A marriage between two people in their fifties is no less a marriage.
A couple of Tory MPs have said it. And Lord James of Blackheath (who is an…interesting member of Parliament here) argued that it violates the Queen’s coronation oath, therefore bad.
That’s a good argument as to why straight marriage should be legal. Fortunately, it is!
Recognition for legal reasons of the choice of two people to pair bond. Becoming married does not fundamentally alter the existing emotional relationship but it publicly admits its existence. In the same way, my getting a driver’s license does not suddenly imbue me with some special ability to operate a car. It merely admits that my level of competence is sufficient to meet the government’s standard.
The question you meant to ask is why do people pair bond if not for procreative purposes.
It can be whatever the spouses want. They have to satisfy a few legal requirements, but beyond that there’s no authority checking if their chosen purpose is valid and being satisfied. No doubt there are current marriages where the spouses feel satisfied and ones where one (or both) does not. They could be satisified because they had children, disatisfied because they had children, satisfied because they did not have children, disatisfied because they did not have children… Are some of them “wrong” in their feelings?
I’m willing to recognize the exceptions that exist when immigration issues are involved.
This is, admittedly, an argument not based on faith or tradition. However, it is an argument based on false premises, given that the law does not require married couples to have children. Nor does it (in the places where SSM is under consideration) prevent same-sex couples from raising children.
Why on earth would you need to get married to publicly admit an emotional relationship? I love my brother, my mother, my kids, the Dallas Cowboys, and Dairy Queen Blizzards. I can do all of that happily and completely with getting a certificate from the government. If you are so insecure about your relationship you need a pat on the head from Uncle Sam to feel good about it, maybe you should take a look in the mirror and not try to pass legislation.
Of course the law does not require children, just like getting a drivers license does not require you to buy a car and drive it everyday. Childless couples can enter into marriage, without affecting its definition. This is not true for gay couples.
Back in the 90s, I used to see arguments from more radical gay groups that marriage was an outmoded social construct, and that gay people shouldn’t be looking to integrate into that construct, but should develop other, better ones.
Gay marriage has never been illegal. If you want to rent a hall, dress up and make unrealistic promises to anyone you choose, you are free to do so and no one will come and arrest you. However, changing the definition of marriage for everyone to make the instituion less stable because gay couples need government approval of their emotional lives is what is going on.
You don’t, but some people get married anyway and as a result they get certain legal privileges. Some other people want to also get married and access said priviliges, but are being denied on grounds that are now seen as bigoted.
I make no statement about love or emotion, just equal treatment under the law. The treatment, as it stands, is somewhat more extensive than a certificate and a pat on the head. Showing your ignorance of this does not advance your argument.
Now if you want to argue that all existing legal privileges linked to be marriage should be abolished so treatment would be equal… well, you might get some traction there. So are you prepared to give up access to joint tax filings, spousal privilege in court proceedings, favourable inheritance laws, government spousal benefits…?
Assuming you are married or one day plan to be, of course.
Hang on - are you arguing about the purpose of marriage or the definition of marriage? I’d like to nail down these goalposts before this goes any further.
Why is defending a definition more important than equal treatment under the law, especially since the modification is trivial?
I’m not sure how definition-defense isn’t just a variation on tradition-defense, myself.
You misread. A marriage is not required for two people to admit to their relationship. A marriage is required for the government to admit to their relationship, but more importantly a change in their legal status. If two people want to spend a weekend cavorting in the woods and come back proclaiming that they’re married, the government doesn’t give two shits. But if they try to file married on their taxes, they best produce the certificate, pronto. No one is looking to Uncle Sam for validation of anything other than agreement that legally, something has changed.
A good reason to reject gay marriage is because people like Pat Robertson and Antonin Scalia talk about it constantly.
I can’t think of any other, but I’d sure like to hear less from those two attention whores.
For Mrs Cad and I being in a committed relationship, it was to enjoy the legal benefits such as sharing insurance and being able to make medical decisions for each other. Nothing about making babies.
According to this person it did since the government should not have any laws allowing or recognizing marriage (being a religious sacrament as a tacit assumption) which would outlaw all civil marriage. BUT according to this guy to outlaw male/female marriage would violate the 9th Amendment so that form of civil marriage needs to be allowed.
The difference being . . . ?
That still doesn’t explain why outlawing SSM would not likewise violate the 9th Amendment.
To establish a legally-binding relationship with a set of default rules and assumptions that is then recognized in a host of governmental, quasi-governmental, and private settings.
It’s extremely similar to the purpose of adoption. You don’t “need” to adopt a child in order to express your love or establish a relationship. Adoption, however, is the only way to change your legal status with respect to that child (assuming there’s no issue of actual biological parentage).