California overturns ban on same-sex marriage

[Skie]

Originally Posted by Sean

In this current reality, I think that what's important to marriage's survival is more that it be between people who love each other, and who are willing to take on the commitment that pledging your companionship to someone for a lifetime requires. It's an institution that helps us mature as a society by teaching us the importance of being responsible for someone and something other than ourselves, being faithful to them by honoring our publicly stated commitments, and being there to support each other through difficult times.

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.

Not to mentioned there are more financial benefits to be non-married than to be married. You can really buck the tax system with one itemizing the house and the other being able to utilize standardized deductions. Which will work out great unless you're in a common law state.

I also find it ironic that there's no one on the bandwagon asking for polygamy marriages (in all it's forms) to be "official". Because, we know they've been doing it for a long while now just as non-government sanctioned marriages. If a man and a woman is OK, a man and a man is OK, a woman and a woman is OK, why is adding another person (or more people) to the mix a taboo? If you're going to open it up, you might as well open it up so any consenting adult can marry as many consenting adults as they choose.

This doesn't even touch on the fact how throughout history societies that embraced polygamy tended to do very well. With the damn near requirement for dual-income households, wouldn't it be good to embrace a third "stay-at-home" counterpart to actual raise the kids. Then again, society would probably spontaneously combust if raising children ever became a focus. We've gone from "Children should be seen and not heard," to "Children should be; not seen and heard."