And it makes me proud to be South African
Reshared post from +Tamara Fleisher
Makes me proud to be Canadian.
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.
Just Nenad
My contemplations and Meanderings
And it makes me proud to be South African
Reshared post from +Tamara Fleisher
Makes me proud to be Canadian.
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.
And South African.
Marriage is marriage just as much as love is love. why change it just because the people have the same sex?, dont they love each other, is that what matters the most?.
My favorite stupid comment today came from a conservative who said marriage has always and is always between a man and a woman everywhere for thousands of years. He is so full of shit it was amazing.
People like that are simply better ignored. An empty tin makes the loudest noise.
If you have an empty tin, isn't it better to play kick the can then listen to the noise?
If only I could hug you South Africa.
Why does the state need to have its hands in marriage in the first place? There's no reason for your love to be a governmentally handled affair.
From a state standpoint I'd say marriage is not primarily about love but law. It might be dry and boring but that is how it is.
But that does not matter when it comes to same sex marriage really. The law should not differ if the marriage is between two men or two women. Throw more into the mix and there might be more complexity though.
And I'm a swede and over here it is thankfully not that controversial with gay marriage.
The problem is we have inherited a large tradition of Germanic law to go along with the idea of marriage, especially the bit where it is considered a marriage contract (which often explicitly dealt with the rights and obligations of each party [in this case the families, old and new] under the agreement). Essentially it was a legally recognised tort. [Which not only raises issues for marriage, but also for de facto relationships, same-sex or otherwise.]
Conflate this with the earlier Roman law where marriage is simply a legal instrument to determine the paternity of the child (a definition still used in many countries, like Denmark, for example), and you start getting all sorts of trouble. [Under Roman law, gay couples didn't have this problem because the instrument of adoption was vastly easier than it is now (the equivalent ease of marriage without the problems of actual childbirth, since one could adopt an heir (and since having an heir was the entire basis of Roman law and custom, this was rather important). Of course, it didn't help women, gay or otherwise, who were essentially considered property, even when widowed.]
That's just the legal viewpoints. Through religious and canonical law into the mix and you have an awful lot of "laws" pulling in different directions as to what constitutes "marriage."
Each of these things are called "marriage." But they all refer to different things.