4 ms·
I read you comment. I get your point on why the state provides benefits for marriage. You're argument that civil unions should suffice misses the point and is i
by alistproducer2 10y ago
I read you comment. I get your point on why the state provides benefits for marriage. You're argument that civil unions should suffice misses the point and is ignorant of the facts. The fight for marriage equality is not because gay people are overly attached to the nomenclature, there's a real practical difference between unions and marriage[1].
Also you quoted me in your response, but your comments made no argument against my quote. Care to shed light on why people you don't know getting married deprives you of something?
1: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/marriage-compared-to-civil-unions.html http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/marriage-compa...
- throwanem 10y agoThe comment I linked constitutes the counterargument you request, and also addresses the question of civil unions in detail. It is fairly substantial, which is why I linked it instead of repeating the same arguments in my direct reply to your comment.
- aminorex 10y agoI think the reasonable thing is to eliminate the institution of state marriage.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]