Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethersync
Then what is the point? You don't want gay people to begrime the word "marriage"?
|
Not begrime, I don't want them to change the meaning of it to suite them
Quote:
Originally Posted by epitome
Actually, we fought for simple civil unions in the '90's and got nowhere except in a few states.
Even during the gay marriage fight, leadership debated heavily on civil unions vs. marriage, as everyone figured that getting civil unions would be so much easier.
The general consensus ended up being that if people were fighting us so hard that we are going to go for all or nothing.
They should have given us what we wanted in the first place; all of the rights without the title. The people against gay marriage really have no one to blame except themselves. Collectively, we would have been happy being second class citizens in the 90's.
|
Yes, and this is a great way to get people to have tolerance, go into the most liberal state in the union, have them vote on it TWICE, both times the people voted to not let gays and lesbians change the meaning of the word marriage, then get a openly gay judge to overturn them. [sarcasm]
This makes about as much sense and the NAACP, which was started by 3 white guys, openly call the Tea Party Movement Racist.
Civil unions should be expanded in the state of California to include all the same principals that marriage does, but under a different title, that would get passed and there wouldn't be this big fight. It's better to get tolerance. Forcing it the way they are doing is not the best way to go about it
__________________
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about that