Quote:
Originally Posted by Skie
I think over the passed few decades this concept has be run into the ground. You need not look far in heterosexual relationships to see that marriage often means nothing more than having to pay someone alimony. Government recognition is really nothing more than a cheaply priced legal contract to ensure the family unit stability, e.g. the children are taken care of. But, family stability is a thing of the passed, making me wonder why anyone would be clambering to belong to the defunct "marriage" group.
|
You say that the concept has been "run into the ground", but then give no evidence to support your assertion other than to say that people get divorced. Yes, people get divorced, but that doesn't change the fact that marriage, if taken seriously, is an inherently maturing experience that strengthens society as a result. At it's core is the biggest lesson in commitment and responsibility, next to having a child, that you can ever learn. As a married man, I can attest to that firsthand. I've heard people poo-pooing that point for years, but have never heard anyone actually justify their stance in a legitimate way.
Aside from that, I'm in agreement with everything Deckard said in response to the rest of your post. In some cases, I do see the slippery slope argument as legitimate, but not here so much. Especially since, as Deckard pointed out, there are health issues at stake where inbreeding is concerned, and because marrying a minor would likely involve statutory rape, etc. Polygamy is less clear-cut, but I don't see the opening of the definition of marriage creating a huge slipperty slope issue.
Although, Cacophony, there is a really good sandwhich place down the street that has an italian coldcut hero I may leave my wife for...