new guy1 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Looks like we're trapped by different definitions of "marriage."
Phatscotty, in stateless society, would you be opposed to gay couples* obtaining a 'civil union'?*assuming they are consenting, 'normal' adults. (Normal as in no abnormal mental impairments and the like).
No. I fully support civil unions for whatever 2 people want them, gay or straight. I've only said that like a million times tho. I would vote for that.
Of course there are different definitions of marriage now. That's what this is all about. redefining marriage.
So because you also put down (or I believe you said it, dont quote me on that) that you dont care if they get the same rights and all that married couples get, that you just think they should be named different? I dont know if that's what your saying, but thats what Im putting together.
Marriage has a definition. Basically you are asking me why I don't agree with changing the definition. There are plenty of reasons, but for now I'll just stick with "because we don't have to". Whatever they claim they are being denied (which is a separate discussion) can be accomplished on a state level, without changing the definition of marriage.
I just say let nature take it's course. When people are ready for it, they will have it. That's how most people who hold my position on the issue see it. The problem is the other side goes crazy if anyone disagrees with them. They can't accept if votes don't go their way. I can accept a vote that doesn't go my way. I am tolerant.
They are intolerant and many of them repeatedly resort to bullying and slander, and their main objective is to kill or distort any discussion on the issue. Just look at a lot of page 1, 2, and 3.
This isn't aimed at you, but at the conversation in general. It's like the people who support traditional marriage (which always has been male/female since marriage began) are the ones that are forced into the closet...
