I understand the value of pair-bonding and the value of familial bonds to make decisions and address issues of the State. I don't, however, feel that these bonds need to be based on a religion unless that religion is expressly stated as the voice of the State. Since the State recognizes the ability of people to enter contracts with other people regardless of gender, sexual orientation or the like, it makes sense that the state would recognize those contracts, giving the rights due to those involved and expecting the responsibilities served as they would any other contract.
Short form: I'm opposed to gay marriage because I don't think that marriage should be an organ of the State at all. I don't think that anyone has the right to marry because we don't have any other religious rights guaranteed by the State. We do, however, have the right to declare people our beneficiaries or guardians in the event that those are needed.
Otherwise, I want my circumcision tax credit pronto.
Re: Hmmm
Date: 2011-03-24 03:58 pm (UTC)I understand the value of pair-bonding and the value of familial bonds to make decisions and address issues of the State. I don't, however, feel that these bonds need to be based on a religion unless that religion is expressly stated as the voice of the State. Since the State recognizes the ability of people to enter contracts with other people regardless of gender, sexual orientation or the like, it makes sense that the state would recognize those contracts, giving the rights due to those involved and expecting the responsibilities served as they would any other contract.
Short form: I'm opposed to gay marriage because I don't think that marriage should be an organ of the State at all. I don't think that anyone has the right to marry because we don't have any other religious rights guaranteed by the State. We do, however, have the right to declare people our beneficiaries or guardians in the event that those are needed.
Otherwise, I want my circumcision tax credit pronto.