Do Single People Deserve equal protection that Married couples have?

[afleitch]

Oh you're back again.

[afleitch]

Does marriage have to be denied between blood relatives?  What would be the harm of marriage between blood relatives?

MARRIED PEOPLE TEND TO HAVE SEX

SEXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!
Straight married couples have sex and create babies

Some straight married couples have sex but don't create babies

Some straight married couples have sex but can't create babies

Gay married couples can have sex but can't have babies as a result of sex

------

Would you like it a pop up book, or book with lift up flaps to help explain it better. I'll pay the shipping charge?

[afleitch]

So your idea that "sex has to come with a automatically marriage license" is idiotic.

I'll leave you with this to start off with;

Do you know what marriage, in the strictest sense is? Do you know why we have it? Why do we have marriage defined as a legal act either in canon or civil law? It's not exclusively conducive to sex, which we can all do. Nor is it exclusively conducive to interpersonal sexual relationships. People can have life long relationships of value without being married. Marriage is entirely about property. It is to ensure that property is managed and inherited because that is conducive to a civil society. Marriage up until very recently in the west was exclusively about property. Yes it was about love and 'Jesus' and everything else in it's ceremonial form but strictly it was about property. Now luckily men and women today, broadly speaking are equal in law. They are equal in law when they are born, when they are children and when they get married. If that marriage is dissolved then there is a fair hearing (one should hope) concerning that dissolution. However that, as I explained wasn't always the case.

You however have the cart leading the horse. You are suggesting that there is marriage which is not about property and then there are 'rights' which are not about marriage but may inform the nature of that marriage; i.e men having chattel rights over women and exclusive rights over the children basically during her entire lifetime. But marriage didn't come first. Women's subordination to men at all stages in her life; from her fathers dominion over her as a child and as an asset to be traded, adult males sexual dominion over her in adulthood and so on was the catalyst for establishing marriage as a contractual binding societal agreement. That is why there is marriage. Religions and customs born in cultures of exclusive patriarchy informed those cultural and religious laws that defined marriage. That is why justification in the Christian West for 'erunt animae duae in carne una'; the very words spoken in the marriage vow was intertwined in the set definition of women being subordinate in deed, mind and body to menfolk. Definitions have now changed and evolved, as has marriage but do not think for a second that marriage; an institution in civil and canon law enacted by men alone had nothing to do the subordination of women.

So that's what it was. Marriage was inextricably linked with carnal matters. Now we understand that the bonded attraction between 'mates' (to use a more neutral term) extends to those who have same sex attraction and it seems strange to bar them from forming similar unions. That's the only change to marriage in terms of participants that has happened. If you want to be radical and allow mothers to marry sons/daughters, and brothers to marry brothers and so forth, then that's very 'right on' of you you daring social liberal