DeletedUser3
Interesting you bring up dictionaries. I did some research about this sometime back, and historically only one dictionary held to the man/woman definition of marriage. It was only within the past 60 years that some were changed to limit the definition of marriage to that of man/woman and, since then, some where later changed "back" to their original wording, or thereabouts.
The argument about civil unions likewise does not hold water. The problem here is that civil unions do not provide the same federal/state recognition, and rights, as marriage. But there's also the issue here that there is an irrefutable effort to deny same sex unions the same rights as obtained in opposite sex unions. It is not merely the label of "marriage," but the denial of equality. Regardless, your argument infers that "marriage" is exclusive to Abrahamic faiths, and this is patently false. Likewise what is patently false is to claim that Western nations are Judeo-Christian. Europe has moved quite a ways from that and the U.S., even noting the greater percentage being of Abrahamic faith, is still a melting pot of religions and the United States itself is not a theocracy. It is a nation of the people, by the people, for the people. Not quite sure where "church" falls into that statement, but I'm sure you can provide some degree of rationale to justify the stance.
The argument about civil unions likewise does not hold water. The problem here is that civil unions do not provide the same federal/state recognition, and rights, as marriage. But there's also the issue here that there is an irrefutable effort to deny same sex unions the same rights as obtained in opposite sex unions. It is not merely the label of "marriage," but the denial of equality. Regardless, your argument infers that "marriage" is exclusive to Abrahamic faiths, and this is patently false. Likewise what is patently false is to claim that Western nations are Judeo-Christian. Europe has moved quite a ways from that and the U.S., even noting the greater percentage being of Abrahamic faith, is still a melting pot of religions and the United States itself is not a theocracy. It is a nation of the people, by the people, for the people. Not quite sure where "church" falls into that statement, but I'm sure you can provide some degree of rationale to justify the stance.