Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Civil unions (to the gays of DDO)

johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 6:34:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If the government decided to institute civil unions that had all benefits of marriages, but were not called marriage, would that be an acceptable compromise.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 10:51:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Was separate but equal an acceptable compromise?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 11:06:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 10:51:52 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Was separate but equal an acceptable compromise?
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 11:24:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 6:34:56 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
If the government decided to institute civil unions that had all benefits of marriages, but were not called marriage, would that be an acceptable compromise?

I don't approve of gay unions, but speaking from the viewpoint of someone who would, I think it would be fine. Males and females don't have to be exactly the same, but I don't see anybody calling them unequal aside from Nazi-feminists. Gay unions would be the same- regardless of having the same privileges as straights they would still be a different type of unit. Get over yourselves.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 11:36:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 6:34:56 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
If the government decided to institute civil unions that had all benefits of marriages, but were not called marriage, would that be an acceptable compromise.

So what you're saying is you have no problem with gay marriage being legal, but you don't want to call it marriage? Why not we call it gay marriage, and then straights can have gay marriage, and then you can have "not-gay marriage"? or "Pure Christian marriage"? Claiming a word as magically protected by rights of marriage is silly. For the same reason, we let gays buy food and we call that "buying" rather than "civil owning".

The only compromise is removing marriage from the state.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 12:04:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 10:51:52 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Was separate but equal an acceptable compromise?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:05:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 12:04:45 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/28/2012 10:51:52 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Was separate but equal an acceptable compromise?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:08:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 10:51:52 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Was separate but equal an acceptable compromise?:
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:20:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 11:24:25 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/28/2012 6:34:56 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
If the government decided to institute civil unions that had all benefits of marriages, but were not called marriage, would that be an acceptable compromise?

I don't approve of gay unions, but speaking from the viewpoint of someone who would, I think it would be fine. Males and females don't have to be exactly the same, but I don't see anybody calling them unequal aside from Nazi-feminists. Gay unions would be the same- regardless of having the same privileges as straights they would still be a different type of unit. Get over yourselves.

No one even wants to respond? How disappointing.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 2:53:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 2:24:02 PM, DirkBergurk wrote:
Marriage, gay marriage, and civil unions all discriminate against single people.

ill be saving that for later.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 3:22:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 3:08:07 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 9/28/2012 2:24:02 PM, DirkBergurk wrote:
Marriage, gay marriage, and civil unions all discriminate against single people.

*sigh*

Come back!
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 3:37:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 10:51:52 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Was separate but equal an acceptable compromise?

I propose separate and unequal, personally. Hear me out.

Ideally, all of the benefits would be shared; however, since there are like 10,000, I can't be sure all would be applicable. But let's say that, legally, all of the benefits of marriage would be extended to gay marriages (i.e. civil union).

So, why the distinction? Two reasons.
1. By not calling it marriage, this stems the slippery slope of legally recognizing incestuous and polygamous marriages, because both marriages are defined as one unmarried unrelated person marrying an unmarried unrelated person.

2. They can be treated differently. Still hear me out.
Not differently in the bad sense, but differently for the sake of justice. Take a divorce and custody of a child.

Scenario One: Me and my wife have a child. We get divorced and I have sole custody (let's say she is dead or in prison). I get remarried, then get divorced. Should the child's stepmother have any chance in hell to have custody of my child? No.

Scenario Two: Lesbian A marries Lesbian B. Lesbian A goes to a sperm bank and bears a child. They get divorced. Legally, should Lesbian B have custody of a child over the biological parent? If so, why shouldn't the stepmother in the previous example be awarded custody?
Should Lesbian B be on the hook for child support? If so, should the stepmother from the other example?

I think the lesbian has a claim to custody and the obligation of child support, while the stepmother does not. Therefore, these unions play by different rules. By separating them, you avoid the issue of equality under the law, as one set of standards can be used for one group and another for the other.

