The REAL gay marriage issue
Posted by LeoRizzuti 11 years, 3 months ago to Culture
Libertarians need to clarify their stance on gay marriage to be more consistent with their other stances. It is not that Libertarians should be for government sanctioning of gay marriage, but that government should have no say so in who marries whom. It is a private contract between two individuals and should be seen as such. Of course, if you go back to the militant gay marriage proponents with that they will not support it, because to them it is not really about being free to marry whomever you would like, but to be able to derive government benefits from your relationship. Not a Libertarian ideal at all.
I support the idea of homosexual people (or any other people for that matter) being free to marry whomever they want. Why should I care as long as their choices do not affect me? But that is the whole point, it should NOT AFFECT ME. Marriage should not be an avenue to gaining more government benefits, or else it becomes something that the taxpayers should have a voice in. If you truly want the freedom to marry whomever you want, then fight to get the government out if the whole thing. Otherwise you appear to simply be looking for another way to suck on the government teat.
I support the idea of homosexual people (or any other people for that matter) being free to marry whomever they want. Why should I care as long as their choices do not affect me? But that is the whole point, it should NOT AFFECT ME. Marriage should not be an avenue to gaining more government benefits, or else it becomes something that the taxpayers should have a voice in. If you truly want the freedom to marry whomever you want, then fight to get the government out if the whole thing. Otherwise you appear to simply be looking for another way to suck on the government teat.
They offered to drop all resistance to a proposed CT law recognizing gay marriage if that law also included provisions that established religions would be legally protected from lawsuit for not recognizing or performing gay marriages.
The Pro Gay Marriage forces refused.
Take from that what you will.
the opening paragraph of the Constitution does not say "protect", it says PROMOTE --- there is a big difference
That being said the choice at hand is whether to either recognize the legitimacy of same-sex relationships (with all of the same benefits under law afforded to heterosexual couples) or to remove these same benefits from heterosexual couples. Its a question of "all or nothing" in the final analysis. One can only presume which path will ultimately be taken.
on hospital visitations(again the govt involvement, litigious issues), inheritance, etc. can all be solved contractually- medical powers of attorney, . I do not see these as big hurdles overall. on adoption, depending on state I will agree this hurdle seems onerous. I am just not for band aiding the problem. it seems to be about recognition more than onerous circumstances
The 'gays', or as I like to refer to as, Americans, just want the same thing that non-gay Americans have. Sure, let them get married, then let them have marriage benefits. Why is that such a radical idea?
People here are talking about how these benefits are 'government handouts'. Well if that is true, and you are a non-gay (straight) American who is married, then you should deny every benefit you get from being married! The gay marriage issue is about having the same thing that YOU have, not more!
@Mitch
"If marriage is legal between same sex couples then we have to allow polygamy"
Do you seriously believe that? Does that mean that we should then allow people to marry dogs and lamps?
Look, it is two consenting adults who want to do what they want to do and be treated like everyone else for it. Can't get much more 'libertarian' than that. Let's take a look at all the atrocities derived from marriage equality that have happened in states that allow gay marriage... oh wait, there are NONE!
Another big issue I've read here is defining 'marriage'. Yes, 'marriage' as is traditionally defined is a religious institution. Yes, 'marriage' as is defined here in the US also has LEGAL ramifications, often without a religious connotation (think being married in a courthouse). In the perfect situation, there would be one form of legal union (possibly a civil union) that ALL people get, and this union would be the legal benefits of marriage. Then, if you choose to have your union be connected with religious communities, you can then have a marriage ceremony, that is nothing more than a public display of your love to your church and your god. Sadly, since they are one-in-the-same in the US, by denying marriage, you are also denying these benefits of equal treatment.
Also, there are religions, churches, and denominations that DO support marriage equality. In this since, the marriage ceremony would still retain the holy affiliations. It isn't like LGBT Americans are all athiests or something!
@Tuner38
"Let it not be forgotten that marriage for benefits sake can be faked and probably would be."
