(January 4, 2014 at 12:03 am)Lek Wrote: Why can't we come to an agreement that would benefit both sides? I have to come to realize that even though I don't agree with the concept of gay marriage, all citizens deserve equal rights. Why can't the other side recognize what marriage means to others. Civil unions are a compromise that could work and many end the fighting.
I don't understand. You're saying a civil union would be the same exact thing, give the same benefits, and be recognized the by the government same way that marriage is, you just don't want to call it marriage? Even though it is the same exact thing? Doesn't that sound kinda crazy?
I have a carrot. You have a carrot. I don't like that you have a carrot. Call your carrot a fork. I feel better now.
And I'm sorry to inform you but the "institution" of marriage has not been the same since the start of this country. You used to be able to marry 14 year old girls for some wheat and a burlap sack of ducks. And interracial marriage was illegal as well. Shucks! That's what they should have done when those pesky mixed couples wanted to get married. There should have been marriage for people that married within their own race, and civil unions for interracial couples. Because then they would have protected the sacredness of marriage as it was first conceived at the start of this country. But alas, the sacred institution of marriage has been already been soiled by people of different races.
And further, why are you only defining marriage to what it was at the start of the founding of the U.S. anyways? Why is marriage at it's best in 1776 America? Why not 1776 Mongolia? 1524 Europe? 3119 Planet of Leather Fetishes? And why should the formation of a government better define your love?
