Because, while marriage has an obvious place in legal terminology, that's not the only place it has meaning. The word game has been in place longer than any of us have been alive. On that basis, shouldn't there be an option for an alternative anyway?
EDIT: This was in response to Poker's.
And it's not that simple. It's not something you can just glaze over. It's a nice sentiment, for sure. In a perfect world, it would be ideal. But it has no basis for application in reality. You can keep citing reform in racial equality, like the civil rights movement. You can bring up women's suffrage. You can do this all you want. But you cannot make an accurate correlation between that and what's happening now.
EDIT: This was in response to Poker's.
Kaiser said:I say again: either gay marriage should be recognized as legal nation-wide, or the legal benefits of marriage should be removed. Either confer the same rights on everyone, or remove those rights from everyone.
And it's not that simple. It's not something you can just glaze over. It's a nice sentiment, for sure. In a perfect world, it would be ideal. But it has no basis for application in reality. You can keep citing reform in racial equality, like the civil rights movement. You can bring up women's suffrage. You can do this all you want. But you cannot make an accurate correlation between that and what's happening now.
Last edited: