If you don't let consenting adults have sex and sexual relationships and live together or if you don't let them have ceremonies commemorating their relationship, then you are restricting and controlling them and limiting their freedom.
Good. The same goes for consenting adults who want to be married, for whatever its worth, some people do still care for it and want to be united in it. If you understand why "Consenting adults want to have sex, you don't let them = limiting their freedom", then you have to understand why "consenting adults want to be married, you don't let them = limiting their freedom".
Basically, "consenting adults want to XXX, and you don't let them = limiting their freedom", unless you can show that XXX infringes on the freedoms of others.
In this case, having Joe and Jim get married does not hurt in any way nor infringe on rights and freedoms of the rest of the society. The only reason why the society wants to prohibit it is because the majority finds it yucky.
That is a losing argument, and future legislation will show it, imho. In general, conservative arguments that aim to limit rights and freedoms of a certain group of society have not stood the test of time. See black rights. See women's voting rights.
They can marry anyone they want. The government won't recognize it but [that] does not itself constitute and infringement on freedom...
No they can't "marry anyone they want", not without a marriage license. What are you talking about???
The only thing they can do is PRETEND to be married, which is what you seem to be advocating. That is not the same thing, obviously, and is as mocking as telling a girl she can't get a university diploma to show a future employer but can attend the courses and PRETEND she has a diploma.
The important principle is that your freedom is not infringed on by the lack of action of others, or by their lack of approval or recognition, or support for your actions or relationships. If they do nothing to you, they are not infringing on your freedom
Even if that thought of yours were a principle of law (which is not, by the way), would you not agree that a BAN of homosexual marriages could constitute as ACTION?
:-) |
