Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JimmyTheHutt
How is a negative perspective not inherant when someone considers something unnatural? I think you may have a point here, but I'm not making the logical leap on my own.
|
It's not in the definition of 'unnatural'. There are many unnatural things that are positive. Telephones, for one.
Quote:
|
What is the difference between civil unions and marriage? Why is one ok, but the other not?
|
I don't know, and that's besides the point. Point being that the civil union folk, depending on what exactly they'd have a civil union entail, would not be opposed to gay couples receiving the same rights.
Quote:
|
If they care enough to make it UNCONSTITUTIONAL for someone to enjoy the same rights and benefits they enjoy, that pretty much indicates a strong emotional commitment. Given the circumstances, the only emotions available are pretty negative. Something like this isn't approved by 74% of the population based off of puppies and kittens and flowers. This is definitely a "make them sit down, shut up, and go back in the closet" maneuver.
|
No, there is an emotion much less negative than that: "Let's protect an institution that has done the world much good and is falling apart." And once again, (1)the quality of the reasoning is irrelevant so long as the position is superficially plausible and (2)the civil union faction strikes down the generalization that they're all out to deny gay couples benefits. They're still out to deny something, but it's likely to be framed in the erroneous 'separate yet equal' mindset. "It's deserving of the same legal framework, but it's not marriage. It's something else."
And honestly, I don't think it takes all that much in the way of emotional commitment to mark a box on a piece of paper. Just a vague idea that you're helping to preserve society would be enough. I don't think it needs to take much more emotional commitment than buying groceries, it could be taken as just another errand.