Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek:
quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
We also do protect civil rights based on gender- which is what the gay marrigae issue is really about. If two people of different genders can marry, than to be equal for all, two people of the same gender can marry as well. It is basic logic.
|
No, Chewbacca, homosexual marriage is NOT about civil rights based on gender. It is about demanding equal rights based on sexual orientation. It is also about re-defining the term "marriage", which our society has decided should be defined as a union between one man and one woman.
And your "basic logic" about providing "equality for all" is flawed, because it incorrectly assumes that "same gender marriages" is the only addition needed to the definition of "marriage" to provide equality for all. But what if a person wants to marry two people instead of one? What right do you have to say that 3 people can not love each other as deeply and meaningfully as two people? But if you limit the definition of marriage to just two people, then by your own argument, you are violating the civil rights of those who love two people equally and don't feel they should be forced to choose one over the other as their life partner.
And once you change the definition of marriage to include that sub-group, the door is opened for even more additions and revisions to the definition of marriage. [/QUOTE]The logic becomes flawed only when the equation is changed - like you have done by including unions of more than two people into the mix.
And whats this about "our society"? Two people of the same gender can freely marry here in Massachussetts where I live and many dictionaries include same-gender marriage as one of the defintions of marriage. Sorry, but "our" society hasnt made the last word yet.
And for this catastrophic redefining of the word marriage, well I have done the research on the history of marriage, it has been redefined before and that hasn't caused the end of the world. Recently Vermont added a new sub-defintion called "Civil Unions". They are called that, but civil unions are really just marriages- the lawful union of two people. So it really boils down to either a semantics game, OR we toss out the semantics and just let same-gender marriages, OR we create a situation where certain citizens are relegated to a second-class unequal status, a limitation of rights by law ,like several states have done just this week.