Solution to the gay marriage debate -
By Qaeyious
@Qaeyious (2357)
United States
February 9, 2007 10:58pm CST
Are you ready for something totally different? This has got to be the ultimate solution to the debate, at least in the United States of America. Why it was not thought of before, it boggles my mind --
My solution: do away with all marriage. No, don't make it illegal -- make it none of the government's business who I decide to have a relationship or have (is the word myLot compliant?) with.
You believe on religious grounds that a marriage should be only between man and woman? Fine, go to the church of your choice, perform the ceremony, get the piece of paper, congratulations. Go forth and multiply.
You find a person who just happens to have the same (is the word myLot compliant?) that you have and you want to spend your life and have (is the word myLot compliant?) with him/her? You would like to have a ceremony to celebrate that relationship? Go to the church of your choice (Metropolitan Community Church celebrates such relationships, among a few others) or in any way you choose. I'm sure once this idea catches on, everyone will have their own piece of paper of how you celebrated your relationship decision.
But the government would not care, it's none of their business.
Yes, it will change the tax codes a bit, which is probably why the Republican Theocrats will shiver and fear to such a notion, but, too bad. This nation is not a theocracy yet, and I will fight any attempt to make it such.
1 person likes this
2 responses
@misskatonic (3722)
• United States
10 Feb 07
But how will governmental marriage rights be handled? The rights of inheritance, the rights of custody, the rights of medicinal beneficiary, the rights of visitation, and all the other rights that come with a government sanctioned marriage? Most of us gay people don't care about what we get, just as long as we get those rights. That's the important thing to us.
1 person likes this
@Qaeyious (2357)
• United States
10 Feb 07
Now that I'm fully rested (and sober) - but the more I meditate on it the more circles I get trapped in. I was hoping by taking government out of the picture and their definition of spouse, common decency would eventually take over.
For example, in the case of the will being thrown out, if the argument was that the surviving member of the relationship was not a legally government-registered spouse, that would not be an issue if government does not recognize any types of unions. If the writer of the will was an adult of sound mind and body, or whatever other requirements are met that would not be an issue. No family member could contest it on those grounds.
Who are hospitals to say who can visit their patients? Is it by government regulation or hospital policy? If it is government regulation, again, if the government does not recognize any type of union, that will not be the issue. But if they end up only blood relative family members, that would be reprehensible. -- I hope in this case common decency can take over - eventually.
Refusing parental rights to the natural parent is also reprehensible (unless of course that parent is abusive which is a totally different subject) - again, this is common decency which I am finding a rare commodity in today's American society.
Thank you for making me think a bit. I wish I could press the '+' button several times :)
@samtaylorskykierajen (7976)
• Canada
10 Feb 07
The truth is you are right , it really should not matter what other's think as they don't want to understand and would rather say it is wrong because they are scared of the way things are changing and they use religion or whatever to hide behind their fear .
The same as with everything else , it will take some time for people to adjust but as time goes on eventually more and more people will meet or know someone who is bisexaul and they will realize that it really doesn't affect anyone else and they are still the same people they always were .
I think fear is the biggest issue with anything like this .
1 person likes this
