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.
Thanks for the concern.
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.
Well don't get me wrong I don't particularly agree with them either. I was speaking predominantly as what the majority of marriage is seen as by the majority of people. I understand that wedlock isn't a tradition that is exclusive to Christianity obviously but I was speaking in relevance to what the stereotypical majority of marriages are.
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.
For the record I personally hate the concept of marriage altogether. Whether it's under God or Obama or Poseidon, half of me thinks it's just a legal entrapment that means you can't break up with your girlfriend without giving her half of your life-long possessions. Forgive me if my approach to the subject is entirely apathetic.
Personally I think the entire controversy revolving around gay marriage is one rooted in Christian belief. I'm sure most of you would agree that the majority of people who oppose gay marriage do so on a (Christian) religious basis. My thought process from there is that when using the words 'Marriage' most people are conditioned to think of a church, a priest reading a bunch of bible verses, a big fancy white gown and a whole range of cakes and lovey-dovey stuff. When you try to change that, people get mad. As was said before, it can also be done in an office by a government official or the captain of a ship with no bibles in the room at all and as far as I can tell my parents or many conservative Christians at all don't really give two stuffs about that. So my thought process is why not make all legal marriage like that and take the priest out of it altogether? I guess changing the name is just a simpler way of doing it or whatever but hopefully you can see where I'm going with this.
