|
>> Anonymous Coward - I agree that the gay community uses the term 'marriage'
>> because they want the same acceptance of their unions in mainstream society as
>> heterosexaul couples. Yes, the gay community is trying to do the same thing as the government - force
through their own social agenda. >> However the term marriage has legal implications. Gay people want to be treated
>> equally under law with heterosexual people. Some would argue this is not an
>> unreasonable request. Except that there is no need why marriage needs to be treated that way at all. >> For instance the rights to property that one heterosexual
>> partner has if the other partner dies do not apply to gay couples. These rights
>> are defined in law as rights due to marriage. Hence the gay movement uses the
>> term 'marriage' in describing these rights. Your definition of marriage does
>> not include this legal side. But thats what the gay community is trying to
>> describe. So they have to use the term 'marriage'. And there is no need for such a law. If people get to write their own
marriage contracts, they can choose to put a 'mutual inheritance' clause into
the contract or not. And anyone who objects to these things on the grounds that it might kill
the romance might like to think again. Making a lifetime commitment is a big
thing, and those terms are an important part of it. In practice, a free-market system would produce a number of 'standard'
contracts - a 'Catholic Church' contract, a 'Islamic Extremist' contract, a
'Call it Marriage but it Doesn't Really Mean Anything' contract, a 'Raise the
Kids Together' contract etc, and people would make small changes to those.
| 
