Quote:
Originally Posted by new believer
What should be a target is not to be hell bent on the term marriage.
I know of many people,straights and even a couple of gays, who are all for the 'pursuit of happiness'.
What the objection is about , is the term 'marriage'.
It has been written,ruled over and lived accordingly for centuries by just about every conceivable country that marriage is between a man and a woman.
My point being all those people I know,without a single no, have no problem with a term such as a 'civil union', made to carry all rights and privilages as 'married' couples.
So why is it so important to 'some' to demand with an in your face attitude to insist on a terminology. A FREAKIN word. If all that is wanted is to live in peace as a couple, I know of no other nation with as many laws already protecting gays. If rights and privilages are the key factor, settle for the term civil union and be happy and gay as you please. The ONLY reason I can see no compromise to terminology is to alienate those who would openly accept gays already, as long as those arrogant,I want because I want, idiots believe THEY won.
What ever happened to sticks and stones may....?
I say this with all respect to gays and their lifestyle. And I would say this to all in any lifestyle save harmful acts or against minors.
One final comment, If my wife were to pass on before I do, I would probably share a home with either or both, my brother or my best friend(male). And yes ,I would like to have them cared for as my reciprients to my estate without predudice.
|
Civil Unions were only brought up as a solution after gay marriage became a realistic goal. At this point the idea of a CU isn't and hasn't been fleshed out enough to constitute anything more than diversionary tactic. Much like the tired meme that gays will sue churches for not performing a ceremony.
The word "marriage" is not monolithic, and has changed quite substantially over the centuries. In fact the early Catholic church would not allow the ceremony to be performed within a church. I don't need to get into the tried and true comparison on inter-racial relationships, women as property of their husbands, multiple-wife marriages, arranged marriages and on and on to show that the institution of marriage is not static.