You don't have to believe that same sex couples should have the right to get married but this a right people who fight for LGBT rights do fight for. I don't define rights as serving the purpose of permitting one to perform a duty and offspring is not a duty of marriage.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Then you do not use the word "right," a legal term, the way that those who legislate, adjudicate and enforce the laws do. Offspring is not a duty of marriage, but duty to offspring is the purpose of marriage.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FrancisRoyCA
That should be changed then. Duty to offspring should be independent of whether their parents are married and whether they are the same sex or the opposite sex.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Why? Just a reminder that offspring means the product of sexual reproduction, not merely any child in the vicinity. I agree that offspring, and children in general should be cared for. But none of this addresses assigning traditional purpose-created legal rights to non-parents.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FrancisRoyCA
I don't care much about traditional purposes of marriage. That has changed a lot over time and space. Now it mostly signals a loving commitment which is why same sex couples want the same right to do it. And I think people have a duty to care for their adopted children too.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
"I don't care much about traditional purposes of marriage." Then why have it at all? Why should the state (that's us) assign benefits of those who would claim it? Note that guardianship does not confer the benefits of inheritances, power of attorney, etc. between two guardians.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FrancisRoyCA
Surely you recognise that people can value things for other reasons than tradition? I married my husband to show my love and commitment to him. I don't think the state should privilege married couples over unmarried ones.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
1. I do; it is beside the point. The value of marriage is not to support tradition. Marriage has become tradition because it has shown that it is a functional element in the smooth operation of a society aiming at eudaimonia. ->
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FrancisRoyCA @HPluckrose
2. Consider what the commitment is: to remain with the person for life. Why? Offspring. What then, is the purpose of marriage if not the assignment of benefits and rights? These benefits are not required to feel or to social-signal. That is what ceremony is for.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FrancisRoyCA
That doesn't follow. Offspring can certainly be a reason to stay with someone for life. Marriage doesn't make that more or less likely. If you're going to split your family up and it will harm your child and your love of your child doesn't stop you, why would a piece of paper?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't necessarily believe that, btw. Most of my friends have divorced and in two cases it was for the sake of the child and in the other three, the child is just fine.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.