I used to be totally against gay marriage. Now I really don't give a crap, and I'm honestly not bothered about the outcome of the whole debate.However, the way I see it is:1. Gay people want to get married.2. Religious people don't want Gay people to marry, because they don't want to see an institution, that holds a high degree of religious significance, 'hijacked'.We then address why Gay people might want to marry:1. It's a platform to express eternal love for a chosen partner bla bla bla.2. Marriage offers some legal benefits and convenience that they wish to be entitled to.Religious people's response is:1. Take 'Civil Unionships', because they offer a platform to express eternal love for a chosen partner bla bla bla.2. And it offers the same legal benefits and convenience that Gay people wish to be entitled to.Gay people aren't happy with this option.Now, I'm not arguing that I think Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I just want to know what arguments there are for preferring 'marriage' over 'civil unionships'.If marriage did not exist, and instead, 'civil unionships' were the norm, would gay people be satisfied if people offered 'marriage' as an alternative?
Log in to comment