Doc_Daneeka wrote:
Having read this thread, I have yet to see an argument against gay marriage which would not be considered very embarassing were the word 'gay' replace by 'interracial'. Nor do I see any reason why this could be considered an irrelevant point.
Marriage, at least in the West, is permitted for couples who don't love each other, for couples who can't procreate, for couples who marry for political reasons, for couples who marry because they were very drunk one night in Las Vegas, and for couples who marry because their friends dared them to. If I, as a man, ask some random woman I see tomorrow to marry me, and she says yes, that's ok legally.
Can anyone explain why it's ok for a man and a woman to marry because they were drunk, but it's not ok for a man and another man (or two women, for that matter) to marry because they love each other and wish to be together as a recognised couple for the rest of their lives?
Umm....I have an idea.
You Americans that want to marry same-sex people come on over to England. We call it 'Civil Unions' but the name is pretty much the only difference. I'm sure Tequila (or some other English-based person) will correct me if I'm wrong.
In Canada we've legalised same-sex marriage entirely. It's probably cheaper for them to come here. We could use the tourism dollars, heh.
15 Sep 2007, 2:35 am
