|
 |
 |
 Monday, October 24, 2005
It's Not the Benefits, Stupid/Maggie Gallagher
Evan Wolson contra civil unions: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=23780 ". . .we must make sure legislators reject half-measures or piecemeal responses that fall short of full inclusion and equality. The right way to end discrimination in marriage is to, well, end discrimination in marriage. Not to create something new, different, lesser, or other. Not to take our nation, again, down the path of separate and unequal treatment for some. Not to say to some couples and their kids here in Washington, "You come in the front," while telling others to go around back. Couples seeking the freedom to marry deserve a clear and simple answer: marriage-same rules, same responsibilities, same respect." 
 VOTE
|
||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
The same rules do apply.
Using sex classification as proxy for sexual orientation is sleight of hand for the establishment of special rules.
To require both sexes is equality, integration, and neutral.
Right. Everyone complains when a private golf club excludes one of the sexes, but then those same people complain that a PUBLIC institution like a marriage is not allowed to exclude a gender!
But, ahem, same-sex couples should not have the right to combine gametes together. Different rules, different rights, different responsibilities, different name. But only if we ban attempts at procreation that is not the union of a man and a woman's gametes.
...marriage-same rules...
Except you want to change the rules.
...same responsibilities...
Except you want to deny your children a parent of both sexes.
...same respect.
Good luck with that. When children are denied a mother or a father, for no other reason that one parent's sexist bias against the opposite gender, you won't be getting much respect.
Same-sex marriages are the epitome of "separate but 'equal'" sexism.
Test
Post a Comment
<< Home