British Lawmakers Approve Gay Marriage

[milo]

Where did you read me saying ignorant rednecks or inferiority? Now you're just adding things to this argument that I didn't even bring up. You don't like the law changing a definition? Why don't you consider that getting married means more for gay people than your demands for it not to change?

I don't take a position on the issue at all as it doesn't affect me. It was you who simplified the whole discussion to "equal rights" when it's not the case at all and then started discussing incest and bestiality.

---

I suppose politicians want to pacify their voters. They are more than eager to regulate every aspect of our lives. Since they collect marriage license fees and extra tax from married couples, they should be behind it. Most politicians are lawyers and lawyers make a fortune during divorce proceedings.

The laws on marriage were originally written to promote a population for a growing nation. Since same sex unions don't produce a population there was no point in considering them.

It makes sense. The divorce laws make separation difficult and painful.

Some old laws promote dead concepts. The world needs zero population growth at this time. We are outgrowing our resources.

From a global perspective you may correct but from a local perspective some may disagree with you. The current fertility rate in the US is 1.9% which means without Immigration the population would be shrinking. Sociologists predict that re.moving family incentives or splitting them with single and same sex couples would reduce it to 1.6% meanining the country would be "conquered through attrition " within a century.

Of course I think being conquered through attrition would be fascinating but some believe we should be trying to preserve our culture and values.

---

One interesting point that comes up not often enough in this debate is: why does the gvt have a hand to play in marriage at all?? Why do they care who we choose to partner up with, and why the hell do they regulate it? It'd be easier if it was totally unregulated by the law, but then once ppl marry in their religion or just in front of witnesses or whatever then they declare to the gvt that spousal rights should go to this person, and then it's done. (Then divorce would be revoking those rights.) That way religions wouldn't have to marry gays if they were against it, yet gays would be free to marry. Not sure I'm expressing myself well, but it's something to consider.

Marriage itself isn't technically regulated, just the state's recognition of it. This is required to set state fertility and domesticity programs.