• halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    So you’re saying they care about their recognized partnership being specifically referred to as “marriage” over everything else about the actual recognition and governmental benefits that governmental recognition gives them?

    I think of marriage as a secular tradition.

    I think most of us do, but enough of these fuckers don’t. They think of it as a religious thing deep in their core, and they have strong opinions based around that. My point is that it doesn’t really matter what it’s called, and since that seems to be one of the big hangups with many of the religious fuckers, “marriage” specifically being religious, just call it something else. What something is called is not the hill to die on with stupid people, and there’s enough of them that they can’t be ignored, so we work with what we have. Call it something else, get that new term recognized as an equal reference to marriage for benefits, and let’s finally fucking move on. Arguing with the religious about wording is a losing battle, many of them still think the Earth is like 5,000 years old and dinosaurs are fake. We’re losing a battle with idiots because we’re insisting on a specific terminology that they have a problem with.

    • jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      I think perhaps the place we might agree is: rename marriage to civil union in law (and therefore there is no legal “marriage”.) Colloquially we’ll still call it marriage anyway and nobody can really stop that.