So you see then that old traditions can become irrelevant with time? That things change?
Oh, so all this to teach me a lesson, huh? LOL and this was to do what I suuppose? I was using the terminology for distinction, nothing else.
Except maybe I prefer "marriage" for myself, and not "civil union." You thus far haven't presented any argument for why I would get on board with your proposal. What's in it for me?
Splendid, you are able to choose for yourself your own identity not have it bequeathed upon you from up high. I've presented an argument that ends the entire issue, it just doesn't have the alterior agenda attached to it. What's in it for you is self evident.
This carries the assumption that marriage is the domain of the religious. As I've stated with my previous examples of the varying traditions of marriage, this has not by any definition consistently been the case. So far all you have is a claim that marriage is solely religious, one which you have not substantiated.
I don't know what you think you've shown but if you want to look at history, clearly the definition and purpose of marriage has been 1 man and 1 or multiple women forming social contracts so as to secure lineage. That was its function I won't stop you if you would like to think otherwise, have at it, but just know that mountains of anthropological evidence is available to prove you wrong. I won't be providing any of this evidence, no, no, fool's errands are for fools. I'm no fool and you can google just as easy as I can.
What's further, the only mention of religion that I've presented to you I believe was that some people of religious claim take issue with same sex marriage. My method pulls their teeth leaving them only a bark with no bite.
To say all
I have is a claim one of which I haven't substanciated is a strawman. I've made no claim therefore nothing needs to be substantiated.
Government recognizing gay marriage would also solve the issue. On top of that, atheists and gays can still have marriage. More people win this way.
and here's the onion... Governmental recognition. LOL. Why is there a need for outside validation? Whether it is Jack and Jill or Jack and Bill all the government needs to recognize is who gets to control the purse strings upon death or how the purse is split upon divorce. I mean really, you're coming close showing honesty of agenda but still are holding back, why?
I don't balk at this at all. In fact, government recognizing gay marriage deals with that quite well.
Oh you do, you're just not being honest as to the reason why. I won't repeat myself regarding the recognition schpeal, the answer is the same as above.
Well, why would your automatic solution to a government doing something badly be to get government out of it? Sometimes the solution really is to just make government do that thing better, and as we've seen with an increasing number of states approving gay marriage this is clearly one of those situations.[/QUOTE
I would ask why you have the overwhelming desire to be lorded over?
The main and only pertinent reason advocates of gay marriage have is that they seek the same custodial and property rights as those who are freely allowed to marry today. Terminating the government's authority to dictate who can have these rights is the best solution.
Of course there is the other agenda that goes unsettled, but again that also should reside outside the government's domain.