|
>> Hey Strawman I am a common man. The law is to be interpreted in how an
>> ordinary common man believes it means. As an ordinary, common man, i believe
>> the meaning of marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Marriage and family
>> are about relations between men and women and their children. Having said
>> that, I can live with neighbours who are homos except that their
>> relationship is not marriage. Call it anything else. Invent a new vocab for
>> their partnership but not the term marriage. I invite you my notes
on definitions. I think you have missed the point. As an individual you can define
'marriage' however you want. 'Pressing a suit' means a different thing to a
lawyer as to a tailor, and we can coexist quite happily with those differences.
The problem is not actually the definition, but the fact that the law treats
people differently depending on whether they are in a same-sex or different-sex
relationship. There is no reason why government has to define "marriage" at all. It could
just define the term "contract", and leave it at that. The government has no right to interfere in my relationships, or the
agreements (contracts, even "Marriage" contracts) regardless of whether I am a
"common man" or a cross-dressing, purse carrying, rear gunning, shirt lifting
nancy boy. My (mutually consensual) relationships are my business. >> If all the women decide to "marry" women and all the men decide to "marry"
>> men, who is to produce the kids? .. and your point is exactly? If no-one wanted to produce kids, would it be your right to force them to?
If someone doesn't want children, that is their right regardless of whether
it is 'good' for you or not.
| 
