3 ms·

I don't agree with the author on that point,.. but you're making a leap yourself: not having gay marriage doesn't equal sexual repression. And I know plenty of

by asguy 6y ago

I don't agree with the author on that point,.. but you're making a leap yourself: not having gay marriage doesn't equal sexual repression. And I know plenty of straight people with families who never got "married". I, for one, would have been happier with getting marriage out of government purview entirely, rather than adding yet another type of marriage to the books.

knolax 6y ago
Well I think it's safe to assume that the author believes marriage to exist for the purpose of creating a family (or progeny as he puts it), so he's not solely opposed to gay marriage the legal institution, but gay marriage for the purpose of creating a family.
- asguy 6y ago
  The author was positing a question. You cut off the very next sentence: > But if it's just to "be happy with the person you love?" Then why not?
binarycodedhex 6y ago
Yes. Separation between church and state (and wealth and mass media and journalism and politics) Civil marriage and some wills should be replaced with a property and next of kin registered document. This way, any number and type of people can formally-declare what they want to do with property and health, financial, and total power of attorney. Insurance companies and other service products can then determine who is eligible to share benefits based on if someone is listed as a partner or beneficiary, or not. No more titles, relations, or mandates about who is what or how into two boxes: just beneficiaries and partners. A couple have a kid? No problem. Two women want to get hitched? Easy. Three dudes want to live polyamorously and be "married?" Cool. (Obviously, can't let 30 people in a commune share the benefits of one worker.) A dude and a trans girl? Fine. The same document solves some problems of inheritance too when it can obviate the need for executors in simple estates. Telling people who they can love, share their lives with, and depend on goes against individual freedoms.

by asguy 6y ago

knolax 6y ago

Well I think it's safe to assume that the author believes marriage to exist for the purpose of creating a family (or progeny as he puts it), so he's not solely opposed to gay marriage the legal institution, but gay marriage for the purpose of creating a family.

asguy 6y ago
The author was positing a question. You cut off the very next sentence: > But if it's just to "be happy with the person you love?" Then why not?

binarycodedhex 6y ago

Yes. Separation between church and state (and wealth and mass media and journalism and politics) Civil marriage and some wills should be replaced with a property and next of kin registered document. This way, any number and type of people can formally-declare what they want to do with property and health, financial, and total power of attorney. Insurance companies and other service products can then determine who is eligible to share benefits based on if someone is listed as a partner or beneficiary, or not. No more titles, relations, or mandates about who is what or how into two boxes: just beneficiaries and partners. A couple have a kid? No problem. Two women want to get hitched? Easy. Three dudes want to live polyamorously and be "married?" Cool. (Obviously, can't let 30 people in a commune share the benefits of one worker.) A dude and a trans girl? Fine. The same document solves some problems of inheritance too when it can obviate the need for executors in simple estates. Telling people who they can love, share their lives with, and depend on goes against individual freedoms.