When arguing about gay marriage, how do you respond to people who say, they should get the same rights but not call it marriage. Because marriage was something established by a group of people and we are taking that away from them. And not interested in noncaring blow off answers, I want to have a productive convo.
"you remember when blacks had to go to the 'same' but different schools? and had to use the 'same' but different restrooms? you know, that thing called "segregation"? JIM CROW LAWS?? you remember how such laws were deemed unconstitutional? what the hell do you think civil unions are???"
I tell them they are idiots. I ask them if they believe in love, and explain how basically they are saying people can't marry based on physical looks. I ask things like, "Would you still be/would you marry someone you love even if you don't like the way they look? Because basically, you're arguing that people in love can't marry based on their physical appearance." If they tell me, respectfully and logically, that they disagree, we agree to disagree and move on. If they keep rambling, I shun them forever.
Marriage may be a loaded word for strongly religious people. I remember reading some years ago in the news that some city hall, maybe in Spain, was considering to create a "secular baptism" to register the birth of babies born to secular families. Obviously the Catholic Church erupted in protests; the term "baptism" carried a ton of connotations that were being taken out of their religious context. I know that some or other form of marriage has existed even before there were any religions on this world, but it has been tied to religious ritual for so long that now it's understandably difficult to disentangle all the tacit meanings that come with the ceremony. That's why a part of me doesn't want to object to civil unions with full rights, but I can totally get why applying a different name would go against the whole purpose of equality. One would think that the institution of civil marriage would be old enough by now (at least in the Western world) that people would forget its former spiritual connection, but it appears some radicals still think that a non-priestly state worker presiding your signing of a contract under the laws of a lay state somehow gets you into a covenant with the Almighty.
Separate but equal is never really equal. In my state, a civil union is supposed to carry all the same privileges and benefits as a civil marriage, but in practice, that does not always play out. Not everyone understands that a civil union is supposed to be the equivalent of marriage, and some, even if they do understand, refuse to recognize it as such. So, for example, a hospital might deny a person in a civil union the right to make medical decisions for his incapacitated civil union partner because of the failure to recognize the civil union as a relationship equivalent to marriage.
I'd recommend this video [YOUTUBE]C3aJVsASJY0[/YOUTUBE] And a more interesting question is, why not call it a marriage? What exactly are we taking away from straight people by getting married?
