Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universeCome and Paint Turtle
Now, I've heard an argument that says the state should not be in the business of giving out marriage licences at all - they should all be civil unions and if your local church is willing to 'marry' you (straight or gay), then you yourself can call it whatever you want. Legally, it's just a civil union.
Let me ask it this way, if the government tomorrow said if an interracial couple are to marry, we can no longer allow it to be called marriage, but they still have the same rights. Would you support it?
If not, why the double standard?
My views on life are not dictated by the law, howevever my fundamental definition of what things are are based on previous historic definitions.
Historical definition is not, in my view, an acceptable reason to continue discrimination. Historically, interracial couples couldn't marry and you were changing the 'historical' definition of marriage when you started allowing it.
Now if you don't think straight marriages and gay marriages are the same, fine. But I'm just pointing out that by creating the difference in name, you are also creating a difference in meaning, and by extension, treating them differently in some way. You can't say they're the 'same' and then call it by different names.
Last edited by silentstriker; 05-03-2011 at 10:19 AM.
Or in relation to gay marriage, why don't we just let people box themselves into whichever social structures they like, and call their relationships and ceremonies whatever they like, without the state getting involved? It seems really odd to me that it's the job of the state to define what does and what doesn't constitute marriage.
Last edited by Uppercut; 05-03-2011 at 10:24 AM.
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
#408. Sixty three not out forever.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)