Umm... is there supposed to be a point in your statement? You are saying that straight marriages sometimes happen just for the legal benefits...and so gay marriages may have this happen as well? Marriage IS a legal contract, so why do you care if the two people actually love each other or not? In this case, it would seem that they just want government handouts, or maybe there is another situation they are in, we really can't tell and it isn't our place to judge their situation. Let them do what they want to do. That brings up the point about taxes that 'pay' for marriage benefits that you pay into, therefore it is automatically anti-libertarian. If a man's wife is in the hospital, only family is allowed to see her, so he is allowed in. If a man's life partner (who happens to be male) is in the hospital, he isn't allowed to see him. By allowing these life partners (in both situations) to be with each other in a time of need costs a grand total of... ZERO dollars. This is just about decency, not your pocketbook!
Gay marriage DOES NOT AFFECT YOU, but by not allowing it, it DOES (negatively) affect all gay people! Also, if by "affect" you, you mean that you may see two men holding hands with rings on their fingers in public (WHY lord WHY???), then you need to grow up.
At the center of this issue is being more comfortable with gay people. You only see the stereotypically feminine gay men or masculine gay women (or crossdressing, transgendered, or whatever it may be) in the media. The truth is, you are all probably surrounded by gay people everyday, but since they act 'normal' (you know... because they are!) then you can't tell.
Whenever you comment on boards like this, please really think about what you want to say. Don't say anything you wouldn't say to the face of your child, co-worker, sibling, boss, friend, etc.
I dare you to tell your child that their marriage to someone they want to spend the rest of their life with of the same gender is equivalent to polygamy. If you can (or have) then something is wrong with YOU, not your child.
The single biggest point I agree with most is that Government should have never been in the business telling people who they can or who they cannot marry but they have been so how do we fix it. It becomes even more difficult when the Government associated wealth with marital status, i.e. tax breaks.
I personally think the solution to this whole mess is to convert everyone’s marriage into a civil union and get the Government out of the business of picking winner and losers. If you want to be married, you go to your church; this wouldn’t prohibit gays from marring as I’m sure some church will do it.
Mitch
That will never happen.
As long as there are government sanctioned benefits to marriage, it should be open to everybody including homosexuals.
I am "partnered" and I agree with Mitch, that insisting on using a word (A neurological placeholder to represent an abstraction) that has a traditional meaning is, well -stupid. I know Mitch didn't say that but i know how he feels.
If I tell you I am partnered and you can tell I am a guy (hopefully) then you can safely assume I am partnered with a guy or vice versa for women.
For me it would be like changing the meaning of physics or incorporating the concept and equating it to comedy. If someone is talking about physics i want to know they aren't joking. LOL
The disease argument falls so short it is not even really worth addressing. AIDS is certainly a predominantly homosexual disease, but the rest are found in every ‘group’ of society. And so what if gays have more mental disease. IT IS THEIR CHOICE. If they want to put themselves at risk, it is their choice. Not turning a blind eye to it, just standing on liberty and freedom.
I do not believe in evolution. So your argument is pointless to me. If they don’t procreate, so what? What is that to you? You should put your effort into stopping abortion if you care so much about procreation. There are certain things in morality you can legislate. What goes on between two consenting adults behind closed doors is not one of them. If they do something in public, that is another matter.
The government conveniently calls a marriage a contract. But it was never initially, nor for thousands of years, called a contract. The government should have no authority in any marriage. If the people involved want to make it a contract, fine. Again, their choice.
The issue of “God” is ridiculous. If the government was not involved in my marriage and my marriage was not a contract, it would not be an issue for voters. Find me a place in the New Testament where other adults are to force other adults to behave sexually in one way or another. I am against homosexual marriage for a lot of reasons, one of them is because of God’s Word. Whether or not somebody else believes the same thing is not my problem. If you think it is, that’s your problem.
The real battle is to get the stinking government OUT of the marriage business. (And people shouldn’t be forced to pay for education either. That should be a choice as well.
Try reading Matthew 10:14. It may give you some peace on this subject.
"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work."
and
"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it."
Morality is objective, not an opinion. It comes from assessing reality and acting to best further (your) life.
Beat them at their own game.
CPA in multi states.
