I don’t explicitly support same sex marriage, I just don’t oppose it because of my beliefs on marriage in general. I don’t believe in state sanctioned marriage at all. I think there should be some sort of legal instrument you can use to basically in one swell swoop of a pen before a court official and/or a notary confer all the benefits of current state marriage (automatic beneficiary, certain entitlements if the agreement ends, certain guaranteed benefits on death, certain presumed rights when making medical decisions absent living will / legal power of attorney etc etc) and I think any two people should be able to have something like that signed.
I mean, what if two asexual people want such a setup, and don’t even want to live together, but for whatever reason want a “personal partnership?” I don’t know why they shouldn’t be able to. State marriage basically just enshrines a religious/ social practice into law to the disadvantage of anyone who isn’t part of that aspects of society.
It’s like the Romans could sort of enter into what we’d think of as “weird” relationships, where they might “adopt” an unrelated adult but it was really more akin to confer upon them various rights and privileges some of which are more akin to spousal privileges today.
Nothing in that mandates States regulate marriage or that States protect marriage over other forms of civil contract. A general civil contract system as I proposed would in no way be in violation of this.
No, it’s not. Go back to high school forensics and find out what that fallacy actually is.
Considering how ridiculous and nonsensical you are on this subject in general, you’ll have to excuse us for not being clear on when you’re being hyperbolic or not.