But your suggestion that we change the name of civil marriage to something else in order to make people less likely to object to changes to it is not an attept to engineer social change?
The change I suggest get's the government out of social engineering of marriage. One of the arguements about governments involvement in marriage is based on the property and money issues. But in doing this the government has added a line that marriage will mean "this or that". My solution will address the reasons why the goverment is involve (property, health, money) and the remove the value judgements (social Engineering) of the government.
What is being pushed for 2 person marriage or the other sides 1 man 1 woman both to value judgements (social engineering) that in effect says other forms of sexual couples are wrong. This is expanded by the federal government in to the school system by telling students one form of sex is normal and others are not.
"The change I suggest get's the government out of social engineering of marriage."
Nonetheless, the change you suggest itself constitutes as means of making an intentional change to society and to how our culture thinks about marriage, in order to overcome opposition to proposed changes in law.
In what way is that not attempting to effect a deliberate change in society?
(no subject)
(no subject)
What is being pushed for 2 person marriage or the other sides 1 man 1 woman both to value judgements (social engineering) that in effect says other forms of sexual couples are wrong. This is expanded by the federal government in to the school system by telling students one form of sex is normal and others are not.
(no subject)
Nonetheless, the change you suggest itself constitutes as means of making an intentional change to society and to how our culture thinks about marriage, in order to overcome opposition to proposed changes in law.
In what way is that not attempting to effect a deliberate change in society?