Lotta_Drool wrote:
konfusion wrote:
What's wrong with just calling it something else? Why can't it just have a different name, and exactly the same rights? I don't think half as many people would disagree to that as is the case now - because the idea of marriage is sacred to many people - not just religious people, but also fundamentalists or traditionalists. It would be so much easier to get votes for gay rights, as long as it didn't intrude on people's idea of marriage. Like call it a civil union, or a love contract for all I care - just not marriage.
Oh, and there should be a law in place to keep people like Britney Spears from getting married, just to divorce days later.
-kon
I do call it something else. Who cares what the government calls it. Hell the government convoluts everything with words. Does social security have anything to do with social security or is it just another tax that goes into a bucket with all the other federal tax money for the federal budget?
Two boys kissing will alway be two boys kissing and in churches it will never be marriage so who gives a shit what the big bad government labels it.
The majority of americans agree that a " Married/civil union/Whatever " couple deserves the same rights even if the wife has a piece of pork in her trousers or if the husband lactates.
Now can we concentrate on the real problem in Cali which is the fence jumpers.
There is one huge problem with calling IT something else.
First and foremost its legal segregation. if gay marriage is called something else, then that will allow for the legal categorization of rights depending on which category you fall into. If you are married then you have full rights, if you have a civil union then you have prescribed rights. The real problem is that everytime the civil union people will want to approach equality or parity with marriage then we will have the same stupid debate over and over and over. Having different categories will do nothing but permit a constant rear guard action by religious nuts. Better to call IT one thing and have it over with all at once.
Second, categorization would be a path to discriminatory action. The categorization will also allow ridiculous laws like prop 8 to easily single out gays because they will be the only people in that category. Hate gays then target legislation against civil union... you might as well paint a target on their back as well. Call IT marriage and let gay people blend in with everyone else, that will make it near impossible for retards to pass laws to single gays out for more persecution.
Call it one thing for everyone, make it equal.... better yet call it marriage because I don't see it written anywhere in the constitution or the law where marriage is a word that belongs to religious zealots. If it really offends some people then they need to get a grip on their own lives and stop worrying about what other people are doing.... (count to ten and see if that helps, repeat three times if no relief then seek professional help.)
Besides the idea of one man and one woman in a marriage really has not been around that long... perhaps 500 years or so... In the US, even 100 to 150 years ago people didn't get married in churches, they just shacked up. Look at the Greeks and the Romans they weren't against homos and debautchery SO I really wouldn't give any weight to the arguments that religious institutions have a historical ownership of the term marriage based on human tradition.
Social Conservatism = Socialism
Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2008-11-16 13:00:45)