Showing that someone actively supports *some* collectivist ideals does not prove that person is a communist. Drawing some parallels between Cold War era KGB tactics and some current events does not prove an international communist conspiracy. And---with all due respect---arguing that it does makes you sound like a fringe conspiracy lunatic. (Note, I am not claiming you are, and I genuinely mean no offense.)
I think that failing to distinguish between European-style socialism and genuine slavery is ignorant and counterproductive. Sure: state the case against socialism---just as Rand did. In my view, it is a strong case that deserves to be heard. But claiming that European-style socialism is identical to slavery is, I think, tantamount to saying A is B.
You said you lived in Australia for some time, right? I live in Australia, and whatever you might think of our current government, our population is most certainly not enslaved. Sure, we have a welfare state, subsidised health care, etc. But we also have a great deal of individual liberty, and this is an important part of the Australian national identity. Compare this to, say, North Korea. There is simply no comparison.
I don't say we shouldn't state the case for individualism, laissez faire, etc.---I just think we harm that case by arguing that any departure from our ideal is slavery.
Do you not see the glaring differences between North Korea and Australia?
I can choose what profession I work in. I can choose to be a street sweeper, an entrepreneur, a concert violinist, a barber, or a carpenter. I can keep more than 50% of the wages I earn. I can choose to attend a sporting match, of nearly any sport I can imagine, featuring privately sponsored contestants, and largely unregulated by the government. I can attend a concert---anything from Shostakovich to Britney Spears. I can go to the cinema and choose from a wide variety of films---even ones that criticise the government. I can write a book criticising my government, publish it, and keep a large percentage of the profits. I can buy a plane ticket and fly to far corners of the world at my leisure. If this is what you call slavery, then it's a rather strange definition.
Ok, I have too many thoughts swirling around and I need to compose them for later. I must get my son from school.
Essentially you seem to be arguing that individual liberty is utterly meaningless the moment it is restricted in any way whatsoever.... no?
I think that the liberty of smoking a cigarette would be meaningful to a prisoner in a concentration camp, and I think the liberty to eat half a moldy turnip would be meaningful to a starving North Korean.
And when I compare what I have with what history shows me I might reasonably expect, then I think I am extraordinarily lucky.
;-)
Attempting to make this position work with Objectivism is attempting to reconcile a contradiction which is ultimately only a blank out.
(Disclaimer: Lostinaforest, I know you aren't advocating the position you asked about. I replied to your post because you worded it so well.)
Let me put it this way....
A good friend of mine says that the happiness of an individual is defined by a simple formula:
happiness = what one has / what one wants
I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that :-)
I hear this a lot, usually from people who wouldn't be caught dead carrying a copy of "The Audacity of Hope." Please cite something to back up your claim of sinister intent.
thx
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." The difference here is, I know this to be true, and you appear not to know this.
I am 30. If you are going to disregard me for that fact, that demonstrates more about you than it does me.
For those of us (like you and I) who have lived significantly longer our perspective is colored by the amount of Liberty and Freedom lost. One does not miss what they never had. For instance people born thirty years ago do not remember driving cars without seat belts because our cars didn’t have them. The government came along and forced manufacturers to install them, saying they were there for our safety but they wouldn’t mandate use, then they said you have to use them but we won’t pull you over for not using, and now they do. Liberty is lost in increments. Remember when if you were old enough to die for your country you were old enough to buy a beer? Remember when you could smoke wherever you pleased, eat what you want? Remember when a crime was a crime and there were no special punishments/ protections for some (hate crimes), and ones motivation was irrelevant except as a supporting evidence. Remember when politicians weren’t above the law and a policeman’s life was not worth more than a civilians. Nobody questioned your right to firearms. I am not arguing the good some of this may have brought, only the right of dictation by our government, the paternalistic nature. Yes, the list could go on, but the essential point is that the longer you live in this environment the more instances of this you experience and the less tolerant you become because you feel a longer string of oppression. We have seen more and felt more keenly the preponderance of evidence, having lived it.
Regards,
O.A.
(And you didn't know my age. You asked hopefully and backwards applied the answer I gave you to make yourself look clever.)
Your definitions of socialism and totalitarianism are far too lax.
