"Marriage is the way our societies legitimize and recognize a relationship."
Sorry, but that statement is factually amiss. Most of us have many diverse and legitimate relationships that are not called marriages.
"Even only from this perspective, people who can fulfill this wish with the person they love have this freedom to do so, and others are therefore less free."
What wish??? ... To live together as a couple? To have others recognize your commitment to one another? To share resources and debt obligations? To have employment, income tax, inheritance benefits? No one is stopping you from establishing these bonds and commitments. Nor referring to your partner in what ever terms you like, spouse or whatever.
"The definition of freedom is basically to do what you want to, when you want to, as long as it does not hurt anyone else.
Of course. And when you engage in political and social change through litigation and legislation you are impacting others. So, you have the obligation to consider how it is effecting them, which you seem unwilling to do at this point.
You can certainly embed such language contractually or via civil union... some heterosexuals enter contracts rather than having ordained marriages. They have no problem with their freedoms, or with living their dream.
The current argument for preventing homosexuals from marrying the people they choose appears to be more or less "We find it yucky, so they can't".
The current argument you are having is with me. The position that I take has nothing to do with such attitudes about gay life style.
"Denying homosexuals these advantages that anyone else can benefit from is obvious discrimination."
You are plane and simply wrong in your assertion that anything practical is being denied homosexuals. Maybe it would be more productive for us if you could attempt to prove that point. I have already conceded that the law should accommodate any circumstance in an equitable manner. Where it does not I will agree with you a priori that it must change.
What benefits? Or, what specifically is being denied that is 'obvious' discrimination'? The only thing I am aware of that Marriage, as currently defined excludes homosexuals from, is carrying a heterosexual family and cultural identity.
"Who is the one with the discomfort?"
I would say the one who feels compelled to invent issues that don't apply to the rational debate under way. That would be the 'yucky' factor that you insist upon.
If it makes rational sense to change the definition of Marriage so as to ensure equal access and freedom to all, then I will change my position on it. I have not seen that argument, only raving about discrimination and ugly bigotry with no substantial explanation for cause and effect regarding the legal issues.
You have completely skirted the rationale that I offered you for maintaining the integrity of the traditional definition of marriage and have chosen instead to engage in character attacks and imply underlying insidiousness that frankly does not exist.
Disclaimer: I recognize that there are bigotted heterosexual people who have their own issues with homosexuals.
It is up to you to rise above that and have a dignified and rational debate on the merits pro and con of the issue ... or not. |
