starcraft said:
Ultimately, as I am not arguing that we restrict any gay rights, all you're saying is that we should allow gays to marry because some will be offended if we do not. In that context, there will be offense on at least one side. So it is best to offend only a few instead of many, not to mention that billions of people are already married, and many would feel their committment is lessened. But yeah, goodnight mate. No hard feelings.
|
But gays aren't just offended that they can't get married, there's also an injustice being done upon them. If we legalized gay marriage lots of people would be offended. But you've got to ask yourself, is satisfying the majority, who have no real reason to be against gay marriage except their own subjective views on what marriage should be, fairer than satisfying gay people, who just want equal rights?
What if I want to get married? Why should I be forced to call it something else just to mentally satisfy those with some stupid complex about how marriage is sacred? It's their problem, not mine. Legalizing gay marriage would be a good thing for the gay community. We could feel like normal citizens, instead of second class citizens.
Calling gay marriages 'civil unions' just to satisfy those with bigoted, unfounded views, on why THEIR definition for marriage is correct, is not to me equal rights. Your whole argument "historically marriage has been between different genders and should stay that way so people with a silly complex don't get offended". My argument "Gays do not have equal rights, and they should". Which argument is honestly better? You can't possibly think yours is.
What you're doing is in the same realm as saying black people shouldn't be called people or citizens, they should be called beople and bitizens, even though they have equal rights. Would that be fair? No. That would be wrong. This, while less drastic, is the same type of thing. Gays are getting treated like they are less than.
