Comments on: Chart: Fun, Graphical Depiction of Marriage Equality Debate http://www.akawilliam.com/chart-fun-graphical-depiction-of-marriage-equality-debate/ All Kinds of Gay Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:23:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: AKAWilliamhttp://www.akawilliam.com/chart-fun-graphical-depiction-of-marriage-equality-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-19881 AKAWilliam Sat, 02 Jan 2010 14:19:01 +0000 http://www.akawilliam.com/?p=16544#comment-19881 I must admit that I am surprised that someone who is an atheist is also against marriage equality since nearly all of the arguments against marriage equality are rooted in religious doctrine. Having said that, your own argument, while not religious, is similarly fundamentally flawed. You argument comes down to something like this: separate is equal as long as the rights remain the same. Here's the thing -- If there is no difference between a marriage and civil union then why bother calling one "marriage" and one "civil union?" If 1=1, then 1=1, right? But, of course, marriage does not equal civil unions, and civil unions do not equal marriage. And we all know that. The only reason one would want them titled differently is to draw attention to their differences, especially the sexual orientation difference.You also failed to explain how "re-defining" marriage is harmful. To anyone.Also, the federal government does not recognize civil unions, which means that not only are you arguing that separate is equal, you are also arguing that separate is not equal but still ok. I must admit that I am surprised that someone who is an atheist is also against marriage equality since nearly all of the arguments against marriage equality are rooted in religious doctrine. Having said that, your own argument, while not religious, is similarly fundamentally flawed. You argument comes down to something like this: separate is equal as long as the rights remain the same. Here’s the thing — If there is no difference between a marriage and civil union then why bother calling one “marriage” and one “civil union?” If 1=1, then 1=1, right? But, of course, marriage does not equal civil unions, and civil unions do not equal marriage. And we all know that. The only reason one would want them titled differently is to draw attention to their differences, especially the sexual orientation difference.

You also failed to explain how “re-defining” marriage is harmful. To anyone.

Also, the federal government does not recognize civil unions, which means that not only are you arguing that separate is equal, you are also arguing that separate is not equal but still ok.

]]>