Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
This isn't about enjoying enjoyable things. Its about being able to enjoy the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. A gay person can experience heterosexuality, in fact I'm sure many of them have. What they can't experience is being fully and legally committed to their chosen partner under the sanctity of marriage. How is that right?
|
Because it isn't marriage, it's something else.
Previously Makarov used the analogy of the fact that women gained the right to personhood. We didn't start calling them men, though. We didn't call a newly personhooded lady "mister". It would have been incorrect. They now had the same rights as men, but they were clearly ladies. We didn't need to call them "sir" in order for those rights to be real.
That is what I can't get my head around. Why the need to call it marriage? It isn't and cannot actually be marriage, because that isn't what marriage means. They can have everything they want except the name marriage, but it's not enough. It's not about rights. It's about the name. I'm not about to start duckspeaking and calling it marriage now, when it just isn't. No amount of wishing will change that. Even if I caved, and started calling it marriage, that wouldn't
actually mean it is marriage. It is something else.