If you have a rant, article, or opinion on something, post it here.
I have a rant for you to use.
Kohki
"Seperation Between Marriage and Civil Unions"
Obviously, we all know that gay-marriage protesters have only a handful of reasons to fall back on if someone asked them why they are against gay-marriage, the main arguement being the definition of the word 'marriage'. They define the word 'marriage' as 'a bond between one man and one woman'. For some idiotic reason, that reason alone has lots of backing in the anti-gy movement. I have a way around that arguement, however.
The word 'marriage' has inherently religious links. That is a fact. Despite the fact that there are quite a few religions that allow gay marriage, there are others that don't. Unfortunatly, the ones that don't are more vocal and have more support than the others.
My solution, however, bypasses that. What we should do is remove the word 'Marriage' from the legal, binding document which gives couples their rights. After that, we should rename the legal document into a 'civil Union', not just for same-sex couples, but for all couples. Then, leave the marriage ceremonies up to the many religions. Since the marriage was originally a religious bond between people anyway, it should be kept seperate from any legal documents.
It's a simple solution, but it still gets the job done. If you want to have a legal bond to another person, get the civil union. Then, if you so desire, have a marriage ceremony for the religion - or lack thereof- of your choice. This keeps the religious and legal aspects seperate, and completely demolishes the main arguement used by gay marriage protesters.
I find this to be a fair compromise, as nothing changes for the straight couples, and the gay comunity has everything to gain from it. It's not seperate but equal, it's mixed and equal.
Obviously, we all know that gay-marriage protesters have only a handful of reasons to fall back on if someone asked them why they are against gay-marriage, the main arguement being the definition of the word 'marriage'. They define the word 'marriage' as 'a bond between one man and one woman'. For some idiotic reason, that reason alone has lots of backing in the anti-gy movement. I have a way around that arguement, however.
The word 'marriage' has inherently religious links. That is a fact. Despite the fact that there are quite a few religions that allow gay marriage, there are others that don't. Unfortunatly, the ones that don't are more vocal and have more support than the others.
My solution, however, bypasses that. What we should do is remove the word 'Marriage' from the legal, binding document which gives couples their rights. After that, we should rename the legal document into a 'civil Union', not just for same-sex couples, but for all couples. Then, leave the marriage ceremonies up to the many religions. Since the marriage was originally a religious bond between people anyway, it should be kept seperate from any legal documents.
It's a simple solution, but it still gets the job done. If you want to have a legal bond to another person, get the civil union. Then, if you so desire, have a marriage ceremony for the religion - or lack thereof- of your choice. This keeps the religious and legal aspects seperate, and completely demolishes the main arguement used by gay marriage protesters.
I find this to be a fair compromise, as nothing changes for the straight couples, and the gay comunity has everything to gain from it. It's not seperate but equal, it's mixed and equal.
How's this for the radio show, BT?
