advantages that married people enjoy here in the US. For example, spouses are able to draw Social Security benefits off their spouses. Spouses are also automatically granted automatic insurance coverage as well.
As a single person, I don't see this as altogether fair. My tax dollars and insurance premiums are going to pay to give married people extra rights that single folks don't have.
.
Even though I feel that single people get the short end of the stick, I'm certainly not suggesting the abolishment of marriage. That's just crazy talk. If I had to, I'd define marriage as the union between two consenting adults.
So that would leave out the polygamists. I really don't think that we need to give legal rights to five or 10 or 20 partners. That's a bit much. Oh and yes, I don't think someone should be able to marry a turnip. I realize I'm risking the ire of the turnip rights groups but you've got to set some limits.
Now of course, the big controversial issue is same sex marriages. There's a lot of crazy arguments against gay marriage. My favorite is that same sex couples corrupt the institution of marriage. Sorry, there's many reasons marriages fail. If your marriage doesn't work out, it's not because there's gay couples out there. You might as well blame them for global warming too.
And of course there's the hazy religious argument that because homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Well, putting aside separation of church and state there's far more passages in the Bible condemning the rich. Does this mean the government should start putting a cap on what people can earn?
Or to take it to another level, should adulterers be put to death as it says in the Bible? Let's have some consistency here. Religious zealots can be mildly amusing, but wishy-washy inconsistent zealots are just sad.
Now the only logical argument I can think of banning gay marriages is that we're already giving extra benefits to married couples as it is. Especially considering the precarious position the Social Security system is in, can we really afford to grant rights to a whole slew of new people?
Makes sense to me but it's also incredibly discriminatory. People can't choose if they're gay or straight so how can we say one is better than the other. That would be like prohibiting marriage among blacks or people with blond hair or green eyes or something equally arbitrary. Avoiding blatant discrimination trumps the other considerations.
There are some obvious legal advantages that married people enjoy here in the US. For example, spouses are able to draw Social Security benefits off their spouses. Spouses are also automatically granted automatic insurance coverage as well.
As a single person, I don't see this as altogether fair. My tax dollars and insurance premiums are going to pay to give married people extra rights that single folks don't have.
.
Even though I feel that single people get the short end of the stick, I'm certainly not suggesting the abolishment of marriage. That's just crazy talk. If I had to, I'd define marriage as the union between two consenting adults.
So that would leave out the polygamists. I really don't think that we need to give legal rights to five or 10 or 20 partners. That's a bit much. Oh and yes, I don't think someone should be able to marry a turnip. I realize I'm risking the ire of the turnip rights groups but you've got to set some limits.
Now of course, the big controversial issue is same sex marriages. There's a lot of crazy arguments against gay marriage. My favorite is that same sex couples corrupt the institution of marriage. Sorry, there's many reasons marriages fail. If your marriage doesn't work out, it's not because there's gay couples out there. You might as well blame them for global warming too.
And of course there's the hazy religious argument that because homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Well, putting aside separation of church and state there's far more passages in the Bible condemning the rich. Does this mean the government should start putting a cap on what people can earn?
Or to take it to another level, should adulterers be put to death as it says in the Bible? Let's have some consistency here. Religious zealots can be mildly amusing, but wishy-washy inconsistent zealots are just sad.
Now the only logical argument I can think of banning gay marriages is that we're already giving extra benefits to married couples as it is. Especially considering the precarious position the Social Security system is in, can we really afford to grant rights to a whole slew of new people?
Makes sense to me but it's also incredibly discriminatory. People can't choose if they're gay or straight so how can we say one is better than the other. That would be like prohibiting marriage among blacks or people with blond hair or green eyes or something equally arbitrary. Avoiding blatant discrimination trumps the other considerations.