Originally Posted by NrGx
The most emphatic case of this is the issue of homosexual marriages. Why should they be denied the benefits that are provided to others (a public good therefore non-excludable) just because their union doesn't fit into your definition of a union. Who makes these definitions? The state? If so, why weren't they made so they benefitted all/most of the population?
I think it varies state-to-state, but here I think we have "civil unions." I could care less what people do at home or how they want to live. However, I think this whole thing is being pushed for political reasons, as an agenda, in order to undermine, to mock, to attack religion. So for my state, all they're doing is complaining about the name when they get exactly the same rights/benefits under "civil unions."
Uh, oh... Getting a bit too political. You can have the last word, if you like.
The Hundred Gunner