>Scotus announces its cool to say no to fags in regards to compelled speech
>they finally cite religious liberty as a foundational reason why
W E W
@SpurgAnon
End of month, and our government made gay marriage the same entity as straight marriage. For no fucking reason. While we're still suffering from insane inflation.
> For no fucking reason.
wouldn't you need a legal justification to keep them separate? and wouldn't it need to be non-religious in nature? the thing we're talking about here is a legal construct after all, not a religious one (the religious one certainly exists tho)
@roboneko @SpurgAnon
That's actually my problem too.
There are no alternatives to this legal contract, that obviously doesn't fit all the situations.
And by using this exact version now even on same sex couples, it is even less adaptive to the individual needs.
@roboneko @SpurgAnon
The natural situation is: people will form groups of mostly 2, and sometimes have kids.
The fact, that the state needs to fuck this natural instinct up with 100 pages legal document is disgusting to me. And now, they will push the same dystopian control on gays too.
@roboneko @SpurgAnon
So, respond already.
WHY DO WE NEED A SINGULAR LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR EVERY POSSIBLE COMBIMATION OF LONG TERM COHABITATION?
@roboneko @SpurgAnon
WHERE DID I MENTION RELIGION FUCKFACE?
or in other words I was suggesting that doing away with such a distinction wasn't without reason given the absence of such a justification
@roboneko @SpurgAnon
So, I will repeat that.
Marriage is extremely broken system based on 100 assumptions, 99 of which don't apply to straight couples. It's original purpose was to bond people together.
Now, the bonding part is optional, the consent is optional, and the purpose is division of assets on divorce.
And I do not believe, that forcing homosexuals into the same system will help them in the slightest. Not only would the "original purpose" not fit, but the current one is even more retarded.
> It's original purpose was to bond people together.
purpose in what sense? there are plenty of bible passages putting prices on women and various transgressions. imo the purpose of marriage is and always has been to maintain social stability. historically there would nearly always have been children involved but even with that being different now plenty of the same dysfunctions still exist
@roboneko @SpurgAnon
> Bible
I'm not reading that bullshit.
Write me an argument, not some 2000 year old copy-pasta
@roboneko @SpurgAnon
If you cannot write an argument without referencing that book, then you aren't capable of writing something worth reading
@roboneko @SpurgAnon
I have been writing my non-religious reasons for abolishing legal marriage for the last several posts.