Originally Posted by mikesova
i agree with you on all that stuff except the gay marriage part. To me there are two types of marriage, one that is recognized by the church and one that is recognized by the government. The governmental definition they are trying to change is the one that is only a couple hundred years old. Sure if the church doesn't want to do that fine, but what's so terrible about two people who are together getting the economic benefits that any other married couple would get. So in a sense, you wouldn't have to see them as being married in the romantic old church style, just in the crunching numbers, government style.
Why should gays get an economic benefit? Are we trying to reward people for being in love? For making lifelong commitments? For what reason do we give any couple, straight or gay, economic benefits? I'm pretty sure that the reason why married people ever got economic benefits was to make it easier for one parent to stay home and raise the kids. i think we should rewrite the laws to reflect that.
I say allow any 2 people to create a "union" regardless of sex. This union would give them some of the right and privliges currently associated with "marriage" like joint property ownership, various legal protection associated with being a "spouse" and other things which affect no one but the couple involved.
Leave the economic benefits to those who it was intended, the parents who are supporting and raising children, regardless of whether they're gay, straight, single or married.
Leave the word "marriage" totally out of it and let the churches decide how they want to deal with that.