Marriage. Again.

Okay, so my idea of letting religions marry people to eachother as they see fit isn’t going over too well with anyone that I raise it with. Most of the time the objection is “well then they’ll be able to do whatever they want!” but some of the time the objection is the wide-ranging legal implications that are present, not to mention the fact that even this idea still needs safeguards.

Of course, that sort of brings us back to the question, What Is Government For? which stems the debate in the first place. In my view, the primary purpose of government is to create order and protect its citizens. How far it can go in creating and maintaining that order is another question in itself.

So, let’s say that children need to be protected. Obvious, because they don’t have the mental or physical capacity to be in a marriage relationship. Animals also would need protection, unfortunately. Let the only restriction be that marriage must involve consenting human adults. Then let religious authorities do their thing, whatever that thing may be. Frankly, it’s not the job of the government to enforce a certain type of morality on a group of dissenting people: that’s how democracies work. You don’t change people from the government down, but people change the government from the grassroots up.

So let the government wash their hands of it, get out of the marriage business, let the debate die down, and let the Christians get about their bloody business of evangelizing the world, instead of bothering with every bill C-250 that comes along, or with the latest petition that everyone is circulating.

No tag for this post.
Posted July 19th, 2004 in main.

2 comments:

  1. Philosopher king:

    I would agree. The government in this situation should however have cetain forms of union that it accepts [parts of your safeguard system I guess..] Mostly I guess it would be for tax purposes etc. I like it.. Perhaps could you develop it a bit ? and perhaps um well send it off to your MP.

    July 19th, 2004 at 12:10 pm
  2. Anonymous:

    hey it’s me again. your second post on this subject was an improvement. you obliterated the first 1/2 of my reply. but the following has yet to be responded to:

    “first of all, you wouldn’t want your kids walking innocently in the park and seeing something immoral taking place (i.e., drugging, drug-dealing, boozing, violence, bestiality, vandalism, foul language, etc.). obviously we can’t shelter them, but we work to keep our societies free of such actions taking place without consequences. your child suffers much less harm from witnessing any of the above if a cop screams into the scene and shows discipline, than if they are done and not challenged, if they are considered normal. if we allow homosexuality to be okay, same-sex couples cuddling and kissing on a park bench will not be challenged authoritatively. it will be seen as normal. THAT is harmful to your child.

    “secondly, don’t forget the children these same-sex couples will be adopting. how will they grow up?

    “we need to keep in mind the practical outcomes of such allowances.”

    July 21st, 2004 at 3:31 pm

Leave a response: