I think I got your position to a "T" Answer this: Would you even care what Marriage is called if not for the "needs" of religion? Needs in quotes, because it isn't really needs. More like a desire to enact fascist rules on someone else who isn't even involved with them.
I love language. One of those loves is the preciseness of language. Civil unions connote a joining in a legal framework; marriage connotes a joining in a spiritual one. I'm for gay and polyandrous marriage, as long as it takes place in a church. I am for civil unions for all when it comes to the government. I am against marriage being tied to government at all. Thanks for playing.
Marriage connotes the civil joining, too. My civil marriage license says so. Are YOU really being precise? Or just "precise?"
Maxie- Read the quote that you responded to. Did you have that stance before the gay marriage debate in this country or not? If you did or did not, then say so. But don't attack me personally.
There has been crossover on both sides. I want to separate them. Hopefully after my 34th explanation of my position, you'll begin to get it.
Why has this issue not come up until now? Not just with you, but others as well? Why was the government's involvement in marriage acceptable until the past few years? My parents were married by a judge. None of their religious friends had a problem with that. I got married in a secular wedding, and didn't hear any complaints from my religious friends and family. Hell, tens of thousands (or more) have been married by Elvis over the years and other than jokes, no one says anything about how they shouldn't be counted as "marriages". A few states start allowing gays to wed (while retaining the church's right to perform only marriages their beliefs agree with) and I start hearing about how the only 'equal' way to do it is to get government out of the marriage game altogether. This is similar to how you shout about how you 'don't care about an athlete's personal life' when they come out as gay. That is a very common response that I see online. How come I don't hear that (at least in the same volume) when we hear that a straight athlete gets married or has a child, where the common response is a simple 'congrats'? I'm not saying that everyone with that opinion is a bigot and hates gays, but even if they feel exactly the same about Jason Collins' news and Kevin Durant's engagement, why do they only voice that opinion about the former? I assume it is rooted in an uncomfortableness with the subject and not outright hate, but it still shows some level of inability to accept gays as equals.
Wow, do you carry a lot of incorrect assumptions as baggage. The post started with the idea that the SC decision would also bring on polyandry as an equal right, and that the leap was made quicker than I thought. I am tired of the moral arguments against people being treated equally under the eyes of the law. The easiest solution is to separate civil unions and marriage. That is what I proposed. EVERYONE TREATED EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW. And for that, it's inferred that I'm a bigot and I can't accept gays as equals. As for Kevin Durant's engagement, I had no idea. And if Jason Collins got married, I'd say "congrats". Coming out of the closet? I don't much care, just like I don't really care about KD's engagement.
I get what you think your idea would accomplish. You don't get that it's second class citizenship for gay people, and for absolutely no good reason.
How? Straight people would have the same classification. And what you mean to say is that right now gay people and people who engage in polyandry have second class citizenship. I would like that situation to change.
No, I'm not saying you're a bigot. I'm asking why if marriage a strictly religious institution, as you and others in here are claiming, then why this wasn't an issue until now? Why wasn't there the call to banish all marriages, to be replaced with civil unions, 5/10/20 years ago? About the coming out as gay topic, I'm sure you don't care about Kevin Durant's engagement, because even though it was a thread on here, you seemed to not even notice/remember it. But when Jason Collins announces he is gay, you made sure to say: You obviously care enough to notice, read the thread and then comment on it. In your head you may not care about either, but you only comment on one. This wasn't meant to call you out at all, but it is so prevalent in the online community. You'll have 1000 comments on an athlete coming out. Probably 25% are congratulatory. 10% or less is straight offensive. And then the majority is this 'who cares' attitude. Similar news for a straight athlete is nearly 100% congratulatory, with a few 'who cares' thrown in.
KingSpeed inferred I'm a bigot. You inferred in your post that I had difficulty accepting gay people as equal. Both accusations are equally preposterous. As for Jason Collins coming out, to me it's akin to Kevin Durant coming out and declaring "I'm straight". If a player would make that declaration, I would make the same post. However, if Jason Collins announced he was marrying another man, my response would have been "Congrats". Someone's sexual orientation is none of my concern, nor does it have a bearing on what I think about someone as an athlete. Someone joining with someone they love is something to congratulate.
They want to be married like other people want to be married. There are all sorts of reasons for people to marry. Sometimes it's arranged. Sometimes it's to merge two kingdoms. Sometimes it's for love. They don't want to have something "else," no matter how you sugar coat it. Go ask your gay friends if they want "civil unions" while other people get "marriages." Maybe you'll learn something. Not a single gay person I know wants "civil unions" explained exactly as you describe it. Not one.
