- Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:14 am
#26205
"Why alter the historic definition of marriage?"-johnforbes
What is it about all you conservatives that insist that polygamy is the preferred definition of marriage?
After all, for thousands of years, across many cultures, marriage has historically been between on man and as many women as he wants. This is still the case in many cultures today.
Historically, at no time has marriage been universally accepted as being solely heterosexual monogamy.
"Probably everybody thinks civil unions would preserve the rights of gays,..."-johnforbes
As any real lawyer knows, separate but equal was repudiated in the U.S. back in 1954.
And since the 14th amendment is the law of the land and there's nothing you dumb schmucks can do about it, equal protection is here to stay.
Civil unions can never be "equal" to marriage as long as the government refuses to enforce equality in taxation, survivors' benefits, veterans benefits, etc. that the Feds are currently refusing to provide to civil unions,(and which conservatives hypocritically don't want the government to provide) proving they are legally not equal at all.
And if they truly were equal, the law wouldn't need two names for the same thing, now would it?
Why don't we make gays get a "froogie license" if they want to drive? We could say a "froogie license" is equal to a drivers license so no one should care, right?
So why does johnforbes pretend he has a problem with altering the "historic definition" of marriage now when he has no problem with doing so when Utah wanted to join the union back in 1895 as historically compliant polygamists?
"...altering the concept of marriage is sorta like burning the flag -- the point is simply to stick a thumb in the eye of conventional society."-johnforbes
^^^^^Now that's simply gross ignorance.
All it demonstrates is that you haven't the foggiest idea about the true issues involved.
Hell, them Negroes had their own schools. They just wanted to stick a thumb is the eye of conventional society, right forbes?