robkelk Wrote:I know that it shouldn't have to be considered such.Logan Darklighter Wrote:Ironically I feel the LGBT movement has played into the hands of those same religious nuts by making the fight explicitly about redefining marriage.
Currently, marriage is a union of the lives of two people who love each other enough to want to spend their lives together.
What the GLBT community wants is for marriage to be a union of the lives of two people who love each other enough to want to spend their lives together.
Quite the radical redefinition, there...
And the "sanctity of marriage" argument is bullshit when marriage itself used to be little more than a property contract until relatively recently in history. The notion of marriage being defined generally as a commitment of love between a man and a woman is actually a relatively recent cultural invention for a variety of reasons.
To extend that concept to be a commitment of love between two partners regardless of their gender is goal that should be supported.
Quote:[b]robkelk wrote:[/b]
Quote:Logan Darklighter wrote:
When what they should be doing is going after specific rights.
Which is exactly what's happening. The right in question is the right to get married.
I apologize for not being more clear. I meant specific rights that we normally think of as encompassed by marriage, such as - in the case of the above news story, the right of hospital visitation.
In other words, what I'm suggesting is fight for and achieve each specific right until achieving the goal of gay marriage does not seem so much a radical redefinition so much as a fait accompli. Does that make more sense?