Age is not a determining and limiting factor to ones perspective, however it does often change one’s perspective as you suffer a longer period of change you find oppressive. I find you are a brilliant young man and I predict great things in your future. You are a skilled debater and a considerable force. However, if the trend continues as it has, thirty years from now you will look back and say “I wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then.” It is inevitable. We all do it. Thirty years ago when I was about your age I did not feel so acutely the weight of the changes. The progressive agenda is all about redistribution. This as you well know, is a Marxist tenet associated with communism. There may be no overt communists or “conspiracy” in control, but the Marxist leaning politicians are not so ignorant as to adopt the label. They now call themselves progressives, or socialists, or liberal democrats. Either way if you believe the communists haven’t entered our governance in significant numbers, they have infiltrated/ corrupted our public psyche, and regardless of the label they are enemies of Liberty! For my self I would say our present administration acts more like fascists than socialists, but the distinctions are of little significance, and totalitarianism is also in the eye of the beholder depending upon whose ox is being gored.
In 1944 the Socialist Party candidate for president of the US, Norman Thomas, said this in a 1944 speech: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “Liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” He went on to say: “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the socialist party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform”
Regards,
O.A.
http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/...
There is also this from wiki:
Norman Thomas
(1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America
Source:
1948 - from an interview during the presidential campaign,
[Ed. note: Norman Thomas and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist Party Candidate, both quit American politics, agreeing that the Republican and Democratic parties by 1970 had adopted every plank on the Communist/Socialist and they no longer had an alternate party platform on which to run.]
reference:http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/norman_thomas_quote_ffb1
It can be found in many other places if you search for it. But unless you were there or have a recording or official transcript I am unaware of, it is subject to dispute...
Regards,
O.A.
I am well aware of the way things were, are, and might be and take the best actions to improve my life within my context of existence,
Regards,
O.A.
I understand your perspective, but I just don't agree. At all. I was in Ithaca when W was elected and the liberals were flipping out saying life is over. I just leaned back and relaxed telling them, "even if he outlaws gay marriage, the world isn't over." It was a huge learning lesson for me.
Conflating communism and collectivism is EXTREMELY dangerous. It misses the point, almost entirely, and makes it very hard to identify issues in your daily life. Ironically, it's also collectivist thinking to throw around the label communist (and moochers and looters and etc), again confusing the issue.
Finally, politics is an application of philosophy. To simply an issue to "communism" is to miss what the issue is about. If I thought people were using it as shorthand for complex philosophical arguments as Rand often did, I wouldn't have an issue with it. However, I often see not just the point being completely missed, but the dart board too.
Let me be clear, perhaps I could have chosen my words more precisely; I am not “telling” you what you are going to think in the future. I am predicting (I could be wrong) that you will find yourself with a more negative disposition decades from now if the nation continues down this progressive path as it has over my lifetime. Why do I say that? Because I find it to be the experience shared by so many of my peers that it is difficult to find one with any objectivity who does not see it that way. The exceptions being those who are progressive leaning and like the direction we are heading and apparently do not have any concerns, and those who do not recognize the camels nose, or give full due to the lessons of history. Now, I believe you are somewhat concerned or you wouldn’t bother.
Please point out where I have conflated communism with collectivism, and where it makes any difference even if so. They both are forms of oppression, tyranny of a majority, subjugation of the individual. Also since I apparently see more danger than you do, you feel I, and others here have been loose with our terms. Well, I just call them as I see them. What makes something communist and what makes it collectivist is a matter of degrees, or particular criteria of structure, but the result is the same, as is the general political philosophy of the proponents. There is far too much in common.
In my estimation I am using some terms for shorthand as Rand did. I do not wish to be pedantic. If we are to debate the finer points and distinctions of the terms, that is a separate subject for consideration. But since they are all part and parcel of the same general philosophy of pushing for egalitarianism at the expense of the individual, I really don’t care what term is used. The dart has hit its mark.
I am happy for you if you see the glass half full, and there are some hopeful signs that all is not lost. One must keep perspective just as you alluded to in your reference to W’s election. But the world didn’t end for the populations of Venezuela when Chavez took over, and similarly for the myriad of other similar examples throughout history. But do we want that here, and should we who see the same progression played out repeatedly, making its way into our body politic not sound the alarm?
