Comments on: The essence of sex and rights http://blogging.la/2009/03/04/sex-and-rights/ Lizard people dude. Seriously. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:54:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: eclipse292 http://blogging.la/2009/03/04/sex-and-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-56830 eclipse292 Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:23:23 +0000 http://la.metblogs.com/?p=22152#comment-56830 I disagree slightly with the premise, but I agree whole-heartedly with your conclusion. The government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Civil Unions are the only thing that make sense. Thus, any two people who want to cohabitate and share the burden of fiscal responsibility for one another should be able to do so. Marriage should be a completely separate issue, a ceremony that is performed in the church of one's choosing. @Oren. Yes marriage is related to who we have sex with, but it's not the whole thing, and who we have sex with shouldn't dictate who gets all our stuff when we die. If that were the case, I'd have a hell of a lot of people fighting over my sofa. Marriage is a bunch of legal permissions offered from one individual to another. It's designed to be a contract between a person and The One Person They Trust Most of All. That person often happens to be the same person they have sex with. But not always. And that's the problem. "Traditional" marriage that the psycho-fundies like to pretend is a real thing, is based on Bibilical edicts of property ownership and transfer. The key is to remove the Biblical edicts and replace them with Constitutional ones- because that, supposedly, is the document we look to for guidance in a democracy. Let your church tell you "to love and obey," and leave the government to tell you how to file your taxes. I disagree slightly with the premise, but I agree whole-heartedly with your conclusion. The government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Civil Unions are the only thing that make sense. Thus, any two people who want to cohabitate and share the burden of fiscal responsibility for one another should be able to do so. Marriage should be a completely separate issue, a ceremony that is performed in the church of one’s choosing.

@Oren. Yes marriage is related to who we have sex with, but it’s not the whole thing, and who we have sex with shouldn’t dictate who gets all our stuff when we die. If that were the case, I’d have a hell of a lot of people fighting over my sofa. Marriage is a bunch of legal permissions offered from one individual to another. It’s designed to be a contract between a person and The One Person They Trust Most of All. That person often happens to be the same person they have sex with. But not always. And that’s the problem. “Traditional” marriage that the psycho-fundies like to pretend is a real thing, is based on Bibilical edicts of property ownership and transfer. The key is to remove the Biblical edicts and replace them with Constitutional ones- because that, supposedly, is the document we look to for guidance in a democracy.

Let your church tell you “to love and obey,” and leave the government to tell you how to file your taxes.

]]> By: Oren http://blogging.la/2009/03/04/sex-and-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-56829 Oren Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:32:34 +0000 http://la.metblogs.com/?p=22152#comment-56829 Lulu, If marriage was "simply a religious convention", atheists would be lobbying for the right to civil unions. Marriage is <i>exactly</i> related to who people "happen to have sex with". It is a sexual construct, not a religious one. That's why we have civil marriage. Lulu,

If marriage was “simply a religious convention”, atheists would be lobbying for the right to civil unions.

Marriage is exactly related to who people “happen to have sex with”. It is a sexual construct, not a religious one. That’s why we have civil marriage.

]]>