I know this is reminiscent of Jim Crow, but it doesn't have to be. If gays want equality, they will have to play be the rules straights have now. If they want justice, I think civil unions are the way to go.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 3:50:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 3:37:10 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/28/2012 10:51:52 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Was separate but equal an acceptable compromise?

I propose separate and unequal, personally. Hear me out.

Ideally, all of the benefits would be shared; however, since there are like 10,000, I can't be sure all would be applicable. But let's say that, legally, all of the benefits of marriage would be extended to gay marriages (i.e. civil union).

So, why the distinction? Two reasons.
1. By not calling it marriage, this stems the slippery slope of legally recognizing incestuous and polygamous marriages, because both marriages are defined as one unmarried unrelated person marrying an unmarried unrelated person.

If you call regular marriage one thing, and then call Gay Marriage something else that means the same thing as marriage, then it opens the door for incestuous and polygamous marriages to be legalized to by allowing them to simply come up with their own phrases to call their marriages. The slippery slope argument goes both ways.

2. They can be treated differently. Still hear me out.
Not differently in the bad sense, but differently for the sake of justice. Take a divorce and custody of a child.

Scenario One: Me and my wife have a child. We get divorced and I have sole custody (let's say she is dead or in prison). I get remarried, then get divorced. Should the child's stepmother have any chance in hell to have custody of my child? No.

Based on what, bloodline? If you became an alcoholic or an adulterer that results in the second divorce then the stepmother would easily have more justification to having custody then you.

Scenario Two: Lesbian A marries Lesbian B. Lesbian A goes to a sperm bank and bears a child. They get divorced. Legally, should Lesbian B have custody of a child over the biological parent? If so, why shouldn't the stepmother in the previous example be awarded custody?

Custody isnt based entirely on bloodline like you make it out to be, bloodline is only something to be factored into consideration and if the one who is directly related to the offspring is much more hazardous or insane then the other person, then the other person deserves custody.

Should Lesbian B be on the hook for child support? If so, should the stepmother from the other example?

I think the lesbian has a claim to custody and the obligation of child support, while the stepmother does not. Therefore, these unions play by different rules. By separating them, you avoid the issue of equality under the law, as one set of standards can be used for one group and another for the other.

but then by taking the equality out of these laws, Gays have much less incentive to buy into it and instead push for full rights that straight people receive under marriage.

I know this is reminiscent of Jim Crow, but it doesn't have to be.

You admit that this would take the equality out of the system, which means even if you dont intend this to be like the jim crow laws, its already well on its way to ending up there.

If gays want equality, they will have to play be the rules straights have now. If they want justice, I think civil unions are the way to go.

What have gays been campaigning for this whole time? EQUALITY. Not Justice, primarily equality. Thats why they are more attracted to Gay Marriage instead of Civil Unions.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:02:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 2:53:04 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/28/2012 2:24:02 PM, DirkBergurk wrote:
Marriage, gay marriage, and civil unions all discriminate against single people.

ill be saving that for later.

He's right in a sense. When the State recognizes marriages they usually also confer benefits that aren't available to single people. When these benefits are financial the State is in a sense subsidizing certain benefits for married people by taxes on single people (extracted in the sense of not receiving whatever marriage benefits). The only way that this doesn't happen is if you dissolve marital recognition by the State in the first place.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:04:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 1:20:25 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/28/2012 11:24:25 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/28/2012 6:34:56 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
If the government decided to institute civil unions that had all benefits of marriages, but were not called marriage, would that be an acceptable compromise?

I don't approve of gay unions, but speaking from the viewpoint of someone who would, I think it would be fine. Males and females don't have to be exactly the same, but I don't see anybody calling them unequal aside from Nazi-feminists. Gay unions would be the same- regardless of having the same privileges as straights they would still be a different type of unit. Get over yourselves.

No one even wants to respond? How disappointing.

No one responded because there's nothing of substance to respond to. You're just arbitrarily separating certain types of unions. Why separate based on the gender of those getting married? Why not age, race, hair color, weight, etc.? Arguments of this type are simply examples of lame special pleading.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:32:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 3:50:42 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/28/2012 3:37:10 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/28/2012 10:51:52 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Was separate but equal an acceptable compromise?

