Topic: Gay marriage
Quote: Is that really the case? I don't think so. Look at the actual benefits given to married people. Are any of them actually about recognizing a relationship between a man and a woman? No, they're not. They're all about making it easier to build a home, a family, and a life together. That's the real intent of the marriage laws, and there's nothing about building a life together that requires the participants to be of differing genders.
Response: I believe it to be the case that marriage existed prior to any legal recognition of the relationship. If this is true, it seems reasonable to conclude that the state, for whatever reasons, wanted to encourage that particular relationship. Now, if it did so in order to foster an atmosphere where family life can best be nurtured and brought to maturity, that\'s well and good. But I still disagree with your conclusion that "there\'s nothing about building a life together that requires the participants to be of differing genders." As a general proposition, I agree with this. Two individuals can certainly build a life together without any encouragement from the state. However, in a strict legal sense, there certainly are requirements one must fulfill in order to receive the benefits the state wishes to confer. In other words, legislatures have determined not only that they want to foster and encourage an atmosphere conducive for family life, they have determined that the best way to accomplish this is by encouraging the relationship to be between two individuals of the opposite sex.\nNow, I will probably say this more than once so that I ensure it has been taken into account: my primary purpose in starting this thread (and my other posts) is not WHETHER the definition of marriage should be changed, but if it is to be changed, WHO should change it.\n
-0.6