Originally Posted by FlyGap
Me? No. Civil Unions.
But I do strongly believe:
I feel like with all the new tech and media being homosexual seems more commonplace than it actually is. So do we entirely change the history and definition of marriage for such a small population of people?
I say we put it to a nation wide vote and let the majority of people decide. PERIOD.
My only problem with civil unions is that you get into the dangerous "separate-but-equal" territory that hasn't work out for us so well in the past.
You are absolutely right that the alternative sexualities are a minority, which is why I don't think it should be decided by popular vote. Those who have a real steak in the matter are less likely to be heard. Although, I totally agree it's a matter that needs to be decided nationally one way or the other. Leaving it up to each individual state is all well and good until the couple moves somewhere their marriage isn't recognized and then what?
I suppose I just don't see why allowing same sex marriage has to fundamentally change the definition of the word? Is marriage not two people in love making a legally binding commitment to each other? How does two people of the same sex making such a commitment cheapen it for the traditional couples?
I take issue with the fact that people like Kim Kardashian (lol no idea how to spell that name) can get married and divorced in the span of a few months, but a gay couple who have been in a committed relationship for years
have less of a right to get married than she does.