Let’s see. both fountains offer water, but they are seperate to preserve , what exactly. Seems to be seperate but equal to me.
The problem I see, with your proposal as well, is that the very nature of seperate but equal , without any compelling demonstratable purpose or benifit, promotes something or someone as less than equal. Was it technically possible to actually create seperate but equal schools , bathjrooms, etc. It’s possible, but it was only a hanging on of old prejudice that even prompted the effort, and when that was evidence, the SC shot it down.
That’s the “We never did this before” argument and irrelevant to my point, which is, that the idealized version of marriage and family that you and others claim needs defending from SSM, and will someone how, can’t really explain how, and have zero evidence to point to, damage, isn’t reflected in the what real world marriages are.
Once again, irrelevant. There is absolutely no standard which, says , “we’ve never done it this way before so it must be bad”
Again, we haven’t done that before isn’t a real argument,
Looking at those things don’t help you. History shows us the various forms of marriage. Reality demonstrates that love and nurturing does not nessecarily come from the biological parents. And nature really? Most animals don’t have two loving parents right?
I had two female cats that had thier litters a couple of weeks apart. The kittens nursed on either female and neither cared.
okay, that’s fair point and explanation.
Problem is there’s NO evidence that’s the case atr all, and it doesn’t seem likely. The principle I presented still applies to the future. People said pretty much the same thing about interracial marraige. Black and white together and a generation of half breeds will ruin marriage as an institution. They were dead wrong, because the desire to procreate, and form a union with someone is pretty dam strong.
Not debateable with evidence. Again, even if we grant that loving natural two gender parents is the absolute ideal that is far removed from the hand reality deals us. What seems pretty consistent is that loving support can be provided by single parents, step parents, adoptive parents, grandparents, concerned teachers and mentors, etc etc. We have solid examples of children of SS couples that are happy and healthy. There is simply nothing to indicate we need to forbid SSM because of some romantisized ideal we don’t live up to now.
I suggest that applies to an idealized idea of the word which does not really reflect historical and modern day realities, about the changes the word marriage has gone through or the pracrical variations that fall under that word today.
First, nobody is proposing destroying anything. What’s being proposed is marraige being what’s it’s always been, a word used to describe various types of legal and moral unions , being expanded to include SS couples for equalities sake, the same way it was expanded to include interracial couples for equalities sake.
Those like yourself that strongly feel marraige is some crucial ideal that needs protecting get what you want. Something still a marriage in every way, but set apart to be more of the ideal you believe needs to be promoted and protected.
It actually serves the purpose a lot better IMO. 1st it’s far less expensive because this special marriage doesn’t require any legislation at all, unless of course you want it to and perhaps restrict the legal justification for divorce.
For those with religious objections it allows them to choose something in keeping with thier faith without harming others or trying to impose thier beliefs on society through laws that affect everyone.
If you check you’ll find Covenant Marriage already exists , but he title is up to those who feel they need it. Call it Real Marraige if you wish. or More Gooder Marriage , perhaps , God’s holy Marriage for some. Whatever you think indiocates this couple is special and striving for the ideal legal marriage doesn’t protect at all. seems like the best case scenario to me.
btw; did you ever answer my questions about how your proposal is enforced?
One set of laws but one couple gets a marriage license and the other gets a civil union license. What happens when gay couples refer to themselves as married and there is ZERO legal difference?
WTF? why should they be flagged at all? For crying out loud they’re an obvious gay couple whenever they go out together. The objection is a word that indicates their love and comittment doesn’t measure up.
Already answered.
If under your own scenario there was an effert made to label women’s driver’s licenses something else , Men get driver’s license, woman get a Driver’s privilage, do you expect woman would object. If so why?
it was general, although one poster said his objections were religious in nature.