- 3,166
- 744
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2005
...when the cards are laid on the table and it's agreed that homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but the rebuttal is a nonnegotiable desire upon using the term "marriage"...
What's in a name?
unfortunately, in this country, it's not yet agreed that homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as heterosexual married couples. that's all i'm concerned about at this point. when that happens, i personally won't care what terminology is used... as long as it is used evenly and consistently across the board (on a federal level). i even said so in my post above. in that way, i think you and i are probably on the same side here.
having said that, i think you're right to ask "what's in a name?" when governments create "civil unions" for same-sex couples and reserve "marriages" for opposite-sex couples, they effectively create a second class. because of the societal and cultural status afforded the term "marriage", i don't think this is insignificant. it sounds like a reluctant compromise; a "giving in". simply put... if there's no difference, why risk making them different? again, this part of the argument is much less important to me personally, but i think it's worth considering. let's work on getting equal rights first.