However, I don’t believe in marriage, not unless there’s divorce.
I’m fine with the idea of two consenting adults agreeing to be united, and the state acknowledging their union and awarding them with certain privileges and benefits. But to lock in two adults with no way out is, I believe, a concept that has lost its relevance to me because it is not grounded on reality. Yes, there will be couples who can make it ‘til Death do them part. But not all marriages will succeed and survive.
In fact, I’d rather just live in together. If you last, then congrats; if you don’t, well, at least untangling need not be messy and drawn-out.
2 comments:
while it is okay to marry, let's ask first the government to give us jobs, food, lower taxes and electricity charges, free social services, good governance, and yes, divorce.
and then we can ask for that next.
although i fully support homosexual partnerships, i believe that this push to conform to the "marriage" box needs further scrutiny. after years of trying to get ourselves out of the traditional boxes, there seems to be some machination that wants to place us back in this archetype. i suggest to leave the tag 'marriage' to heterosexual couples; also, let us leave the 'honor' that only their sexual act has the possibility to conceive another life (2 cocks can't make a baby, neither can 2 pussies!). i guess we need one of our own to come up with an appropriate title for homosexual unions. call me cynical, but the fight over the term "married" is driven by financial issues and the corresponding perks that come with it. if the real problem is the rights of homosexual couples to be responsible with one another especially in medical circumstances, then push for laws to address this problem; the same can be done for other concerns. but in my opinion, its all about the money, money, money...the tax implications - couples instead of singles, and the like. so let's push for equality, but with the right understanding and intention. bow ;-)
Post a Comment