Quote:
Originally posted by James
Ok . . after reading all these points of view . . .
Would you ladies agree to get married within your appropriate religious or cultural context, but not in a state legal way?
That would satisfy your God, get you a ceremony, but wouldn't have state sanction.
If you wouldn't, why not? The major role of the state sanction part will end up only coming into effect in the event of seperation and will result in an economic penalty to the man, or primary wage earner.
|
I got married by a Judge... So my wedding was sanctioned by the state. The secular reasoning aside from what others have described is that when one wants to call it quits for whatever reason, it is tumultuous to do so--meaning getting a divorce. Court documents have to signed, ending the partnership between two people, etc., etc., etc...
I also know many people that have kids who are "co-parenting"--they may have NEVER been married, but have a kid together. I don't care how you slice it, all the child experts and research are showing that two parents are better than one. That is the bottom line end result... Personal experience shows that, too... Unfortunately, it is against same-sex relationships, too...
We would like to believe that love conquers all. But most people don't love themselves, therefore, they cannot love one another... So, in essence, it sounds like the state is sanctioning its morality--male on female love as the bonifide and justified stature of what is called a marriage and relationship...
I don't think there is much usage for being married in terms of the state--other than taking in to account the census and population data and procreation... Resources and funds get dedicated to the number of "stable" households... And the way the US government is going, that stability will be as volitile as the stock market soon... But that is just my opinion.
Threaded Mode