We already have a cultural system that works.
Do we?
I've been putting some thing outside the box on the table and answering everyone's questions about my ideas. All I'm getting in return is defense of the status quo for the sake of tradition or for the sake of "civilization."
I would be very interested in seeing a discussion where I was not the only one engaging and explaining my position.
Rigt now we have marriage, the sacrament, and civil marriage. I have no issue whatsoever with the sacrament. I find it a noble institution. What is at issue here is civil marriage. Will any of you defenders of marriage engage in an an analytical defense of civil marriage?
But why should we be doing this at all.
I had a career as a systems analyst so I am predisposed to look at systems from the perspective of what their underlying objectives and requirements are and how and whether their current procedures make sense in light of the underlying objectives. Do they meet the current need of did they evolve in bizarre ways? Should they be modernized? Do the underlying objectives even make sense any more or have the procedures just evolved into this snarl of unproductive overhead. So I naturally look at civil marriage from that perspective and I wonder just what it is that its defenders are so anxious to defend. It looks like a mess to me.
Someone mentioned the other day, I think it was DMA, that insurance is cheap enough now and implied that maybe SS survivor benefits could be handled by the market rather than a Federal program. Why are we still providing that benefit?
You might ask what this has to do with gay marriage. It's the inherent unfairness of such little things we have attached to civil marriage that has aroused those who cannot benefit. Rather than digging our heels in, can we not do a systematic review of such things and see if they still make sense as a simple courtesy to a minority in our country that feels alienated? If we just did a study, maybe we would get some information that would inform our positions on gay marriage. Maybe we'd even find the kernel of a solution that satisfies everyone. What a concept!
For all you defenders of marriage out there, would you please defend a few things for me?
I asked the question the other day why I should be able to pass my pension along to some nice young man who lived next door and helped me out in my old age by making a marriage contract with him on my death bed and thus providing him with the money to pay for medical school while I couldn't do that for a his sister. Will someone defend that for me? I'm answering all your questions. Will someone answer mine? I engage in these discussions to learn. I don't learn anything by doing all the explaining yet getting no insights in return.
Civil marriage has become, to at least a large segment of the population, a financial and legal decision. It's like you're going into business and you go to an attorney or an accountant to decide whether you want to form a partnership or incorporate. Will someone please try to defend that? I would like to know just how that advances civilization.
Perhaps someone could also explain to me why a couple who gets married advances civilization over a couple that is shacked up but pretends to be married. No one asks people to prove that they are married. We accept couples as presented. If anyone can tell me the inherent benefit of the actual marriage certificate, I'd love to hear about it.
Civil marriage as it exists now makes no sense to me. It's not upholding the tradition of marriage, the sacrament, but rather corrupting it by seducing people into making marriage a legal and financial choice. Someone defend that, please.
If the Europeans want to tear it all down and write it again using a Humanistic creed
I am not suggesting that. I'm simply asking that civil marriage be evaluated as to whether or not it is meeting our objectives. Can you or anyone else here defend civil marriage as we now practice it in terms of our societal objectives? |
