Marriage is the way our societies legitimize and recognize a relationship. Marriage does fill an emotional and social need for the couple as well as the society at large who thereby recognizes their union.
That is only the emotional side. Even only from this perspective, people who can fulfill this wish with the person they love have this freedom to do so, and others are therefore less free. The definition of freedom is basically to do what you want to, when you want to, as long as it does not hurt anyone else. If Joe wants to marry Jim, and call him his "spouse", it does not hurt anyone nor infringe on anyone else's freedom. Therefore, he should be able to do so and if he cannot, he is less free than another person who can.
The current argument for preventing homosexuals from marrying the people they choose appears to be more or less "We find it yucky, so they can't". I find it unfortunate that this minority is being bullied by the majority in this fashion. Just like women obtaining the right to vote,Racial marriages,etc. They will one day obtain this right, for its denial to this minority is an indefensible position under the principle of equality.
There is also the practical and legal reasons why two people might want to be married. Being considered a "family" has quite a few advantages if you are applying for a mortgage or an insurance policy, inheritance laws favor the spouse over blood relatives, etc. Denying homosexuals these advantages that anyone else can benefit from is obvious discrimination.
You only address your narrow point of view, nothing more!
Who is the one with the discomfort? |
