So a word makes it separate, not the privileges that come with the ability for homosexuals to legally be together. Then I guess I'm for separate ... the way I see it if homosexuals just want to marry they wouldn't give a **** what it's called as long as they get the legal protections, decisions, etc... but you're arguing that's not enough. Homosexuals want to be exactly like heterosexuals.. but they're not the same are they. No. So their union should be called something else. You call that "separate but equal" okay. Call it flupurpledismosa for all I care. Use a different name.
Ironic? if you say so.
If homosexuals want to get "married" using that term... they need to find someone of the opposite sex. :2wave:
Yes, giving them the identical privileges yet calling the institution by a different term is “separate but equal”. In fact, that’s almost the definition of the phrase.
Thus, your response to a “so, you mean “separate but equal”” statement was, indeed, highly ironic.
-------
Two homosexuals can easily get married anywhere and anytime. Just not in the legal sense.
That is the reason for the discussion - they wish the same legal recognition of their married status as heterosexual couples.
Personally, I want the term marriage eliminated from legal usage, and replaced with "civil union" or some such.
As it's a legal union of two people who, coincidentally, are also married in the religious sense (or personal), and it's none of the gov's business who does or does not get married...except as it positively or negatively effects the country.
As many have said, two married/joined/whatever people is the ideal child-rearing framework.
It's also the most stable relationship, and the "only two people" restrictions on legal marriage is a recognition of that.
The purposes of a legal marriage contract are multiple.
Legal reasons, such as power of attorney, etc.
Financial reasons, such as lower overall taxes for the combined persons (I think, in most areas). This serves to promote marriage, and thus, stability.
Many more, that I’m too lazy to list atm.
But you get the idea.
------
So, two persons in a stable social (hopefully) and financial (also hopefully) relationship is the goal.
That those two persons are both the same sex has not been proven as a negative at this time. So the Gov has no reason to prevent them from joining themselves legally – as opposed to multiple persons, which I believe is far less stable and positive a child-rearing environment.