Regardless of how one feels about marriage and how we define it, let's ask a more pertinent question: Why does anyone need a bureaucracy's permission to validate one's relationships? Getting a marriage license from the government is a relatively new thing, historically speaking. Clearly, it was a mistake.
Despite being in the NYT, this is worth a quick read:
Why does anyone need a bureaucracy's permission to validate one's relationships?
Because your marriage isn't just an agreement between you and your spouse. It also creates obligations elsewhere, like granting you visitation rights and taxation benefits. And it's not a mistake for the government to promote the one relationship best suited to perpetuating society and discourage those that cause social strife.
You are putting the cart before the horse. Because gov got involved in marriage, now all these other entanglements have been tacked on. I get that, but it isn't my question. You need to answer why exactly government should make all marriages illegal except for the ones they deem to be legal. Where does this right spring from? What justification does the gov have for removing people right to free association and marriage?
The answer to any question about marriage is that government shouldn't be involved.
Marriage is a religious ceremony of faith and commitment.
Government should care only about power of attorney, joint ownership of property, and custody of children, all of which already exist outside of marriage.
It's times like these that I'm reminded that before totalitarian reform sweeps in and bans degeneracy, it's utilized as a tool to destabilize and fragment a nation.
Being a slut is not empowering, it's not something that should be celebrated. Not because of morals or other such bullshit. For most people, non-monogamous relationships are a sign of severe emotional and mental problems, and yes, a 3some is still a non-monogamous relationship, sluts. Sleeping around is fine for some people, but we should not be rewarding/incentivizing this behavior.
Don't see how it would be unconstitutional? Wish the article had better discussion of the potential ramifications both legal and social rather than just "bad because not christian".
But they still want to pretend there's some profound "difference" between humans, and those other animals they automagically look down upon for being different.
Based and Mormon pilled
Regardless of how one feels about marriage and how we define it, let's ask a more pertinent question: Why does anyone need a bureaucracy's permission to validate one's relationships? Getting a marriage license from the government is a relatively new thing, historically speaking. Clearly, it was a mistake.
Despite being in the NYT, this is worth a quick read:
https://archive.ph/uGTeq
Because your marriage isn't just an agreement between you and your spouse. It also creates obligations elsewhere, like granting you visitation rights and taxation benefits. And it's not a mistake for the government to promote the one relationship best suited to perpetuating society and discourage those that cause social strife.
You are putting the cart before the horse. Because gov got involved in marriage, now all these other entanglements have been tacked on. I get that, but it isn't my question. You need to answer why exactly government should make all marriages illegal except for the ones they deem to be legal. Where does this right spring from? What justification does the gov have for removing people right to free association and marriage?
The answer to any question about marriage is that government shouldn't be involved.
Marriage is a religious ceremony of faith and commitment.
Government should care only about power of attorney, joint ownership of property, and custody of children, all of which already exist outside of marriage.
It's times like these that I'm reminded that before totalitarian reform sweeps in and bans degeneracy, it's utilized as a tool to destabilize and fragment a nation.
Being a slut is not empowering, it's not something that should be celebrated. Not because of morals or other such bullshit. For most people, non-monogamous relationships are a sign of severe emotional and mental problems, and yes, a 3some is still a non-monogamous relationship, sluts. Sleeping around is fine for some people, but we should not be rewarding/incentivizing this behavior.
Are Mormons now able to freely practice their religion?
Don't see how it would be unconstitutional? Wish the article had better discussion of the potential ramifications both legal and social rather than just "bad because not christian".
The title is a quote from Futurama.
Oh right, the episode where Zoidberg eats a flag.
But they still want to pretend there's some profound "difference" between humans, and those other animals they automagically look down upon for being different.
Fucking sluts.
Watch them do back flips as harems start to form.