|
beargonewild -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 5:38:29 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: aviinterra
This reply is to no one in particular, just an observation on what I have been reading on this thread.
I have noticed that people tend to get upset when homosexual couples demand a right to marriage- note the use of the term marriage. Most 'normal' people favor giving homosexual couples civil unions- that is, they get ALL the beneifts that 'normal' couples get at work and in govt. The word marriage has religious connections, hence it leads back to various churches, most of which view marriage as a sacred 'ok' for a couple to start having kids. Since two men or two women can't produce kids, they can't marry. I kind of wonder at the insistance of the homosexual rights groups that the word marriage has to be used- it should properly be an insistance on the right to have civil unions, since that is what the govt. can give a couple. A church is a private thing, the govt. can't force it to marry just anybody.
As for the business aspect of this, I can see the rational of business owners not wanting to pay for more benefits, esp. the small employers. Hiring a worker is extremely expensive ( worker's comp, liability, benefits, etc.) that at some point it ceases to be helpful to the business and hence a job position is gone from the market ( in terms of large corps. moved overseas ). Each problem has two faces, either we go all capitalistic in our country, or go to a more social model, but being in between is not working currently.
The insistence of the gay rights activists wanting to use the term marriage is based on the premises that common law couples are considered married under the eyes of the government, therefore they are accorded the rights and privileges they are entitled to. Simply put, we fought the same battle the common law couples fought 30 some years ago when they wanted their unions recognized and to gain some measure of legal protection with that union.
|
|
|
|
