2 ms·

I agree with you mostly. However, we must understand [the benefits granted via] marriage is not a right, but a privilege. Right's can't be granted or given, pri

by jrs235 13y ago

I agree with you mostly. However, we must understand [the benefits granted via] marriage is not a right, but a privilege. Right's can't be granted or given, privilege's can. And as fast as the legal privileges of marriage are given to couples, they can be taken away too. There was a reason at some point that government/society felt it important enough to grant privileges to couples consisting of a one male and one female that agreed to combine assets and liabilities. What was the reason? My guess is to encourage offspring and stable families. If that is the reason, does it still work and apply today? That's the question we should be asking.

jrs235 13y ago
Everyone is focused on just extending the status quo by granting marriage benefits to more people rather than first asking if having the benefits makes sense and/or what's the purpose and is it working? Applying what's happening with the marriage discussion to the illegal substance arena, without taking a moment to pause and reflect, we'd be clamoring for extending and banning alcohol and more substances instead of considering repealing bans on some/other drugs (marijuana in particular).