Originally Posted by
lancer_c
Personally I don't mind if the practical benefit is removed or if the "civil union" had the same benefits as marriage now (or both).
What I foresee being a problem with the "give marriage access to all citizens", however, is the lack/removal of a dividing line (that will most likely be continuously challenged by more groups as time marches on).
Will it officially become;
"the joining of two people"
"the joining of people" (polygamy)
"the joining of organisms" ( http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...050339590.html )
or simply "the joining" (there are people who claim to be deeply in love with buildings and inanimate objects)
?
I must admit "the joining" does have a nice fantasy/future ring to it.
By this logic the re-legalization of alcohol would have already lead to every single drug imaginable. Those are not the issues being discussed, and to mention them is pointless as A: Polygamy is illegal for wholly different reasons and B: there will not only NEVER be a large enough amount of people in the next two categories for them to happen, but animals and inanimate objects are not the same as a homosexual
person no matter which way you slice it.
EDIT: That link is a piece of fluff news. If you really think that the woman did that because she feels connected or sexually attracted to the dolphin, you are missing the point. They publish those stories to have something "happy" to talk about, not to make a point on social issues.
Last edited by deady; Dec 7, 2009 at 06:51 AM.