I propose separate and unequal, personally. Hear me out.

Ideally, all of the benefits would be shared; however, since there are like 10,000, I can't be sure all would be applicable. But let's say that, legally, all of the benefits of marriage would be extended to gay marriages (i.e. civil union).

So, why the distinction? Two reasons.
1. By not calling it marriage, this stems the slippery slope of legally recognizing incestuous and polygamous marriages, because both marriages are defined as one unmarried unrelated person marrying an unmarried unrelated person.

If you call regular marriage one thing, and then call Gay Marriage something else that means the same thing as marriage, then it opens the door for incestuous and polygamous marriages to be legalized to by allowing them to simply come up with their own phrases to call their marriages. The slippery slope argument goes both ways.

But it is much harder, as a new law would have to be passed, which means much, much more support than is currently garnered for these unions. If the two were equal, judges could make the ruling, and not politicians and/or voters.

2. They can be treated differently. Still hear me out.
Not differently in the bad sense, but differently for the sake of justice. Take a divorce and custody of a child.

Scenario One: Me and my wife have a child. We get divorced and I have sole custody (let's say she is dead or in prison). I get remarried, then get divorced. Should the child's stepmother have any chance in hell to have custody of my child? No.

Based on what, bloodline? If you became an alcoholic or an adulterer that results in the second divorce then the stepmother would easily have more justification to having custody then you.

Do you know this for a fact, or are you guessing? I would assume the child, if not to bloodline, would go into foster care over the care of a scorned lover.

Scenario Two: Lesbian A marries Lesbian B. Lesbian A goes to a sperm bank and bears a child. They get divorced. Legally, should Lesbian B have custody of a child over the biological parent? If so, why shouldn't the stepmother in the previous example be awarded custody?

Custody isnt based entirely on bloodline like you make it out to be, bloodline is only something to be factored into consideration and if the one who is directly related to the offspring is much more hazardous or insane then the other person, then the other person deserves custody.


Should Lesbian B be on the hook for child support? If so, should the stepmother from the other example?

Regardless of the custody issue (which I may be wrong on), what about child support? Should a stepmother be forced to pay? Should this lesbian? I think the lesbian should, but not the stepmother.

I think the lesbian has a claim to custody and the obligation of child support, while the stepmother does not. Therefore, these unions play by different rules. By separating them, you avoid the issue of equality under the law, as one set of standards can be used for one group and another for the other.

but then by taking the equality out of these laws, Gays have much less incentive to buy into it and instead push for full rights that straight people receive under marriage.

The issue is there are differences, which make them unequal. I am not a lawyer, but these two issues are the only ones I can think of.

I know this is reminiscent of Jim Crow, but it doesn't have to be.

You admit that this would take the equality out of the system, which means even if you dont intend this to be like the jim crow laws, its already well on its way to ending up there.

Not if you pass a law that says "civil unions and marriage will have the same legal benefits". That should solve that problem, right?

If gays want equality, they will have to play be the rules straights have now. If they want justice, I think civil unions are the way to go.

What have gays been campaigning for this whole time? EQUALITY. Not Justice, primarily equality. Thats why they are more attracted to Gay Marriage instead of Civil Unions.

I have always been told they want the legal benefits that go with marriage (rights of survivalship, hospital bedside previledges, etc.); this grants them that. In their campaign for equality, they have no problem trampeling on the rights of others:
- they say love should not be discriminated, yet they don't advocate for other unions
- they want Catholic orphenages to let them adopt children, which the Catholic church has a right to discriminate against a "bad" home, which they consider gays to be bad
- they demand equality from insurance agents and other private companies in pricing, which is A) against their rights to run their business their way, and B) not necessarily correct. If gays have a shorter lifespan that straights, their life insurance premium should be higher, but they demand equality when there is nothing equitable
- They want gays to be a protected class (like with bullying in school), this flies in the face of equality

These are things that gays want when they talk of equality, according to advocates that I talked to at the Gay Pride Festival in Minneapolis this summer. I don't see how those things can be enforced under the guise of equality.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:40:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 12:02:01 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
i believe the original poster to be a homosexual but in denial. how would the oringal poster like to respond?