Regards,
O.A.
Making a prediction or telling me, it makes no difference. Just as I don't tell people what will happen to them, I will also say "I don't know what will happen to him" or "That doesn't make sense to me so I don't know can sustain it."
As for how I can be happy and positive, I have accepted the reality of life. I'm here for 80 years. I was born into the current cultural context. I am doing my best to improve what I can for myself. Letting my happiness be determined by things beyond my control is unhealthy and I don't yet see our culture as past the threshold where ONLY suffering is possible.
I understand and find your perspective to be as all of ours is, based on your frame of reference, or as you call it “current cultural context.” My prediction is based upon my frame of reference, there are always exceptions. Perhaps you or your generation will do something extraordinary. I hope so. I still hold hope for our future, but for me time is more critical. My optimism fades with the years. I may not see everything as you do, but I enjoy reading your perspective. In many ways you remind me of myself a long time ago, and I was something to behold! :) You have courage, fortitude, but to imagine events over time will not change your perspective would betray your presence.
I sure hope you are granted 80 years!
Regards,
O.A.
P.S. Now I would like to apologize to LeoRizzuti for hijacking his post, and suggest that we move on, or if you wish to examine the bitter old fool’s perspective further, :) then by all means start a new thread.
"it's also collectivist thinking to throw around the label communist (and moochers and looters and etc), again confusing the issue. " PROVE IT
" If I thought people were using it as shorthand for complex philosophical arguments as Rand often did, I wouldn't have an issue with it. However, I often see not just the point being completely missed, but the dart board too." WHY do you think they're not?
Are you asking who is conflating communism on the Gulch? Many users at many times. You and davidkachel are the worst offenders.
"PROVE IT"
When used as pejoratives, the labels communist, moocher, and looter, especially in their plural form, dismiss the target quickly, completely ignoring any possible nuisance of his or her argument by grouping him or her into the "them" group against the speaker's "us" category. I see no reason to do such labeling generally and in fact think it's harmful to do so in two situations:
1. When on an internet message board. There is ample time and writing space. Why not parse out the details of the target's thoughts to truly understand the threat? What does dismissing him or her with a pejorative do besides make yourself feel better about identifying and dismissing him or her?
2. When a person is in a position of power, such as the President. What good does it do to say Obama is simply a communist (if he even is one)? The documentary 2016 is an example of a discussion that shows there is more complexity to his perspective and thus warrants being treated with great seriousness.
"WHY do you think they're not?"
Because they don't display the complexity and nuance of thought that demonstrates the understanding metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Overall what is posted and responded to has a reactionary bent to that demonstrates more emotional fervor than it does productive discussion.
You appear to be conflating Objectivism with Zen Buddhism. You speak as though you live in a perfect happy bubble divorced from real life events.
Parsing out thoughts-speaking of someone who doesn't normally parse things out....
finally, us, them is categorizing. producers vs takers.
Am I really supposed to continue to take you seriously when you make grand sweeping statements about me because I disagree with you?
I'm brainwashed? I'm a Buddhist? I'm sorry I'm not sorry. It's like you don't understand anything I write.
Keep bringing the insults and dismissals though. They're fun. :)
You blame the problems on people like me, (without even knowing who a person like me really is, mind you), saying I am the reason the "lefties have gained all the ground they have."
How are those approaches working? You don't seem very happy...
fascism/socialism,theocracy/communism/progressivism- all variations on collectivism
And no, I'm merely saying that you should always stand up for what's right, but not lose sight of how lucky you are in the process.
Oh, and before you throw the whole "sure, you can afford it, but I can't" argument around, know that my household income totals about $40,000 a year. We don't have a lot of luxuries so that I can instead make sure that my children are given a good education. They don't have PS3s and we don't have a lot of what others consider "needs", but they will be aware of what the history of this country is and they will be prepared to lead. Fair trade, I say.
Take some responsibility.
