Isn't Redifining 'Marriage' like Calling a Tree an Inland Body of Water?

Question

I have no issue with life partners of either gender... but the whole issue of redefining marriage - that has been a heterosexual institution forever and a day. Why not create something more unique / special for gay and lesbian life-partners instead of something "old" and so "done that"? Maybe there wouldn't be so much animosity going back and forth then and the extremely religious would be more accepting?

Answer 1

Probably not.

The "homosexual agenda" seeks to ingraciate itself into mainstream America. The whole point is to fit in, not stand out; call normal what has for years been abnormal. Same rights, same legal protection. All the same things heterosexual marriages are entitled to.

Answer 2

Historically it seems that when you prevent something from being on the same terms it only creates inequality. Though you are correct that we have always seen marriage as a heterosexual union in much of the western world think about another situation where people thought that creating something seperate but in essence equal worked out. Seperate but equal just doesnt work because if you force them to be seperate they really will never be seen as equal. And the benefits to marriage as far as tax emeption and hospital rights really are important, who knows what things wont be granted if we "make something special" for those who are different.

Religions are just as hung up on the gay part of gay marriage as gay marriage, gay marriage just gives them a place they can debate with a little more subltey. If we really think that some kind of equality is desirable in this society, putting people on equal playing fields and giving the the same oppertunity should be our goal, not creating new institutions when we can use ones we already have.

Answer 3

1) it wouldn't matter, because the people against gay marrige would see what it is, marrige dressed up in a different name.

2) how was marrige ABOUT the fact that its between a male and a female, or sex? its supposed to be about Love between 2 people. its just that most, most naturally think of this as traditionally between a male and female... but I don't think its really inherently such, or it doesn't have to be.

Answer 4

since many churches, some of them biblican/christian in nature, already perform and bless gay marriages, why do you care? nobody has ever shown how it will "harm" the institution.

speaking of harming the institution...straights already give it a 50% (1 in 2) failure rate... what is it you are worried about??

Answer 5

I agree marraige is for a man to a woman if they wont a leagal agreement they can do it with a lawya. not in a church.

Answer 6

Because you get tax benefits for being married, and many people would oppose giving tax benefits to homosexuals with their other thing. =/

Answer 7

But, baby, nothin' SATISFIES like marriage...

(it's not marriage that needs the defining, re- or otherwise. the argument is over WHO is ALLOWED to do it.)

Answer 8

Or, is marriage becoming an irrelevance?

Answer 9

lol Good thought. I don't know they seem different to me.