Originally Posted by isired
I don't get that. It seems like that argument is made because marriage was defined a certain way when someone got married, they feel like it can't be opened up or redefined (not saying this is your stance, but it seems to be the argument I see most closely associated with the "they can have union, but it can't be called marriage"). I mean, we've changed the way we define "man" in the constitution, haven't we?. I can't help but feel that those that feel this way think that it 'cheapens' what it means to be married, as if gay people are less worthy, or less 'people' than them. Yet many of these same people know someone who is gay, and have no problem with them as people. It really is so similar to racism in a lot of ways ("well, not Billy, he's different, he's not like the rest of them").
I do not think the definition of "man" ever specified race. However, it would be interesting to see a dictionary from 1776, maybe it did. To my knowledge, the definition of marriage has never specified race, it specifies gender, one of each gender. We have race and gender equality laws. Do gays need there own set of equality laws or can we incorporate them into the race and gender laws? You are either a man or woman, and everyone has a race. Based on that, everyone should be treated equally. But does equality mean we change the definition of a word? Or can we just have a new word so long as they are treated equally?
Maybe I am looking at this too technically b.c I really do not have an emotional attachment to the topic. I am not even married. One can say this country discriminates against single people. Why is there a tax benefit for being married?
With that, I lay down my sword. I am tired of playing devil's advocate.