3 ms·
I've yet to see anyone pro-ssm get behind this kind of thinking, even though it is completely fair and rational to all groups. They want the state involved and
by skylan_q 11y ago
I've yet to see anyone pro-ssm get behind this kind of thinking, even though it is completely fair and rational to all groups. They want the state involved and for the state to define marriage so as to make it unfair to those who don't believe what they believe. i.e. "Marriage is just a couple who love each other" vs. other traditional beliefs.
- CalRobert 11y agoWell, I'm pro-ssm and I advocate this kind of thinking. Pragmatic me thinks: "It's kind of weird that we encode the idea of two adults sharing a home, family, and bed to the exclusion of other models, but IF we're going to do that we should let gay and straight couples do so" Idealistic me thinks: "Why the hell does the government recognize marriage anyway? People arrange their lives in dozens of different ways. A person can coparent/cohabit/have sex with/share medical choices with/share financial choices with/(etc.) a number of different partners, but we've decided "two adults doing all of those things is the norm, and anything else is less than ideal", which is a bit stifling. There are other models. Maybe the Mosuo "walking marriage" should become a codified norm instead?
- dllthomas 11y agoThis, loosely, describes my views as well.