Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
I have a quick question for people who are opposed to legalization of homosexual marriage: does your position change if all state "marriages" are renamed to "civil unions," and only religious organizations actually grant "marriages?" Now, everyone gets the same civil contract granting all the legal benefits of marriage, and your particular religious organization can grant you whatever title it chooses in its marriage practices. If this is just some harmless semantic battle, and you simply don't want to sully the long standing Merriam-Webster definition of the word; would you feel more comfortable adopting a semantic choice that clearly delineates the civil/state institution from the religious one?
|
I think you are on to something here. It is easy for people to answer a poll "Should marriage be between a man and a woman" as yes. Most people think that a husband has a wife by definition and a husband does not have a husband in a marriage. The concept of two wives or two husbands being married does not fit the definition of marriage in most people's opinions.
Therefor we either change the definition of marriage (which is hard for many to accept) or call same sex commitment something else like civl unions. I bet if the poll questions were asked in a different way not using the word marriage that more people would be in favor of equal benefits for same sex unions.