The government is removing a bunch of discriminations against gays. Good move, about time. I support removing discriminations against homosexuals. However the government won't be supporting gay marriage, again good move.
Gays already have equal rights when it comes to marriage, a gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex just like a heterosexual person can. However what I don't support is to call a homosexual union "marriage". That term is for the union between a man and a woman. It's a social institution that has evolved over thousands of years and just about all cultures recognize it. Marriage is not dependent on government, the state just gives it legal recognition to clarify such family matters as inheritance and child custody. Those who want to call gay unions marriage want to completely change the meaning of the word and social institution. Plain social engineering, nothing libertarian about it.
Having said that a type of civil union perhaps with no sexual necessary connotations as the Archbishop suggests , sounds like a good idea to me and would properly have popular support.
Gays already have equal rights when it comes to marriage, a gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex just like a heterosexual person can. However what I don't support is to call a homosexual union "marriage". That term is for the union between a man and a woman. It's a social institution that has evolved over thousands of years and just about all cultures recognize it. Marriage is not dependent on government, the state just gives it legal recognition to clarify such family matters as inheritance and child custody. Those who want to call gay unions marriage want to completely change the meaning of the word and social institution. Plain social engineering, nothing libertarian about it.
Having said that a type of civil union perhaps with no sexual necessary connotations as the Archbishop suggests , sounds like a good idea to me and would properly have popular support.
No comments:
Post a Comment