In trying to get behind the arguments of gay marriage, I recently had a conversation with a conservative republican. 
This was her side of things:

"We don't want to deny anyone equal rights. I'm all for insurance benefits, adoption and civil unions that give couples the exact same rights as marriage. I just don't want it called marriage. That word is already taken. It's something that heterosexual couples do. Find another name for it, and I'll support it. "


There is of course more to this discussion, but I'd like to hear initial opinions and thoughts, first. 
Some of the things I brought up was that marriage was  never between one man and one woman. It started off as between one man and a few young girls, or even little children. (That's still a marriage, though, because they are straight pedophiles!) 

Anyway, how would you respond to this? What do you think?

Not that it would ever happen, but let's say the world got sucked into some alternate reality, where everyone would give universal gay rights IF they used the word 'civil union' or something other than marriage. Would you agree to it? 




Views: 16

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If that's an arguement, then women who practice sports shouldn't be called athletes and men who sing shouldn't be called vocalists. And Australians who drive shouldn't be called drivers. That's not to say those people shouldn't be permitted to do those things, they just shouldn't be identified by those linguistic terms.
I'm sorta likening this to the "ritual knick" argument going on about female circumcision.
I mean, I think it's horrible that any culture feels the need to SCAR their women before they think they are acceptable for marriage, but if I had to make the choice, I'd rather be accepted by society and still retain my ability to orgasm as opposed to um....not.
Baby steps, maybe. Once we save women from circumcision, we can start working on the ills of a society that thinks it's necessary. For every knick made, there is a woman with still functioning sex organs. It might not fix the problem, but it IS helping individual lives.
I'm not from a culture that thinks they need to take a knife to me for me to be marriageable.
I'm also not from a culture that despises me for loving my own gender.
I can't say at what point it's ok to compromise, but I do think that we should take small victories as a progression as we keep marching towards full equality.
In fact, don't call it compromise.
Call it biding our time.
I can't say at what point it's ok to compromise, but I do think that we should take small victories as a progression as we keep marching towards full equality.
In fact, don't call it compromise.
Call it biding our time.


I was thinking along these lines. While it may appear as though conceding the word "marriage" delivers a minor victory to the religious, it really effects a much larger victory for gays in the legal context. And if this concession would placate the faithful for the time being, then I think that it is worth the overwhelming progress which would made towards full equality.
I do not waste my time with people like this woman. Where's the logic behind that kind of thinking? There is none.
That woman was my aunt.
She just lost her husband of 28 years.
I was raised by them, you know...after my grandparents died.
It was agonizing to watch her suffer as we discussed it.
Even though I believe that some of the angst was of her own making....
She actually said "I just don't see how a couple of lesbians can think that their relationship is the same as what I had with your uncle for nearly three decades."
What I wanted to say was "Why do you feel the need to validate or define your relationship based on what other people are doing?"
But I didn't.
I couldn't.
The fact of the matter is that when you clear away all the logic, all the legalities... all they have are emotional impulses.
If history has ever taught us one thing, it's that emotional impulses do not make law.
I did not know that woman was your aunt.
I didn't think that information was relevant to the debate.
It's ok.
I don't car if black people are citizens, just keep them at 3/5ths so they don't really have full rights. - 1789
I don't care if we allow black people to own land, just as long as we don't call them citizens. - 1865
I don't care if we allow women to vote, just as long as we don't value the vote the same. - 1916
I don't care if we allow Japs out of Internment Camps, just as long as they don't have privacy. - 1945
I don't care if we allow Civil Rights, but we should call it Civil Privileges so that the colored don't expect anything. - 1965
I don't care if we allow Gays to Marry, as long as it's called Civil Union. We don't want them to think that they are "normal" people - 2010
I don't care if Muslims have Religious Freedom, just not in Manhattan. - 2010

I don't think that we should be tolerating treating others as less, ever. It's always embarrassing.
Oh, I fully agree.
It's fucking humiliating.
But when you are talking about things that are so vital to modern life.....
-The ability to have your kids raised by their other mom, in the event of a car accident and death...
-The ability to provide necessary medical care and insurance...
-The ability to fully enjoy the sexual experience..
I mean, I can't justify sacrificing the individuals in these battles for the over-all good of future generations (or our own legacy.)
I would rather be remembered for the chick that's fighting to legalize civil unions than be the speed bump that won't accept anything less than full equality.
Full equality is the goal, sure. But in the meantime there is very acute suffering that can be abated while the battle wages on.
We know we are going to win in the end.
It's just a matter of time.
But in that time, we need to STOP gross human rights violations that deeply effect the individuals.
I'm guessing that our divergent point will center around hope and or effectiveness. I feel like we are really getting close to the debate being over in California. Washington is a Baby Step away (we have civil unions),Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, and DC allow allow it.

So currently some are getting totally shafted. If their partner dies unexpectedly, they may be cut out of some of their own money and or benefits. This has been going on for, well, ever in these parts. Since we are making good progress, and eventually the Supreme Court will have to take on a case, we should soldier on like we have been. If we appease the bigots and just go for Civil Unions, then we'll just have another fight later. Rather than having 20 years of inequality in between, let's just spend another five getting the whole Mahtza Ball. Surely a few will suffer, but in the bigger picture, I think that we'll be ahead.

In the meantime, if gays were to start a corp together, they can will everything to the corporation and just have their partner as the only other owner. Benefits are still an issue with that method though. Maybe I'm overly optimistic?
Do they want you to marry a woman? I like! I may have to post it on Facebook to see if I can get some defectors.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service