markchd Posted:

I’d like to say that nobody is asking for that, but I know it’s not true.

And I’d like to say that no one is viciously beating, crucifying and murdering gays just for being gay. But I know that’s not true. The difference is that while most gay marriage advocates recognize those are lunatic fringe elements not worth the dignity of a mention in the debate, opponents of gay marriage seem to think that bringing up the “rabid fringe” of the pro-gay-rights movement is fair game. I’m increasingly tempted to respond in kind by bumociating their arguments with violent murderous homophobia, because trying to be the honest debater is tiring, and their fringe is a ****ing lot worse than mine.

markchd Posted:

Honestly, in my mind the best solution would be for the (big and abstract) Government to replace the term marriage with civil union for all couples. Big hurdles for that, though.

The largest being lack of cultural weight and equality, as mentioned in one of my posts above. The second being that it’s an ungainly wording. “Cindy, I love you more than life itself, will you… uh… civilly unionize me?”

Likewise, as mentioned, the same protesters will protest the change in legal language anyway, and gays will still have a second clbum marriage. No one wins, everyone is unhappy, but the folks who can only get “civil unions” still manage to come out worse.