For what you suggest to be true and right you must first separate marriage (defined as the religious portion of the marriage covenant/agreement) from the civil union (defined as the civil contract between two or more people with the civil benefits of marriage)
If those are separated out, then I agree. Civil unions should be available to all. It is, at that point, a legally binding contract without the religious subtext.
Marriage is for many a deeply religious act. For those the right to refuse marriage to those who do not meet whatever the religions qualifications for marriage are must be preserved, just as gays and lesbians must have the civil union aspects of what is now marriage in order to have equality before the law.
The government has to be involved in the civil union part of it. There are aspects to that (power of attorney when one becomes ill, the ability to visit your kid in the hospital or at school....) which must be governed by law. The law needs to provide the civil contracts and the courts to enforce/revoke those contracts. There is no way to rationally think that can be separated from the government. Just who or what can enter into those civil contracts is not the preview of the government.
There is a civil contract portion of marriage, and another part. To some the other part is religious, to others its validation, to others its security.
My argument is simply that the civil/contractual aspects of marriage must be separated from the religious/emotional portions of it.
If you do not separate them, when a church refuses to marry a gay couple because they see that activity as a sin, they are preventing that couple from getting married, and if marriage is defined by law to be for all citizens then you have a discrimination lawsuit.
By separating the civil part away from the religious part, and then allowing everyone to have the civil a society is able to respect the beliefs of all while provide all with equal civil contract.
The marriage at city hall is a civil union. All government forms should say civil union on them. That is what you are getting at city hall and its the only part of marriage that should matter on a government form. Those people who enter this contract have all the legal changes that occur with marriage today. The forms are updated to say civil union and only the government provided the civil union.
The separate piece that a church would do, or vows that are exchanged or who has sex with whom would be removed from the government when done this way.
The real issue is that Marriage (which was nearly always religious) was hijacked by a government contract because it was easy to do. That contract is a civil union and the government should have created it, other than hijacked the religious ordinance of marriage.
The very fact that some people do not do it in a church any longer is the reason why the two should have stayed separate and should be again today. If they are sepeate, and the civil union is just a city hall item, then yes civil unions should be available to all.
As a marriage contract you cannot rule that its discriminatory to gays to not allow marriage without opening up religions to discrimination law suits when they choose not to marry a gay couple. In order for all to have there freedom the two must be separated. The religious union and the civil union must be two separate items in our society.
Even in a free society contracts need to be notarized. I can in principle agree with what you say, however in practice if no contract is filed with some third party either party could then change the contract and claim the other has done so.
A filing of a contract is a protection to the people in the contract. Now I would be all over the idea that this is a voluntary step, one which any person can choose to bypass and just have the contract singed by both parties available if it was not filed when you attempt to use the powers of that contract.
I for one want any contract I go into reviewed and notarized so that neither party can alter it later on. That third party is the government in most cases, but it could in fact be a couple of witnesses just as easily.
So to some degree I agree with you, but not completely because of the need on contract enforcement and the third party needing to have access to the original contract.
Does this make sense?
I would first like to see the separation of religious unions and civil unions. This makes providing the appropriate rights rights to all simple. Once you separate it the religious union no longer has any bearing other than on those who enter it, and the civil union can then be removed from the government preview and left simply as a contract with witnesses, whomever a person prefer those witnesses be.
My defense is only that the civil union portion has to have some way of being recognized by government services, your place of work... and currently that's with the government. Anything beyond the civil union part; the religious part, the sex part and the relationship part is really nobodies business but the two or more people involved.
I think the need for a contractual agreement also has an origin in biology. This is because males can produce sperm easily and in great numbers, and further, it is in their interest to spread their genes as far and wide as possible. In contrast, a woman has only a finite number of eggs, and bearing a child is costly and fraut with risk.
So marriage makes sense from this perspective, as a public contract to prevent the man disappearing after he has sown his seed, and to prevent the woman from receiving the seed of a higher quality male while tricking the lower quality male into providing care for the offspring that are not his.
I was simply providing a plausible biological reason for why men and women who choose to have sexual relations with one another might wish to enter into a mutually binding agreement.
we have also acknowledged that technology today can make for complicated contractual arrangements. point is, no special rights for one group
Load more comments...