The concept of marriage per se was put together by the church. Before then, everything was on a tribal basis; everyone just knew who was attached to who. The world became a much bigger place in regards to population, and so an institution took charge of it.
As for governments, this is only a problem of the people who happen to be in power at this time. People as a rule, like to control others when it is in their power to do so. Just a problem of human nature I suppose. Hopefully humanity won't be so petty in the future. We can only hope and send a message of this need to change things in the future. That is if mankind evers grows up.
Just my two cents.
male-she
-
genderless (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:49 am
-
Posting Rank
-
Sillycone (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:07 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: male-she
plix (imported) wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:42 pm The only problem we have with this is the potential for the separate and therefore unequal argument to come up. Unfortunately in this society we seem to have this mentality that if two things are different, one must be superior and the other inferior. This is one of the mentalities in today's society that upsets me the most. I fail to see the logic in that if two things are different, one must be superior to the other. I certainly believe it is possible for two things to be different and also fully equal.
That's a very good point Plix, something I hadn't really considered. Yes, very true that two things can be different but of equal status. Provided a civil union gives the same legal rights as a marriage, I have no issue with that either. Only one problem maybe, if a couple is in a civil union and they are asked if they are married then what's the correct answer? People are unlikely to ask if they are in a civil union.
Come back Z, we miss you!
-
plix (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 888
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 8:43 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: male-she
While marriages and civil unions are certainly different on a federal level, this is because civil unions are not recognized at all on a federal level, so it is a completely different issue.
My point was that even on a state level some might suggest that they are unequal. Now, in California state law requires all public and private entities to treat marriage and domestic partnership 100% the same. When my domestic partner and I went to get car insurance, we told them we are in a domestic partnership. They said they would need proof of the partnership. In California they legally cannot ask for proof if they do not also ask for proof of standard marriage. And somehow I doubt they ask every married couple who walks in for proof that they are married. So already you are dealing with inequality.
But if my partner and I leave California, we have no rights whatsoever. We are basically two strangers.
As far as separate but equal goes, I believe there are biological hard-wired differences between the genders. So men and women are inherently different. But I also fail to see how this makes one any better than the other. To me they are each a different piece that makes up the whole.
The same goes for race. So what if there are actual inherent differences? Does it really matter? I don't see how that means one is any better than any other?
If I am asked my marital status, I say single. On a federal level I am legally required to. And I do not considered myself married on even a state level. If there is a specific choice for domestic partnership, I choose that. Otherwise, I say single.
My point was that even on a state level some might suggest that they are unequal. Now, in California state law requires all public and private entities to treat marriage and domestic partnership 100% the same. When my domestic partner and I went to get car insurance, we told them we are in a domestic partnership. They said they would need proof of the partnership. In California they legally cannot ask for proof if they do not also ask for proof of standard marriage. And somehow I doubt they ask every married couple who walks in for proof that they are married. So already you are dealing with inequality.
But if my partner and I leave California, we have no rights whatsoever. We are basically two strangers.
As far as separate but equal goes, I believe there are biological hard-wired differences between the genders. So men and women are inherently different. But I also fail to see how this makes one any better than the other. To me they are each a different piece that makes up the whole.
The same goes for race. So what if there are actual inherent differences? Does it really matter? I don't see how that means one is any better than any other?
If I am asked my marital status, I say single. On a federal level I am legally required to. And I do not considered myself married on even a state level. If there is a specific choice for domestic partnership, I choose that. Otherwise, I say single.