Didn't say you were ignorant. I recognize that other cultures have their own form of marriage. I'm not as loving stupid as you're making me out to be. I'm speaking contextually as a person who lives in a home with Christian conservative parents who are against gay marriage. When you think of people who are against gay marriage, who do you automatically think of?
i don't think you're stupid, i wouldn't ever want to assume that. i bristled up a bit because you came in aggressively, and i should have waited a bit to respond so i wouldn't risk coming across in an argumentative or generally disrespectful manner, and that wasn't right. i have no interest in disrespecting you or your beliefs; my hope is to have a meaningful discussion in which all parties can take something of value away, and that takes a lot of effort on my part, and i failed to deliver on that. my apologies.
i come from a family that's stoutly conservative, Christian, and openly against gay marriage as well. so i suppose i think of them. it's not a negative image, but it's not something i agree with. i understand that you're speaking within that context, but you're also making general statements about the nature of marriage and that requires consideration external to just this individual contextualisation.
as for "civil union" vs "marriage," i still fail to see the necessity of the distinction. they are functionally the same; "civil union" only seeks to strip the symbolic connotation that "marriage" provides. this is a very human matter, so it's hard to really speak in concretes about it, but it creates a very negative mental scenario in which the victim party is somehow unworthy of the symbol, which is what really matters. as has been said before in this topic, people don't generally marry for the benefits. they marry for the partner, and the marriage is symbolic of their love. i personally don't think it's fair to deny people that symbol on an arbitrary basis.
