the word "marriage"
The word "marriage" is so loaded with significance.
Is "marriage" truly such a purely religious concept? In that case, the state should take it's hands out of "marriage" entirely (everyone gets "civil union" regardless of gender/orientation with the civil union privileges identical to current marriage privileges). Leave the "marriage" to individual churches.
If marriage has acquired some greater significance in society outside of its religious connotations (I would argue it has) such that non-religious people want to retain the right to get "married" by the state, then the state must treat people equally and grant marriage certificates regardless of gender/orientation.
People hate being called out on their prejudice. I possibly really offended one of my housemates last night at dinner. In general he is a really nice guy, however in this case he refuses to accept responsibility for the obvious moral conclusion of his views. I just find it to be such utter bullshit when people try to claim being against gay marriage is not prejudice. I get mad really fast. What I need is a rhetorical device they can understand. One I have thought about is about the word "citizen." At some point in the past this was a term only applied to caucasian people. Suppose that the government were to start issuing "citizen certificates" which could only be claimed by white people. Non-white people could apply for some kind of "entrenched resident" permit which has some but not all of the same rights. Would this be fair? How would it be different? "Yes, you contribute to the life and economy and community in this country...and sure 'all men are created equal' or whatever, but 'citizen' is really only for white people. Sorry!"
I know that soon-ish these people will be on the wrong side of history. That is the miracle of a nation like this. That doesn't help people living life now though.
Is "marriage" truly such a purely religious concept? In that case, the state should take it's hands out of "marriage" entirely (everyone gets "civil union" regardless of gender/orientation with the civil union privileges identical to current marriage privileges). Leave the "marriage" to individual churches.
If marriage has acquired some greater significance in society outside of its religious connotations (I would argue it has) such that non-religious people want to retain the right to get "married" by the state, then the state must treat people equally and grant marriage certificates regardless of gender/orientation.
People hate being called out on their prejudice. I possibly really offended one of my housemates last night at dinner. In general he is a really nice guy, however in this case he refuses to accept responsibility for the obvious moral conclusion of his views. I just find it to be such utter bullshit when people try to claim being against gay marriage is not prejudice. I get mad really fast. What I need is a rhetorical device they can understand. One I have thought about is about the word "citizen." At some point in the past this was a term only applied to caucasian people. Suppose that the government were to start issuing "citizen certificates" which could only be claimed by white people. Non-white people could apply for some kind of "entrenched resident" permit which has some but not all of the same rights. Would this be fair? How would it be different? "Yes, you contribute to the life and economy and community in this country...and sure 'all men are created equal' or whatever, but 'citizen' is really only for white people. Sorry!"
I know that soon-ish these people will be on the wrong side of history. That is the miracle of a nation like this. That doesn't help people living life now though.