Having read a load of nonsense on both sides of the debate this week, and having read some really quite sensible comments on both sides of the debate as well, I feel like making a few comments.
If "marriage" is defined as a union of a man with a woman, as is commonly stated by many folk on the no-gay-marriage side of things, then what we need for gays who want to get married is something which is like marriage in every way, but simply has a different name. Then it wouldn't be marriage, it would be something different, and the no-gay-marriage bunch could just give up and go away.
If "marriage" is not defined as involving different genders, then why is there a debate going on?
And why is there no such thing as a heterosexual 'Civil Partnership'?
That is all.
If "marriage" is not defined as involving different genders, then why is there a debate going on?
And why is there no such thing as a heterosexual 'Civil Partnership'?
That is all.
4 comments:
I think you're right. A lot of it comes down to what exactly we think marriage is.
I think you're being too nice. I haven't heard any sensible argument against gay marriage.
How about whoever someone marries is none of anyone's fucking business?
No one has claim upon who someone marries. Let's move on.
Now THAT is all.
And I have a proposal for the name of the gay thing that is like marriage in every way, but has a different word:
Mayrriage
By the way 'Anonymous', you said that exactly the way someone I know would have said it. Are you by any chance an old friend of mine? MCB?
Post a Comment