Pointer: Two and a Half Men redefining marriage

Many folk these days, whatever their preferences, don’t bother getting married, even when they have children. As far as I understand it they see marriage as something imposed by the state, or “society” (whatever that is), to impart certain legal and financial benefits. As so many don’t sign the legal document, it must be presumed that they don’t consider the benefits worth having. If folk do get married, most don’t bring an anthropomorphic deity into the pact, so why should those that connect themselves with such fictions be entitled to dictate that the legal and financial agreement we call marriage should only be between a heterosexual pair for the purposes of begetting children? Fortunately we are seeing around the civilised world that the god-botherers’ are not winning. But why should we continue to consider marriage as a “license to fuck” when the fucking goes on in profusion outside marriage? As you and “Two and a Half Men” have questioned, why should marriage be only for the fuckers? Why cannot any two (why two?) people enter into an equivalent legal and financial agreement without regard to gender, sexual orientation, or any other consideration? Does it matter if we call it marriage, civil partnership, or hang any other comparable label on it?

LikeLike