Quote:
Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 17 2005, 03:34 PM
I completely disagree. Having two definitions for the same thing is discrimination. The hetero's get the "real" marriage while the homos get the "civil unions." What is the point in that? To appease Christian fundamentalists? All it does is say you're not good enough for the real marriage. We can't ban you completely from marrying so we've been forced to give you this other version of it. We won't allow you to share our term because we don't agree with your lifestyle and still want you to be considered sub-standard, we don't want to be seen as condoning your lifestyle.
Some people value equality. They want gays to feel normal, they don't want them to be discriminated against. They want to be tolerant of them and allow them to have the same status, privileges and rights that hetero's have. Allowing the "traditional" definition of marrige for hetero's and "civil unions" for gays does not do that. It segregates. It divides. It is discriminatory.
|
African American
n.
A Black American of African ancestry.
Oh dear, this'll never do at all. A term that is obviously blatantly discrimitory against caucasians as they are not included in the definition.
Caucasian
adj.
Of or relating to the white race of humankind as classified according to physical features.
Hmmmm, well it is a word the caucasians get to themselves. Except it discriminates against the African American.
Homosexual
adj.
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex
What about the straight people?
Heterosexual
adj.
Sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex.
What about the gay people?
Seems to me many other definitions need to be redefined after marriage is re-tooled as they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or even (eeep!) race. Unless...
Marriage
n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
and then, perhaps...
Civil Union
n.
The legal union of adult parties of the same sex.
I dunno, I just see this as a decent enough compromise for both sides in settling the issue all together. The 'holiness' and 'sanctity' of traditional marriage is preserved for those that want to see it that way, and then homosexuals can recieve legal union and recieve all the same benefits of marriage, but i'm sure there will be other, different, benefits as well. My two cents on a possible resolution anyways.
But not to get off-topic here, I agree that the motivation behind Stronach's floor crossing is clearly power. She has a better chance of acheiving more of it within the Liberal party, in my opinion. Obviously, i'm semi-enraged about the whole thing as I want the Liberal's roasted for the sponsorship scandal (among other things) and this makes that harder to do.
Interesting to see how it plays out though...