Corth wrote: It would be very difficult to plan an equitable dissolution of a marriage in advance based purely upon contract law principles.
Did I really just hear a Libertarian say Contracts weren't good enough to handle something?
Lathander wrote:The problem of a hard coded between hetero or homo is that it does not explain things like bisexuality. If it is on or off, then you really couldn't have a bisexual.
People aren't binary Lathander. Look at skin color, there are states between pure black and albino! Why must you assume sexuality is "on" or "off" if skin color has thousands of shades?
In addition, this simplified discussion doesn't incorporate other sexual confusions such as transgender people or crossdressers not to mention the submissive and dominating personalities confused about their sexual roles. When you look at it in a broader range, the homosexual just becomes another deviant from the normal condition.
Does anyone want to take a guess on whether or a post-op transexual can marry someone from their former gender? Apparently the answer is <a href="http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=14702&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm">yes</a>. Moreover, if one parter in a heterosexual marriage gets a sex change the marriage is still considered valid.
Again, I'm ignoring the polygamy crap as a straw man. Remember, that was supposed to happen automatically when interracial marriages were allowed... along with the rest of the breakdown in society!
While we should tolerate crossdressers, transgender, gay, and bisexual folks, most would agree society and each person should not be forced to accept them.
Let's reword this and see if it still sound ok:
While we should tolerate black people, most would agree society and each person should not be forced to accept them.
Can anyone else easily imagine the KKK saying something like that?
Why don't we just have laws preventing gays from using public transportation, using public waterfountains... heck, they should have their own bathrooms... right?
Can you really not see how you sound when you say things like that?
Here is something created over 130 years ago being applied to something that was not even considered at the time.
Here's another crazy concept that took a over a hundred years to set in:
All men are created equal.
I guess it was "unintended consequences" to allow women and black people the same rights as white landowners, right? Well, yes... but that doesn't mean we aren't better off for it.
Just like we would be better off with gay couples caring for orphaned children, and with extra tax revenue and lowered welfare costs. There's your reasons FOR gay marriage, aside from the whole civil rights thing.
I agree with the decriminalization but not with the forced acceptance.
Yeah, some people STILL can't accept that black's are our equals. That doesn't mean Law should be as bigoted.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.
I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire