The problem is that straight people who get married have LEGAL BENEFITS due to being married that gay people and some transsexuals are DENIED FROM HAVING. If marriage is to be kept a religious thing, then fine...but thanks to the legal benefits, it should be a right for anyone to marry anyone.
*shrugs* In short, I'd be totally fine with it being called a "union" if you want to keep from labeling it gay MARRIAGE...but by voting "yes" to keep it "man and woman" only, you are in fact working to opress tolerance and acceptance and LEGAL RIGHTS of people.
People voted on what they personally believed, not necessarily because they felt another group should be punished.
Yet people ARE being punished due to the way people voted.
Now, I haven't called names, I haven't gnashed teeth, I have kept a civil tongue and would appreciate it if others did the same.
I'd like to think we can both be civil and probably end up "agreeing to disagree" or something. ;)
To lift each other up, support each other, and bring children into this world to
( ... )
Some states (and I believe Arizona is one of them, but I'm not positive) offer civil unions for same-sex couples that have the same benefits of marriage. Heck, I wouldn't mind if the government said "hey, we're just going to call it all 'civil unions' and y'all can figure out what you want to call it at home
( ... )
Awesomesauce! :)rantingmuleNovember 21 2008, 21:39:37 UTC
Does that make sense?
Yes, that makes more sense than what you originally posted, thank you. XD Sorry, it wasn't totally clear.
I'm actually surprised more people haven't picked up on the civil unions and pushed for that rather than the super-charged issue of marriage. To my understanding it gives the same benefits (and if it doesn't yet, it should).
I'm all for "civil unions" for both gay and straight couples, but it needs to be recognised everywhere, like marriage.
I think we can agree to disagree on marriage and the definition thereof, but I think we agree that there should be benefits offered to both types of couples be it through marriage or civil unions.
Absolutely, and I'm sorry if I got rather bent out of shape there, I frankly wasn't entirely clear on what you'd said. :3
Re: Awesomesauce! :)lantairvleaNovember 21 2008, 22:09:53 UTC
I thought it was fairly clear, but it can be hard to pull all the pieces together without a concise, condensed statement. That and one often has a clear idea in the head, but it doesn't always come out that way, heh.
It's no problem, I'd much prefer people ask me questions to clarify rather than assume something that is off-base or not just true.
Comments 5
*shrugs* In short, I'd be totally fine with it being called a "union" if you want to keep from labeling it gay MARRIAGE...but by voting "yes" to keep it "man and woman" only, you are in fact working to opress tolerance and acceptance and LEGAL RIGHTS of people.
People voted on what they personally believed, not necessarily because they felt another group should be punished.
Yet people ARE being punished due to the way people voted.
Now, I haven't called names, I haven't gnashed teeth, I have kept a civil tongue and would appreciate it if others did the same.
I'd like to think we can both be civil and probably end up "agreeing to disagree" or something. ;)
To lift each other up, support each other, and bring children into this world to ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Yes, that makes more sense than what you originally posted, thank you. XD Sorry, it wasn't totally clear.
I'm actually surprised more people haven't picked up on the civil unions and pushed for that rather than the super-charged issue of marriage. To my understanding it gives the same benefits (and if it doesn't yet, it should).
I'm all for "civil unions" for both gay and straight couples, but it needs to be recognised everywhere, like marriage.
I think we can agree to disagree on marriage and the definition thereof, but I think we agree that there should be benefits offered to both types of couples be it through marriage or civil unions.
Absolutely, and I'm sorry if I got rather bent out of shape there, I frankly wasn't entirely clear on what you'd said. :3
Reply
It's no problem, I'd much prefer people ask me questions to clarify rather than assume something that is off-base or not just true.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment