Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
No because the gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge what MARRIAGE is - a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else, by any stretch of the imagination, does not = marriage.

If you want a contract between two men as 'life partners', then you can never make it a true marriage.

Also what of those who do not want any form of life partner? Why are they discriminated against?
Alright, you want to give up all the tax benefits you will receive when you marry, and later, when you have children? And relinquish all your inheritance, property, insurance and medical decisionmaking rights? Somehow I think all of these arguments of convenience that marriage should be defined by religious tradition and not by law would force a lot of people to change their tune if it were applied to deconstructing heterosexual, legal marriage in western countries.

The answer to solving the problem of who's going to make decisions for you when your in a hospital bed cannot be solved simply by giving those powers to whoever you happen to be sexually attracted to, because that will not cover everyone.
You think that gay marriage just lets any male make a medical decision for any other male? This was a really dumb point.

So, if gay marriage:

a) is not in fact a marriage in the true meaning of the word
b) does not end discrimination but rather only very marginally extends the franchise as it were

Then it is clearly not an ideal solution.
a) This is not a semantic debate about what should go in the dictionary. This is a legal battle over legal rights. Try to ingest that point because all the supporters of yes on 8 have repeatedly failed to do so and gone off on tangents about the traditional understanding of marriage as a cultural or religious concept. We're talking about a legal entity.

b) That is what civil rights movements are all about, spreading existing rights so that they equally apply to everyone.