This was brought up in a roundabout way in a conversation in the religion forum and I wanted to know that other people thought, particularly the gay people of DDO.

Just wanted some perspective. I am not gay.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:40:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 10:51:52 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Was separate but equal an acceptable compromise?

Was it ever really equal?
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:43:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 4:40:49 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 9/28/2012 10:51:52 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Was separate but equal an acceptable compromise?

Was it ever really equal?

That's the point. Separate but equal is an impossibility.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:43:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 11:36:31 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/28/2012 6:34:56 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
If the government decided to institute civil unions that had all benefits of marriages, but were not called marriage, would that be an acceptable compromise.

So what you're saying is you have no problem with gay marriage being legal, but you don't want to call it marriage? Why not we call it gay marriage, and then straights can have gay marriage, and then you can have "not-gay marriage"? or "Pure Christian marriage"? Claiming a word as magically protected by rights of marriage is silly. For the same reason, we let gays buy food and we call that "buying" rather than "civil owning".

The only compromise is removing marriage from the state.

This is what I would prefer.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:45:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 2:53:04 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/28/2012 2:24:02 PM, DirkBergurk wrote:
Marriage, gay marriage, and civil unions all discriminate against single people.

ill be saving that for later.

He actually has a point. Why should married couples get preferential treatment?
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:48:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 4:43:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 4:40:49 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 9/28/2012 10:51:52 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Was separate but equal an acceptable compromise?

Was it ever really equal?

That's the point. Separate but equal is an impossibility.

How so? In the example I provided, civil marriages are essentially like marriages, insofar that they have the same benefits as traditionally married couples. The difference is in name only.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:51:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 10:51:52 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Was separate but equal an acceptable compromise?

What exactly do you want?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:52:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 4:48:26 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 9/28/2012 4:43:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 4:40:49 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 9/28/2012 10:51:52 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Was separate but equal an acceptable compromise?

Was it ever really equal?

That's the point. Separate but equal is an impossibility.

How so? In the example I provided, civil marriages are essentially like marriages, insofar that they have the same benefits as traditionally married couples. The difference is in name only.

It's the fact that people think that recognizing homosexual unions as marriage would somehow be such a perversion of the word. I seriously do not understand the conservative fetishism with traditional linguistics. As if the word marriage suddenly sprung into existence as meaning "a union between a man and a woman" with absolutely no intermediaries. But back to the point, the fact that the State would say "yeah we don't have a problem giving you all the benefits of marriage, it's just that if we called it a marriage it would ruin the whole thing". It's insulting and far from actual equality.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:54:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 4:51:16 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/28/2012 10:51:52 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Was separate but equal an acceptable compromise?

What exactly do you want?

Lack of any and all State recognition of marriage. Since I don't think that'll ever happen I think it would only be just to extend those rights to gay couples without holding the name in some sort of fetishistic holy reverence like conservatives seem to do.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:57:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 4:52:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 4:48:26 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 9/28/2012 4:43:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 4:40:49 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 9/28/2012 10:51:52 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Was separate but equal an acceptable compromise?

Was it ever really equal?

That's the point. Separate but equal is an impossibility.

How so? In the example I provided, civil marriages are essentially like marriages, insofar that they have the same benefits as traditionally married couples. The difference is in name only.

It's the fact that people think that recognizing homosexual unions as marriage would somehow be such a perversion of the word. I seriously do not understand the conservative fetishism with traditional linguistics. As if the word marriage suddenly sprung into existence as meaning "a union between a man and a woman" with absolutely no intermediaries. But back to the point, the fact that the State would say "yeah we don't have a problem giving you all the benefits of marriage, it's just that if we called it a marriage it would ruin the whole thing". It's insulting and far from actual equality.

Okay I get your point.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.