Quote:
|
Originally Posted by case
I agree. I think it really is that way and what struck me the most was the last part..."own two cars...[own] two women." I think that is what bothers me most about this idea. The idea that two people own each other or one owns the other. I know that is not the intention in most relationships. Of course, everyone has their own ideas on what a relationship should be, but why should we be able to dictate that on a legal level to the degree that if a person wants to be married to more than one person, he/she cannot?
|
I am, of course, speaking from my version of the prevailing male-centric sociological view. It is not a view I share, and my characterization of women being equivalent to cars as property is a use of absurdism to illustrate what I see as the effective operating norm.
Two people should not own one another, unless that is the stated and unequivocal wish of *both* partners. As far as I am concerned, adult people should be able to marry whomever they wish, in whatever quantities they so desire, live in any configuration they choose, boff whomever in whatever *consenting* fashion seems like fun and doesn't result in serious injury or death. That said, I can see a reasonable case for allowing only one-partner, one set of benefits situations, but they shouldn't be based on gender. Homosexual marriages should be legal, and benefits should be extended identically as they would be in heterosexual unions.
The *only* reason this is not allowed is because a specific form of *religious* morality is being allowed to be foisted upon us.