Thanks for your answers.
Originally Posted by Ilovetheblues_86
Well my personal opinion is that marriage is very important when it comes to raising children- i mean- not in the sense that you have to be married to have a child, but that
its an important status for a couple that decides that want the children.It creates some legal consequences such as the heritage, and the family realty ( which in my country cannot be pawned). A marriage creates a lot of legal consequences and facilities (getting member of clubs, private medical insurance etc).
But children from a divorce have also been brought up successfully, at least helped by staying with the parent of their choice - which basically proves that a single adult presence is sufficient to raise a child (provided it has passed the stage of biological maternal needs). Besides, children from divorce also enjoy the necessary privileges because the government imposes some rules and responsibilities on the parents too.
I was in fact thinking if the scenario for marriage in the future might openly, legally become something like a divorce itself. What if the institution of Marriage in the future was reduced to an association for few years during which the couple mate, bear or adopt children and then part ways but continue to fulfil the responsibilities that go with their part of being a parent? Of course, they would not call it 'divorce' but classify it as something else, like 'Five-year fidelity contract' perhaps; but given the temperament of most modern people today, for whom emotional bonds are not important, and fidelity isn't moral priority, most of them might prefer such formal alliance instead of the traditional form of marriage itself.
Thats even one of the reasons why gay couples want to be married, to have more rights for themselves and for their (adopted or not) children.
Filo, do you agree with Ilovetheblues? Is this the primary reason you are bandwagoning Obama's drive for gay marriage?