"Since gay couples have, and deserve, all the same legal rights as married heterosexuals, what harm can there be to society by calling it one name or another?"
I have not suggested there would be any harm done by what either chooses to call themselves. I've been neutral on harm so far. Hetero couples use a variety of terms to describe their union such as room mate, cohabitation, shacking up, etc. So do gays. Both gays and heteros use the term marriage.
"You're saying it's the word, not the acceptance of the union which will bring society down? If that's your position, it's a pretty absurd one, in my opinion."
No, I'm not. I moved on from that discussion once you agreed that the basic right statement by the Supremes was resolved. I asked you to discuss the underlying premise, which I consider more to the point of the issue... which is, "why is the institution of marriage important to a society at all?" If it has no importance at all then why do you, the gay community, the hetero-community, and the politicians consider it a key issue?
It is very complex question to deal with. I offered a basic starting place but you skirted around it and went back to throwing chimpanzee darts. I find that odd but oh well, lets move on. If we could come to some understanding of why it is important in the first place, we might be more credible in discussing why gays think it important to be included even beyond consideration of being treated as equals. We know it isn't important for equal rights, gays have equal rights. It isn't important for civil rights, gays aren't discriminated against. It isn't important to stop persecution of gays, gays aren't persecuted for this reason.
"You asked, if gays are allowed to have the word "marriage" attached to their relationships, what's to stop a man from marrying a monkey?
No I didn't, you are spiraling back to ground already plowed, more than once I might add. If it served some purpose to cover it again to pull something new from the process it would make sense but you are misrepresenting this previous exchange. Here is what happened>>> I challenged your use of the phrase... Marriage is a basic right of man, ... which you suggested could not be limited for use with some men to use in the context of hetero-sexual unions. You have now agreed that the phrase, as used by the Supreme Court, is understood to be a contractual agreement between a man and a woman.
"So i ask in return, if gays are allowed to have civil unions, what's to stop a man from having a civil union with a monkey?
Again that ground has already been covered. However, human beings do have legal relations with animals as livestock owners, as pet owners, as friends or care takers, and as managers of wildlife etc. Occasionally a pet owner will form a contractual relationship in which the pet will inherit property after death but those bound by such a contract are other human beings.
"Also, i'm not sure i understand your position on why the word marriage is so important to society but that all the legal practical stuff that the word represents is not. Maybe you could clarify for me.
It isn't the word alone but the institution, it represents which is important. In different languages a different word is used but the issue remains the same.
"Maybe you could clarify for me.
I've been trying to do that. It might help if you could get off the chimpanzee roller merry-go-round. |
