Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDonald
I don't know if there are any homosexuals here, but I have a question. If homosexuals got all the same rights and securities as a married couple, just w/o the title of "marriage", would they honestly complain about it?
|
The problem with "marriage" is ten fold.
1. Firstly, the contention a lot of leftists have as well states-rights, anti-federalists is that the government doesn't have to know this sort of thing and ultimately it should have no bearing on "my life."
As Ron Paul once stated in debate, the whole reason the government even started issuing marriage licenses is for tax purposes. And that’s really what we're arguing over. I don't think homosexuals want to be recognized as married in the eyes of the catholic church. And I don't think homosexuals care about the taxes really either. Its equality. And we have a history in this country of understanding that "separate but equal is inherently unequal."
They know that too well and their aware that the only way that people get treated the same is if they get the same things. If the change the rulings on marrige and everyones married then everyone changes.
My question to you would be: If homosexuals get the same rights in a civil union as they do in marriage, then why do you care if they are recognized as married?
This is a very hollow issue in my eyes. Its not the economy where people lose jobs over it, can't feed their kids and have to sell their homes. Its not the war, its not immigration, and its not healthcare.
If those things change, your life changes. If two ***s call themselves married nothing happens to you. Nothing. There is no reason to not have them be "married", especially when that argument (once its proved to be sound) has to fend off the equality argument.
Now lets talk about anything substantive.