bouzane said:
reggin_bolas said:
A politically neutral state has no legitimate interest in granting marriage licenses to a non-natural family. Same sex couples don't need to marry. There is no logic or reason other than some pseudo-spirituality about love.
|
Interracial marriage is neither natural nor supported by "traditional" marriage.
Same-sex couples are denied a bevy of rights and privileges when excluded from marriage, thus they do in fact need it.
There is no logical reason to enforce one religion's views on marriage in a secular nation beyond some pseudo-spirituality about "morality".
|
I never once mentioned a traditional marriage. Nothing is unnatural about interacial marriage. I have no problems with divorce. Arranged marriages? It's not relevant to the consitution nor to the entire debate. The only thing at stake is the definition of family which marriage aims to protect. Man and woman is the only cross-cultural and thus universally accepted definition of marriage. All other things such as arranged marriages and age of consent vary from culture to culture.
