Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 1:50:00 PM (view original):
OK. So if two homosexual people, in love, want to spend the rest of their lives together, why can't they make the same "lifelong commitment" to each other? What is the difference?
They can. Civil union. I've already said this.
What, specifically, is it about a "man and woman" that makes it marriage?
History. Tradition. Culture.
The part where I lose you, and anyone who makes the argument you're making is:
Tec: Civil union is the same is marriage. You spend the rest of your lives together, happily ever after.
Gay: You think they're the same? OK. I choose marriage then.
Tec: No.
Gay: Why? You just said they're the same.
There are a lot of things in history that were universally accepted, and wrong. A lot of traditions that make little sense to us now that were once the norm. A lot of cultures, even today, that treat many people very poorly. These are poor reasons. Am I wrong?
And here's the part that I don't get about the pro-gay marriage supporters:
Which is more important? Getting equal rights in terms of federal benefits, or fighting the "moral" battle over the definition of a freaking word?
I think the gay marriage supporters are fighting the wrong battle by
demanding that it be called marriage. There is very deep seated and passionate opposition to that stance, both from the religious right and from moderates such as myself who feel very strongly about history and tradition.
If the fight was over attaining equal rights with respect to federal benefits via civil unions, that's a much more winnable battle, one that would evoke a much less passionate opposition, and one that would get them much further along than where they are today. Plus, since civil unions are not necessarily unique to same-sex couples (there are plenty of heterosexual couples who
only get married for the federal benefits), it's a win for that portion of the heterosexual couple population as well.
4/8/2013 2:30 PM (edited)