So, you have no problem with gays having legal unions, and getting all the benefits that come with it......but you have a problem with the name it's called? Doesn't that seem a little small-minded/shallow/petty/silly/counter-productive/feeble/lame? Pick a word - they all fit.
I could throw you the obvious question of "what about folks that are sterile, should they not be able to marry?," but that would be too easy.Originally Posted by YankeeFan
So, I'll just ask you where it is written that marriage is reserved for those who can start a family??
Yes, it does, but I believe that's a sticking point for people on both sides of the debate. If gheys (and I don't know who they are, or who their spokesperson is) would come at this from the civil union angle, and not the marriage angle, I believe they'd be succesful almost immediately.
What they need is a spokeperthon. Thome marketing. Perhapths a make-over!
All kidding aside, the civil union talk is a winner for them.
Whoa whoa, I didn't say that I necessarily supported civil unions per se. I can see how some gays may want shared health care and insurance. I think what I have in mind is far different than what others may view as a civil union. A civil union is not a family unit, it's just a legal arrangement to profit from benefits etc.
The state doesn't know if a couple is sterile, so the point is moot.
As other posters have pointed out, marriage has come from various religious sacraments but the state has a vested interest in it. It has long existed in the eyes of the state for procreation and continuation of the species, since children are best raised (presumably) in an environment with a caring mother and father. It's not a law, so why would it be written anywhere?
It's up to gay marriage advocates to justify creating a new institution than to try to redefine an existing one.
"We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." --Barack Obama
To be fair...
The LGBT community is guilty of pushing an issue under false pretenses IMO. If they were truly for equal rights, they would push for Civil Unions.
But as you so eloquently summarized their opinion, they want to f#$% the 'Christian Right' and their homophobia. Which has little to do with their rights.
Check Out My Blog
www.creedthoughts.gov.www\creedthoughts
For the record, I don't want to be called anything.
I don't want to sidetrack discussion, but why must gays feel compelled to make everyone know of their sexual preferences? I don't go around advertising my affinity for women even though I am a man.
I never understood that.
"We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." --Barack Obama
Check Out My Blog
www.creedthoughts.gov.www\creedthoughts
Then I misunderstood you when you said this:
-----
Yeah, but if marriage should only be meant for procreating (as you say), shouldn't fertility tests be part of the marriage license application? Plus, a pledge that the couple plan to procreate??
You tell me that "It has long exsisted in the eyes of the State.....blah blah blah," yet you have no basis for it.Originally Posted by YankeeFan
What you're saying is "this is our institution - you guys have to come up with your own."It's up to gay marriage advocates to justify creating a new institution than to try to redefine an existing one.
Kind of like voting was their institution, until blacks and women were allowed in. You looking to prolong exclusion as long as possible. The old "it's always been that way" argument just doesn't fly anymore.
If want, you can long for the good old days - when girls were girls, men were men, coloreds couldn't vote, and kids died of polio.
I think 35% of it is about equality for gays. 65% is about wanting to be accepted. You can't legislate acceptance.
I pulled those numbers from NBR's ass. yes, we're to be married soon.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)