|
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
why? your not stupid. you know exactly what it is. ask your parents to explain what the institution of marriage is. |
No, I don't know exactly what it is. Do you mean marriage as it is now in some US states, or are you referring to other forms of marriage that have been in place in the past? Are you perhaps referring to a specific religion's understanding of what marriage is, or even the 'institutions' in place in countries that do allow gay marriages?
| quote: | | why is this a big deal now? |
Because social justice takes time. You could have leveled the same criticism when African Americans were fighting for their civil rights -- it doesn't make the cause at hand any less valid.
| quote: | | weren't there gay people back in, say 1985? was never an issue then. |
Just to add to what I said above, they no doubt had other obstacles to overcome. Keep in mind that prejudice towards gays was worse back then -- marriage may not have seemed like an achievable aim, but who knows -- maybe it was an issue back then, but simply failed to get any media attention.
| quote: | | they had the same opportunities that ALL people have now, insurance, head of household, power of attorney, living wills ect. |
Not really, There are still numerous benefits that they are denied. Religioustolerance .org has a good page on it if you’ve got time to look.
| quote: | | what i'm getting at is they found a cause and that cause is based soley on the idea that they are being discriminated against. |
Yes, and the problem with that is? They certainly do appear to be suffering discrimination.
| quote: | | that is what i disagree with. |
Okay, why? Why shouldn't we fight discrimination?
| quote: | | changing the definition of marriage to suit that need is wrong IMO. |
I take it that you support making inter-racial marriage illegal again then? After all, after we 'changed the definition of marriage' to allow white people to marry black people, the moral fiber of the world has all-but collapsed! Likewise when we radically changed the definition of marriage to mean that women weren't property of their husbands. After we changed the institution, we had these women who had the audacity to suggest that if their husband was beating them, they should be allowed to divorce him! We've been re-defining marriage ever since the word 'marriage' first appeared, so don't act as if it's something new.
FYI, you might want to pick up a recent dictionary, as same-sex marriages are in fact listed as a valid definition under the word 'marriage'. You're going to have to do better than an 'argument from the dictionary' I’m afraid.
|