|
Just a question (it is not intended to start a flame war or anything, just wanted to know...)
How is not letting gays enter into marriage but into a civil union that has the same benifits of marriage but IS NOT marriage NOT putting gays into 2nd class citizenship? The reason I ask is because in a class discussion, the preservationists (those for the defining of marriage, constitutionally, as being that between a man and a woman) and the non-presevationists (those for not defining marriage constitutionally...but for civil unions---myself included at first) had hard times justifying their arguments to those for having gay marriage. It was kind of like the whole "seperate but equal" thing---you can do everything we do, except actually DO it---we'll give you the discount, cheaper brand of what we are entitled to as heterosexuals, moral-abiders, or whatever you choose to call those who are heterosexually married. So basically, we are heteroseuxals have the privelege of having that RIGHT versus homosexuals, even if they wanted to, not being able to do so, uner the eyes of the law. The slippery slope argument didn't hold up for the preservationists, because of the same reasons someone mentioned before---the government (state or national) has good sense not to let EVERYTHING slide.
So, does anyone have a good argument as to why it DOESN'T? Again, this is not an attack, it's a means for me to explore the different facets of the argument. Feel free to PM with any answers if you don't want to post.
enigma_AKA
|
Threaded Mode