Originally posted by Topper
View Post
In this case PaloAlto says he said "legal commitment" as a substitute for marriage. Now, I thought that the quote from from the article PAC linked, but I guess he's taking credit for it. Anyway, why use "legal commitment" as a substitute for the word marriage. If you are talking about marriage, then using the word is more natural, more descriptive, and more succinct. When someone goes out of their way to substituted marriage for a more general and vague "legal commitment" they are doing so for a reason. In this case, the author wanted to make the unequal treatment sound much worse. He and people like him prefer to pretend that marriage means more than it does. Marriage means enough without trying to exaggerate. I read the quote. I thought it was imprecise at best and intentionally misleading at worse, so I pointed out the error. End of story.
Comment