🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3m4sgu$fq9@canyon.sr.hp.com> mikep@sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:
>
>	It is perhaps beyond the scope of this thread to expand fully
>	on this subject, but suffice it to say that marriage... around
>	the world and throughout history... has an amazing degree of
>	fundimental consistancy. This is true despite the fact that no
>	single entity "owns" or "promotes" marriage.  The reason for
>	this is because the basic concept of marriage stems _fully_
>	from the basic realities of our biology. 

Ah, I see, it's just "natural" right?  And you wouldn't what anything
"unnatural" fouling it up.

> All of humanity has
>	been under pressures to form arrangements that we call 'marriage'.
>	The details differ, but the basics, by a pragmatic imposition,
>	are all the same. BUT *same-sex* marriage _totally_ severs itself
>	from the fundimental pressures which gave birth to traditions/
>	structures of marriage.  This changes marriage on it's most
>	fundimental level... creating a major devaluation away from it's
>	primary benefit to humanity, and moving toward a valuation of
>	the details of transient legal issues.

Incorrect.  It *justifies* the committment.  Same sex marriages have a
higher success rate than heterosexual marriage.  It shows that when
people want to form a physical, emotional, and financial union they
should be taken seriously by the rest of us.

On the other hand, if I wanted to devalue marriage, I would want to keep
as many committed couples out as possible.  Through legislation against
homosexual couples and extra taxation of heterosexual couples.  This
would confuse younger generations who said many committed people outside
marriage.

>	This is bad news.

This is relative as well.  We both happen to agree that the devaluation
of marriage is bad.  The government is *not* here to enforce morals (check
out your copy of the constitution.  It *is* here to promote liberty.

>	Again, this is certainly too big a topic to sit on this thread,
>	but I hope you appreciate the condensed version.

Freedom is never to big a topic.

>: 	I do agree that marriage, and commitment to _stay_ married,
>: needs to regain value in our society, and that the lack of same is
>: a major contributor to a lot of our social ills.
>
>	Indeed.

Also agreed.  Teach freedom *and* responsibility.

Chris