Dominasola
Posts: 582
Joined: 9/18/2008 From: Ottawa, Canada Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth no. they should go the other way and GET OUT of the business of sanctioning/giving special priviledge/preference to ANYONE'S preferred relationship style/status...including heterosexual marriage. I'm inclined to agree with beth. However, legal unions are, I suppose, useful in protecting the *victimized* party should the relationship end. The fact that we even NEED the law to dictate what happens when a civil relationship ends, though, sadly represents how irresponsible many people are. If anything, I would say that a generic legal *union* between two (or more) people of any gender would be adequate...with no specifications on orientation or sexual preference or whatever. Something like this would legally protect all members involved should the relationship fail, and would also give everyone the benefits of being considered a *family* under the law.
_____________________________
I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them. —Baruch Spinoza The measure of a man is what he does with power. —Pittacus
|